One hears the term "absolute" quite alot amongst Moderns in religious and political discussions: absolute truth, absolute values. In this sense, absolute is the antithesis to "relativistic" which I have already explained is often confused with legitimate relativity. A premodern view of "absolute" would reserve the term for God or as descriptive of God, not as a term for the entity of creation or for any material particular. Because matter is created, it is transient. Because it is transient, it is not absolute. Only God is absolute. What about ideas or culture derived of God? It does not matter: as derivative they are transient. The Modern ultimately believed scientific law to be absolute and spiritual truth derived of that scientific law to be absolute, too. So, for example, an evangelist who scientifically "proves" to an individual the existence of God is expected to necessarily convince him of the Christian faith. Material, imminently discernible, is primary. Spirituality, less discernible than matter (in this view), is derivative.
The Modern orientation acknowledges that a mechanistic system encases the total of natural law and, as a system, is independent of any other factor. For those who subscribe to deity, it is outside the system so as not to affect the integrity of the mechanistic system. James Gleick says of Modern science "A God that does not intervene is a God receding into a distant, harmless background." Modernism does not rely upon an a-material entity for a total answer to reality that embraces both physical and spiritual realms. From beginning to end, the Modern mind is formatted with the architectural blueprint, with the five-year business plan, with family planning, with the fiscal budget, with the Romans Road. Even the concept of the business core value is conceptually structured as an independent solar system affected by no more factors than the material environment in which it finds itself.
The strength of the Modern is that he can project with scientific accuracy the end of many material things. He can do that because his logical reliability projects a constant into the future, be it only a physical constant. The Egyptians did not have this kind of reliability, and to them is attributed the 24-hour day, the 365-day solar year, the decimal system. The Greeks and Romans did not have this reliability either, though to them has been attributed the foundations of mathematics and Western civilization. Each of these civilizations had a complexity of mythological deities that diluted the logical reliability unique to our Modern view.
After the advent of the Modern system, a man could do what men before the system could only hope to do: make approximate or accurate material projections with no consideration of deity whatsoever. That is what James Gleick meant when he said of the Scientific Revolution "The more competently science performed, the less it needed God." In here we have two admissions. First of all, Modernism was a transitional era where a classic Christian consideration of God was greater before the advent of Modernism. Secondly, Modern sensibilities are best understood on the basis of quantitative measurement. "The equation knows best." (Heisenberg)
The POMO mindset does not naturally embrace this framework for two critical reasons. First, the optimistic Modern worldview was crushed and finished with the end of the Cold War. Any serious view of Modernism since then has been jettisoned for the preferential consideration of shattered ideological systems. Secondly, any child born after 1989 is no true Modern, no matter how hard a parent might try to constrain him or her into faith in Newtonian predictability. The POMO hears, ingests and frames information differently.
The Modern is surprised when this generation rejects Modern sensibilities. "Why would a POMO want to forfeit the certainty of projecting a physical constant?" they ask. True, having confidence that the universe and its parts are programmed with a reasonable measure of accuracy is a strength. It is especially a strength if an entire culture is programmed to operate that way. However, what if that view of the physical world is only a truncation of total reality? What if a physical constant does not properly demonstrate the broadest possible view of accessible reality? And of what practical, cultural use is it if the culture is no longer organized that way?
The chief weakness of the Modern mindset is the tendency to subject life to an efficient scientific view of reality. The uniformity of natural causes deals only with matter. The Modern applies scientific law to spiritual reality when scientific knowledge is partial and indefinitely in flux. In other words, mechanics is not the ultimate constant or final reference point. Necessarily, the Modern is conditioned to be satisfied with the material results of material projections. The POMO, oriented to a much broader awareness of reality, refuses to organize all data on the basis of the scientific, the categorical, or the observable. The POMO is not oriented to satisfaction with material results. This is the main stress-fracture between the two generations.
