|
by
Elizabeth Cline
(We join a conversation, already in progress, between an ageless Albert Einstein and an
enlightened lab rat who has, by virtue of his uncommon perspicacity, escaped the web of
his beneficent contribution to the knowledge machine...)
My dear
Albert, I appreciate that you are a wonderful thinker. But not every mystery, whether of
science or soul, needs to be solved in the name of your species. I mean, if we’re all
sentient beings, who’s to say the perpetuation of your species is more important than
mine?
My contemporaries and I are only seeking to
explore the frontiers within and of our world and our bodies. How can we save the world,
for heaven’s sake, if we can’t save ourselves?
Granted, I
might not be alive if not for the quest of biomedical research science to reduce the brain
to an understandable bundle…but aside from this, where is it written, and who
declares, that you must save anyone? And by increasing your "understanding,"
what do you hope to "save?"
I’m sorry my rodent friend, I’m
afraid I’m at a loss.
Let me try to
illustrate. The study of physics, whether of a neural membrane, or of the universe and its
components, leads to more information. This information in turn gives the impression of
understanding when this is but an illusion. By their very nature, these things cannot be
fully understood. The more you attempt to understand them, the more complex they become,
under the growth spurred by your progressive yet limited understanding.
So then, you are saying…that we should
not attempt to understand the workings of such things at all?
No no, dear
Albert. Merely that you should not delude yourself into believing it is finite and
therefore understandable! Knowledge is a dynamic, changing process…much like the
"wave" of information passed along a nerve cell membrane. Once begun, it
propagates upon itself, leaving behind that area that has already been traversed while
still maintaining its essence as it flows along. It is at once changing and the same.
Perhaps some things ARE finite?
Perhaps. And
perhaps "saving the world" is an intrinsically Western notion! But my point is
that neither the concept of something being "finite" nor somebody "saving
the world" is really useful outside the context in which it’s used.
How can we possibly understand the essence of
matter if we don’t have finite concepts within which to quantify it?
What you see
as finite may, to my little red eyes, appear infinite! And because you believe a concept
is "finite" does not mean it cannot be subject to further refinement, my dear
man! Are not many currently at work on what started as your Unified Field Theory? What of
the contributions of Capra? What about others’ ideas on Systems Theory? Isn’t
this in many ways an extension of your original notion?
Yes, but…that’s different.
That’s in the realm of physics, not general philosophy.
(grinning) I
see from your comment you haven’t read on this topic recently, dear man. Let’s
assume for the current discussion that physics and philosophy are categorically different.
But what then is the real difference in the end? Take your beloved General Theory of
Relativity…
(cutting in) YOU’RE going to explain my
theory to me? HA! Proceed, please! I entreat you.
Not at all. I
merely intend to use it as an example. Did you not have to absorb Newton’s ideas
about gravity before you were able to refine them and explain how it works? How
enlightening would it have been to incorporate the importance of acceleration into your
ideas if you had not started with his?
Hmmm. Yes, I began with his idea that gravity
governs the solar system. I just didn’t know HOW. But I don’t follow your point,
my beady-eyed nemesis.
My point is,
whether you’re talking about General Relativity or Plato, you are not thinking in a
finite vacuum. The package of knowledge that constitutes your theory on gravity is no more
finite than the number of stars in the universe. We know it to be true now; the proof
itself is also further refinement of your idea. Though it involves math, and numbers far
beyond my comprehension, it too would have less meaning without that which came before it,
as would modern neuroscience without Plato’s ancient theory of the four humors of the
brain, as would the modern understanding of rye poisoning, without the history of the
Salem witch trials.
Very well, I will agree that refinement and
modification might be considered the essence of learning and knowledge. But how can you
say nothing is finite? I wouldn’t say that. I say that with the examples you cite,
early conclusions were based on unsound logic.
Ah! Maybe.
But it only came to be thought of as "unsound" when it was revealed to be
incompletely understood. And even then, of course, your "human" view, and my
view, would’ve been distinctly different. But no more finite.
Hmmm. Perhaps. I suppose Thomas Kuhn would
agree with you, seeing as his entire idea of the "paradigm shift" is based on
the constant reevaluation of the very way we think, scientifically. But I’m not
certain I do.
