But the real message here goes a lot further you see; or you would if you had better eyes. It's all in the balance of course, not to mention the fact that Cosmology, as it has been, has to come to terms with the fact that it isn't all just about the numbers. The numbers are important, obviously, but they will never tell the whole story. Just as a map cannot tell the whole story of a path through a densely populated jungle. Just as a book cannot tell the whole story of what it must have been like to be sold into slavery, and then cast within a slave ship; to see if you could endure months of immediate hell, so as to be able to endure a lifetime of semi-immediate hell.
Just as some imagined genius, sitting in some uber tech bunker, can cram knowledge into a reasoning engine, and then expect it to socialize as a human being. Probably not like that either as the so called genius usually ends up getting strung asunder, one way or another, on his own, figurative petard.
Cosmologists, and physicists as well, are going to have to come to terms with the idea that, at the base of it all, you will have to rely on your own faith in what you believe in. And this will be so precisely because we are now, truly beginning to realize the full effect of what stating the following mandates: Not everything will be able to be objectively measured, or tested. And that is so because we, as meaning processors, are so intimately involved in the process of "objectification" (making choices), as well as all of the unseen "wiggling" that goes on, and for which we can only get a partial grasp on through imperfect statistical approximations (as in various field equations).
My bias here is that I think we use the wiggle side of things more than we like to admit. And that there is also a better way to understand that side of things; not that I have necessarily found it mind you. I'd like to think that I am at least close, but who knows. Whatever that answer may be the one thing you should be at least curious about here is that the question itself needs a whole lot more general discussion. Because it really matters. And I mean for our very survival.
This is also why my bias is towards being revolutionary at its base. And that is because I believe it to be so precisely because our change in thinking must be in parallel to our change in how we organize ourselves as a functioning society. With where we are now, the two must go together, in as greatly an integrated, holistic manner, as is possible to put forth; recognizing that walking the path of balance demands a Democracy of some sort, by the people, for the people; respecting the individual, and the many.
We need to recognize this quickly as well. Time is not on our side. If we lose the ice cover at the poles, which would mean, ultimately, losing the planet's heat sinks, life here may revert to only the most adaptive of microorganisms. That and understanding that gross inequality of outcomes for the majority of working people, wherever they are, also can no longer be tolerated.
This means we need to become as granular, community wise, as we can become, and from that, as super efficient resource wise, as well as semi self sufficient, as we can become, so that, even if resource inputs from abroad slow way down, we can still prosper. It also means that we have to start now to implement the infrastructure that will enable us to get off planet in a truly, very big way.
Daunting though this may all seem, it can be done. To do it, however, will require we mobilize just as if this were a cataclysmic threat to the nation's survival; something beyond even what we did for World War Two. That will be the only way we can take over the economy (with a total employee buyout), manage it while we figure out the what, and how of the change, and then still have the wherewithal to actual get it done.
All of you, I think, know in your hearts that Capitalism stopped making sense a long time ago. It's just that nobody's been dumb enough to try and come up with an alternative until now. Fortunately for you I am so endowed. And I think, if you spent even a modest amount of time, in digging through these posts, with a real effort to dig deeper in other places to see if the declarations presented jibe, you will at least agree that Capitalism is done. And if we can at least start there, we can then start to talk about what ought to replace it. And maybe somebody else can come up with a better alternative. Which would be great as far as I am concerned because I'm more than ready to hand over the reins to anybody who does so.
Let's just get to that part. OK? Then we can see what to do next.
GREEDY, BRITTLE, OPAQUE, AND SHALLOW: THE DOWNSIDES TO DEEP LEARNING
No comments:
Post a Comment