POMO
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
MODERN MECHANISTIC REALITY
The Christian Modern affirmed the existence of Deity, but argued for a dominant mechanistic reality over which God had no practical input or control. The Christian Modern would argue. However, ask a Modern Christian what causes an object to fall back down after being thrown into the air, and he will more than likely reply “gravity.” Tell him “The answer is 'God', not 'gravity,'" and he will go "ah" because you should have clarified yourself. He did not understand you to be speaking spiritually but scientifically. Why did the Modern have to speak in terms of disclaimers, clarifications, and rejoinders when speaking about spirituality? Because the largest context and overall tone of Modernism was that what can be known can be known apart from God.
How can two kinds of answers exist for the same question if the Modern Christian really believes that God created one world? How can the spiritual answer be God and the scientific answer be gravity? In this two-dimensional world, which dimension is the more practical? The overwhelming consensus would agree that the practical answer is gravity while the impractical answer is God. Why? Gravity is more practical because gravity is pervasively experienced as a natural law, and natural law has definite negative (flying a plane into the ground) and positive (flying a plane to Rome) consequences.
Gravity is "upon" us every single moment of our lives and is immediately appreciated or sensed. What of God? Well, in a more "spiritual" sense God is upon us, but that explanation is unreasonable within a mechanistic framework. That explanation is not saying anything at all. The Modern is often more conscious of the "pull" of gravity than he is of the "pull" of God. This is his scripting. Oftentimes, the answer “God” has been given as an argumentative acquiescence to Christianity and practically nothing more because it lacks the manifestation "material" things afford.
This schismatic reality is not the systematic reliability Isaac Newton had in mind when he codified the laws of motion. Newton understood that the world has a machine portion that is mechanistically integrated. However, that mechanistic portion is not all that exists. Newton never said it was all that existed. The monotheistic God as described in the Bible was Newton’s Final Reality. Newton's God is infinite, "bracketing" the finite, mechanical portion of reality. Because His God is infinite, He has of His own volition made Himself intelligibly known. Because He has made Himself understood by intelligible means, He, too, has a definite and practical relationship to the world: He created it. He is the most liberal context ever.
Newton did not have to leap from physical to spiritual worlds. Inconsistency in one did not force him to find cover in the other. He did not have to operate within a dichotomy, which is one of the reasons Newton and his generation did not manifest the anxiety disorders so rife throughout Modern and POMO cultures. Newton’s concept of causes illustrates a consistent flow and reference of material to the immaterial, of finiteness to infinity, of physics to metaphysics, of the world to God. Newton’s world is one world.
Newton did not even know the material cause of gravity, but his logical reliability did not hinge upon that specific lack of scientific information. His logic was not rooted in information or in the machine portion of reality. Newton's system was not an exhaustive system that sought to reconcile all data on the basis of matter. Finite things are subject to change, so science can be expected to develop, progress, and expand. He did not have to know everything there was to know in order to say that something was so. He did not have to pretend to stand on "absolutes" in order to validate his faith in God. Newton was free from that mindset which can be described as premodern if anything.
How can two kinds of answers exist for the same question if the Modern Christian really believes that God created one world? How can the spiritual answer be God and the scientific answer be gravity? In this two-dimensional world, which dimension is the more practical? The overwhelming consensus would agree that the practical answer is gravity while the impractical answer is God. Why? Gravity is more practical because gravity is pervasively experienced as a natural law, and natural law has definite negative (flying a plane into the ground) and positive (flying a plane to Rome) consequences.
Gravity is "upon" us every single moment of our lives and is immediately appreciated or sensed. What of God? Well, in a more "spiritual" sense God is upon us, but that explanation is unreasonable within a mechanistic framework. That explanation is not saying anything at all. The Modern is often more conscious of the "pull" of gravity than he is of the "pull" of God. This is his scripting. Oftentimes, the answer “God” has been given as an argumentative acquiescence to Christianity and practically nothing more because it lacks the manifestation "material" things afford.