I don’t
know if he’d agree with me or not. But within the framework of your species’
world view, his perspective would certainly seem more flexible than yours, even if that
flexibility is only within the rigid realm of science. However, I digress. Getting back to
my point — you said the reason you and your contemporaries want to explore mysteries
as diverse as the cosmos and the human mind is to help save the world. And this presents a
problem, to my eyes. Because you, as a human (with your expansive and exceptionally
analytical mind, I might add!), decide that it is your "duty" to save the world,
or at least "explain" it, how you view this earth is constrained by that notion;
that it is your duty to explain it. The problem comes because in assuming it needs to be
explained, you deceive yourself into believing that you can explain it!
I think I’ve actually gone a long way
towards explaining how our world works. I’ve also enhanced our understanding of the
cosmos. (indignant sniff)
Of course!
— the key phrase being, "a long way." Though your attempts to explain the
nature of what you call "gravity," for example, have added useful information to
how some of you view the universe, inherent in your thinking is the assumption that
"understanding" light and gravity is a possible, finite, and
useful…ah…work unit, and that it adds something significant.
It did! It added to our knowledge of the laws
of the universe. It contributed to unraveling matters that have caused me great puzzlement
for much of my life!!
Yes, it
satisfied your insatiable human curiosity. And set you apart from your contemporaries, and
established you as one of the great Western thinkers of the 20th Century, perhaps of all
time. But then what OF that knowledge?
What do you mean, what of it?
What became
of that amalgam of useful knowledge that you refined, modified, and added to? What did
your contemporaries DO with the knowledge that came from further refinement of your
strides towards "understanding" sub-atomic physics? What ultimately became of
E=mc2?
(sadly) Ah, yes…I see now what
you’re driving at. This has caused me great consternation and pain. As it has in
spades for dear Dr. Oppenheimer.
Sorry to
sadden you, dear Albert, but in your quest to save the world and "understand"
the universe, you helped put into play a process you thought you "understood,"
and therefore could somehow control. Was that process a useful bit of knowledge in what it
contributed to the world?
(getting angry) Define useful! It stopped
the war!
Exactly! Yes
it did — YOUR war. But is that ultimately useful? It also forced the planet to
witness, as a collective, living being, the possible means of its own suicide. All in the
name of "science" and "world peace." But it depends on whose
definition of useful you’re talking about, and whose definition of peace! A very
selfish gesture, if you look at it through my eyes, and the eyes of others with whom you
share this planet. You stopped a war within your species by vastly accelerating the war
against this Mother Earth that we all must share.
I’m not
belittling the effort that went into your work, Albert, or Robert’s, or even
Galileo’s. I’m making the point that by advancing your human information base,
and adding to your illusion that you can control, understand, and somehow save the world,
you are not "staying in your own lane," as it were, in the grand scheme of
things. You have not only advanced the extermination of your competitors, you have
visualized the end of your own brethren! Can the satisfaction of the collective
intellectual curiosity of the great scientific minds in your westernized society be worth
irrevocably treading on the lives of the rest of us? I don’t think it is.
I mean, I
don’t know what your species’ destiny is, but I’d prefer you not to decide
mine as well. Take my cousin Renaud, the "wild" rat. He will never benefit from
animal testing procedures that are used to advance human care of household pets or animals
that "live" in labs. Yet our entire species is enlisted towards this cause.
Would we were able to return the favor!
I had no idea you were so angry, my furry
friend. Is there this much resentment among the rest of your kind towards the scientific
endeavors of our human mission?
Not at all.
That would be a waste of energy. I use this as an extreme example to illustrate my point.
It isn’t the advancement and modification of your "understanding" that
fills many of us with wonder, but the species-centric way you plod along with your own
agenda, as if you were living in a universe parallel to the rest of us — where it is
your earth to do with what suits you. The language barrier aside, when was the last time a
brother of mine in the lab was asked whether his contribution to understanding the human
diseases like Parkinsonism was important to him? Rats don’t GET Parkinson’s
Disease the way humans do. We certainly don’t ask you to check our food for rat
poison, my dear Albert.
