The mode of information processing and decision-making that
we call "reason" is indeed a powerful tool for evolution, but so
were all the other transitions when they first arose. For us to
view this mode by which significant numbers of humans (not all)
govern their lives (at least part of the time) as a "turning
point" in the history of the evolution of the universe is dang-
erously smug, however.
Quantum theory implies and history confirms: life is full of
rude awakenings. A giant meteorite, a nuclear holocaust, an Ebola
outbreak, and collapses of the global village's banking system,
agriculture, or ecosystem all lurk among our possible futures.
The initiating event in the chain of events which could precipate
any or all of them might very well be one hadron in one atom pop-
ping the wrong way at the wrong time. All is hazard. Always.
If evolution teaches us anything, it is that the smug are the
obsolete. We need, above all, to stay literally and figuratively
hungry and scared. The software package that we call "reason"
looks powerful, but it and the courses of action it directs us to
must always be subjected to constant review and testing in light
of the higher value, "survival". Of course this is obvious. But
it needs to be overtly stated because people too easily fall prey
to complacency. No definitions or axioms in any human value sys-
tem are infallibly accurate as representations of material real-
ity. No mode of interpreting and organizing incoming sensory data
provides a surefire road to health.
Thus reason must constantly examine itself -- its assumptions
and the data it is processing,yes -- but even more importantly it
must constantly seek new tools and methods for gathering and ana-
lyzing that data: new hardware for actually gathering the data,
and new software (world views and scientific theories) for ex-
plaining the data and making predictions from it.
"Reasonable" people have too readily misled themselves in the
past. Hitler was seen by many German intellectuals of the 1930's
as Nietzsche's "ubermensch", the one who by his personal charisma
could impose his vision on a decadent society and initiate a new
dialectic such as Hegel described.
How could such delusions have occurred? What does reason tell
us?
It tells us to go back and examine our premises. And that
painful process tells us that there must be other values to which
we are going to have to assign a value equal to that which we
grant to reason.
Survival obviously is one, but note also the usefullness of
sensuality in some circumstances. Giving sensuality such a status
would force us to test every program designed by reason not only
against all data considered relevant to the current situation,
but also against how the program "feels".
Implicit in this argument are some vital assumptions that need
to be articulated. One is that any reasoning process is only as
powerful as its axioms and definitions are accurate. A second is
that no axioms or definitions made by humans about the material
world are infallible, and no reasoning process based on such
definitions can be trusted absolutely. Thus metareason tells us
to be ever vigilant and cautious about our reasoning.
What warning signs might alert us when a reasonable program
is actually flawed? We can also sometimes consult what we call
"feelings".
Feelings appear to be complex programs involving current data
(perception), stored data (memories), reason, and the autonomic
and central nervous systems in ways that produce unease when we
"sense" that the incoming data does not fit reason's predictions,
and confidence when the data do "feel" right.
Detectives follow "hunches", physicians "instincts", Schindler
was a deeply sensual man, and Einstein claimed that most of his
best ideas began as physical tinglings.
Other digressions beckon, but for this occasion we need to
draw only one main conclusion: reason applied to itself tells us
to stay constantly alert and to give other values priorities as
high as that which we assign to reason.
Author: John Saville (rdgunslinger[ at ]aol.com)
Date: Sep 16, 2000REPLY: Good point
I agree with a lot of what the Principia Cybernetica stands for but I too can see some things that ought to be addressed. Like you, I think we all ought to be concerned first and formost with the survival of ourselves. The tools of reason we develop should be just that, a means of keeping us alive. When I think of the ideas presented here, I question how they could be used to build a stronger society. I want to see these theories applied and used to address our decaying social structure.
A major cause of human weakness in the 21st century is the fact that our civilization has become stratified in almost every area. We have separated things that were once whole to the detrement of our existance. The young vs the old, humanity vs nature, the poor vs the rich, the mind vs the body. Your argument for a return to the reliance on feelings and intuition is an example mind vs body. But unlike most of western civilization, I don't see any difference. I don't see the need to choose between emotion and reason because to me they are one and the same. Part of the Evolution will be the reuniting of our split society.