This schismatic reality is not the systematic reliability Isaac Newton had in mind when he codified the laws of motion. Newton understood that the world has a machine portion that is mechanistically integrated. However, that mechanistic portion is not all that exists. Newton never said it was all that existed. The monotheistic God as described in the Bible was Newton’s Final Reality. Newton's God is infinite, "bracketing" the finite, mechanical portion of reality. Because His God is infinite, He has of His own volition made Himself intelligibly known. Because He has made Himself understood by intelligible means, He, too, has a definite and practical relationship to the world: He created it. He is the most liberal context ever.
Newton did not have to leap from physical to spiritual worlds. Inconsistency in one did not force him to find cover in the other. He did not have to operate within a dichotomy, which is one of the reasons Newton and his generation did not manifest the anxiety disorders so rife throughout Modern and POMO cultures. Newton’s concept of causes illustrates a consistent flow and reference of material to the immaterial, of finiteness to infinity, of physics to metaphysics, of the world to God. Newton’s world is one world.
Newton did not even know the material cause of gravity, but his logical reliability did not hinge upon that specific lack of scientific information. His logic was not rooted in information or in the machine portion of reality. Newton's system was not an exhaustive system that sought to reconcile all data on the basis of matter. Finite things are subject to change, so science can be expected to develop, progress, and expand. He did not have to know everything there was to know in order to say that something was so. He did not have to pretend to stand on "absolutes" in order to validate his faith in God. Newton was free from that mindset which can be described as premodern if anything.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
RELATIVITY THEORY AS AN ENVIRONMENT
I am always curious about use of the word "relativism", because it directly derived of Einstein's Realtivity Theory. Einstein never proposed that scientific law was absurd or incontinent (popular use of the term "relativism" or "relative"). He emphasized the uniqueness of relativity in respect to observation: the rules are what they are but appear to be more or less, relative to the position of the observer. Sure, Einstein appears to have undermined Newton's overtly Christian position as theoretical and highly simplistic for modern times; however, simplicity is no fault of Newton. He was an 18th century man and profound for his time. Nature and knowledge by design is transient.
However, when I talk about "funny", to another individual in a different referential frame it will translate as "totally inappropriate." When I talk about "complicated", to another individual I might mean "completely normal." Nevertheless, Relativity Theory is still contingent upon a point: the entire theory leverages a point. That is no inconsistency unless an individual coddles a fictitiously infantile perspective about context.
Around this time was borne the new “relativists” who clearly did not translate Einstein's idea well at all. They gloated over the death of Newtonian simplicity and many of them gloated over the death of Newton's God. Einstein was infuenced by the idea of time travel (the fourth dimension) which was becoming a popular discussion amongst intellectuals. H.G. Wells wrote The Time Machine in 1895, and Henri Poincare wrote Science and Hypothesis in 1902, a text that discusses the measurement of time. We know, for example, that Einstein read Science and Hypothesis and that Pablo Picasso learned about Poincare's book from a Maurice Princet.
I mention Pablo Picasso because he was experimenting with relativity theory in art. Picasso, the Father of Cubism, would break up a painting and depict the various parts of the painting from various perspectives so that as one scanned the painting, one would "see" all perspectives at the same time. Of course, most people, I am sure, did not know what he was doing. It is true that Picasso was morally disreputable, habitually abandoning family after family. However, Picasso's experimentation with relativity did not cause his moral failures. Perhaps, his misunderstanding of relativity supported his infidelity, but that does not diminish the truthfulness of relativity.
Arnold Schoenberg, the 20th century composer, did a similar thing with music. The Father of Atonality, Schoenberg did not set out to create absurd music. He created music based upon the twelve tones of the chromatic scale instead of the traditionally harmonious eight-tone octave. His music had a logical relationship from one tone to the other and from each tone to the whole within the framework he developed. Did people understand what he was doing? Probably not at first. At one concert, Schoenberg's atonal composition was so misunderstood and caused so much emotional agitation amongst the audience that a fight broke out. The police had to be called in, and Schoenberg threatened to end the concert. People initially did not understand what he was doing with music. They assumed it to be both new and disruptive. In this sense, I like to tell my students that Schoenberg is the father of punk music. And that was at the beginning of the 20th century.