But what about…what about the great
strides made in the fields of animal science and environmentalism?
What do you
mean?
Or…yes! organizations like Earth First
— no, wait — like World Wildlife Federation, or Greenpeace? Surely you can see
that without some of these organizations’ knowledge of nature and science, we
wouldn’t have some of the species we do. Some would have disappeared into the
oblivion of extinction.
Yes… I
can see how this would be a truism from your point of view.
You don’t see this as true? Would you
argue, little rat, that at least some of these people aren’t coming from a scientific
background? Many folks such as these have gone out of their way to…
(interrupting)
Yes, certainly! Many of the humans involved in wildlife preservation and other similar
activities have a sincere interest in preserving the existence of species besides their
own. I wouldn’t disagree with that in the least. And if you need to argue this point
to alleviate guilt that you feel for your or your fellow man’s behavior, please do!
What I would ask is, where did this interest come from? How did you arrive in this place?
Forgive my
saying so, but you also seem to be saying that if people have a scientific background and
are doing things with it that Western culture considers acceptable, this is sufficient
justification for your culture’s meddling in the soup of what you call
"nature." You also seem to feel the need to defend science in general, dear
Albert. Of course, from the great part it has played in your life, I can certainly
understand that. I’m not questioning science as a process per se, but am instead
trying to help you view it through an entirely different lens. And I dare say I’m not
yet doing a very good job!
When one has spent their life veiled by the
scientific process and its rationales, it can be very difficult to modify one’s view,
my friend.
I realize
this. But citing environmentalism as a positive contribution toward anything again
presupposes that it is your duty as a culture, or a species, or both, to undo what you
perceive you have done. Whether unleashing atomic fusion, cloning sheep, or increasing the
number of wolves in Yellowstone National Park, you are still being led by a kind of blind
arrogance that says, in essence, "We have done this, therefore we are responsible to
correct it or improve upon it."
But we have made creatures extinct!
Yes…but
does that mean that saving certain non-human species will correct the pattern of previous
neglect or extermination of other species? Or look at it this way — perhaps they
would have become extinct without your intervention. Perhaps some of these changes were
NOT the result of your actions as a culture. And who’s to say extinction always
indicates neglect or wrongdoing? Who decides this? Can you see how it might be possible
for extinction to be a positive thing? My point is, your culture has been assuming
responsibility (or lack of it!) for such things for so long, you’ve lost all
perspective on your place in the larger picture.
I dare say you are a formidable intellectual
opponent, little rat.
You flatter
me. I would not seem so formidable were I not attempting to instill you with a view that
is completely beyond the realm of your usual, comfortable way of thinking.
I have no
problem with you assuaging your human guilt over the behavior of your species by citing
examples of what you see as behavioral or environmental redemption. What I AM questioning
are the assumptions that lead you to believe that anything you do you are by default at
liberty to, because you’re "human." This goes for "saving the
world," and understanding the cosmos. Who placed you in charge of the rest of us? The
scientific process, when it permeates the realm of other species’ behavior patterns,
at its most basic level is no more invasive than if you walked into your neighbor’s
yard and asked if you could pluck some of his flowers for your own use. The difference is
that your neighbor can tell you "no" in a way you can understand. You are all
speaking the same cultural "language," based on a set of assumptions that is so
ingrained you are completely unaware of its existence. And this applies to not only the
scientific method, but to every realm of your being.
Hmm…perhaps this is beginning to make
some sense. Permit me to expound…From your reasoning, the idea of
"understanding" sub-atomic physics is a conceptual and scientific myth we have
saddled ourselves with as a culture? The arrogance to attempt such an understanding is a
refraction of the cultural lens we don’t even know we are looking through? Or to put
it more simply, well, I’m not sure I can, actually…
Bingo, dear Albert! I knew
you’d come around eventually. It is not a simple issue, by any means, and quite
infinite, is it not? But when someone so stoic as yourself can embrace a sliver of a
concept so elusive to your way of thinking, there is some hope for the efficacy of the
little bumps between those lanes.
go to page 3
return
to ILLUSIONS Main Page
|