Einstein disliked his Relativity Theory being used to support the idea of a sinister moral relativism: the notion that no moral framework is uniquely privileged over all others. Of course, Einstein was a scientist, not a philosopher. Further, he was an exile in America where his ideas and their cultural applications became widely popularized, probably because of media. What we do know is that relativity grew to become the new social framework of the 20th century and was directly responsible for the erosion of "traditional norms" like colonialism. Colonialism could not survive in a framework of relativity (except under very special circumstances) because a political expression of relativity opposes the political subjugation of nations. Under relativity, the nations "parallel" each other: each nation is its own entity. Einstein's relativity was the impetus of the relativist cultural tendency (and of several self-consciously associated cultural movements like Ghandi and Martine Luther King) for wide-scale and far-reaching changes to Western culture in the early 20th century as much as its misunderstanding provided a toehold and then an eventual foothold for many destructive changes as well.
It is no mistake that the shakers and movers of the 20th century felt the "traditional" forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, social organization and daily life to be outdated in the new economic, social and political conditions of the 20th century. Because nature is finite, it is transient and must change. Relativity, however, was the equivalent of a "quantum leap" and moved at a faster rate than the general culture and its various sub-cultures were able to monitor or regulate. So the beginning of the 20th century was not only the undoing of Newtonian Physics but ultimately the undoing of the religious axioms that underpinned Newtonian Physics. In this way relativism (and its association with relativity) is negatively viewed as a questioning of the axioms, including religious axioms, of the previous age. Relativity, however, is something very different. It is the air that both liberal and conservative Moderns breathe.
However, when I talk about "funny", to another individual in a different referential frame it will translate as "totally inappropriate." When I talk about "complicated", to another individual I might mean "completely normal." Nevertheless, Relativity Theory is still contingent upon a point: the entire theory leverages a point. That is no inconsistency unless an individual coddles a fictitiously infantile perspective about context.
Around this time was borne the new “relativists” who clearly did not translate Einstein's idea well at all. They gloated over the death of Newtonian simplicity and many of them gloated over the death of Newton's God. Einstein was infuenced by the idea of time travel (the fourth dimension) which was becoming a popular discussion amongst intellectuals. H.G. Wells wrote The Time Machine in 1895, and Henri Poincare wrote Science and Hypothesis in 1902, a text that discusses the measurement of time. We know, for example, that Einstein read Science and Hypothesis and that Pablo Picasso learned about Poincare's book from a Maurice Princet.
I mention Pablo Picasso because he was experimenting with relativity theory in art. Picasso, the Father of Cubism, would break up a painting and depict the various parts of the painting from various perspectives so that as one scanned the painting, one would "see" all perspectives at the same time. Of course, most people, I am sure, did not know what he was doing. It is true that Picasso was morally disreputable, habitually abandoning family after family. However, Picasso's experimentation with relativity did not cause his moral failures. Perhaps, his misunderstanding of relativity supported his infidelity, but that does not diminish the truthfulness of relativity.
Arnold Schoenberg, the 20th century composer, did a similar thing with music. The Father of Atonality, Schoenberg did not set out to create absurd music. He created music based upon the twelve tones of the chromatic scale instead of the traditionally harmonious eight-tone octave. His music had a logical relationship from one tone to the other and from each tone to the whole within the framework he developed. Did people understand what he was doing? Probably not at first. At one concert, Schoenberg's atonal composition was so misunderstood and caused so much emotional agitation amongst the audience that a fight broke out. The police had to be called in, and Schoenberg threatened to end the concert. People initially did not understand what he was doing with music. They assumed it to be both new and disruptive. In this sense, I like to tell my students that Schoenberg is the father of punk music. And that was at the beginning of the 20th century.
Einstein disliked his Relativity Theory being used to support the idea of a sinister moral relativism: the notion that no moral framework is uniquely privileged over all others. Of course, Einstein was a scientist, not a philosopher. Further, he was an exile in America where his ideas and their cultural applications became widely popularized, probably because of media. What we do know is that relativity grew to become the new social framework of the 20th century and was directly responsible for the erosion of "traditional norms" like colonialism. Colonialism could not survive in a framework of relativity (except under very special circumstances) because a political expression of relativity opposes the political subjugation of nations. Under relativity, the nations "parallel" each other: each nation is its own entity. Einstein's relativity was the impetus of the relativist cultural tendency (and of several self-consciously associated cultural movements like Ghandi and Martine Luther King) for wide-scale and far-reaching changes to Western culture in the early 20th century as much as its misunderstanding provided a toehold and then an eventual foothold for many destructive changes as well.
It is no mistake that the shakers and movers of the 20th century felt the "traditional" forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, social organization and daily life to be outdated in the new economic, social and political conditions of the 20th century. Because nature is finite, it is transient and must change. Relativity, however, was the equivalent of a "quantum leap" and moved at a faster rate than the general culture and its various sub-cultures were able to monitor or regulate. So the beginning of the 20th century was not only the undoing of Newtonian Physics but ultimately the undoing of the religious axioms that underpinned Newtonian Physics. In this way relativism (and its association with relativity) is negatively viewed as a questioning of the axioms, including religious axioms, of the previous age. Relativity, however, is something very different. It is the air that both liberal and conservative Moderns breathe.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
EINSTEIN & THE CLOSED SYSTEM
Newton's laws codified the idea of the integrated system and contributed to the normalization of the common Modern man an unwavering logical reliability in the material consistency of the universe. The idea eventually splayed into two very broad, divergent interpretations of Newton's system.
One view was the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system: the material world is all that exists. This scientific emphasis says that material laws are "high" or ultimate. If God exists, he is within the system as a material portion of that system. Because material begets material, God, in any personal sense, is necessarily the product of the material universe. This strictly scientific interpretation of reality was the dominant mindset of the Modern world and can be generally described as atheistic because, as a closed system, it claims a functionality independently of God or any deity whatsoever.
Following the popularity of Newton's discoveries, the 18th century Enlightenment galvanized the closed system position. That closed system can be described as all of natural law, including the total of natural causes and effects in the universe, is integrated (uniformity) into a reasonable way (closed system). To the Modern this goes without saying. To predecessors of Modern, scientific discovery, this was an epic revelation. So the pull of gravity on the moon relates to the pull of gravity on earth in such a way that all objects on earth weigh about one-third their earth-weight on the moon.
I can say “all” because within the Modern systematic mindset is a reasonable relationship between the pull of gravity on the earth and the pull of gravity on the moon. Materially, the entire universe is one environment. Its natural laws are self-contained and provide the Modern with a rigid form of consistency to which he can attribute his logical reliability and subsequent common sense. Consequently, the closed system perspective allowed the West to wrest from nature its mathematical formulae. The Enlightenment was committed to understanding the natural world on the basis of reason alone without the influence of religious belief. To sum it up, it can be said that the Modern worldview converges upon the focal point that what can be known can be known apart from God.
Scientists contributed to Newton's discoveries for the next two hundred years until Einstein changed physics altogether. In his Laws of Motion, Newton's “object” was an idealized particle in which he theorized an infinitesimally small “center” without consideration of the other real particles making up the object. Though eventually proven to be an oversimplification, the idealized particle was used to illustrate such complex behaviors like planetary motion and human behavior. Strict interpretation of Newton's Laws would apply to every particle of the object, resulting in exponentially erratic behavior of the object not yet understood by classical science.
Einstein published his Special Relativity in 1905. Einstein's discovery was a science of space, not objects, per se. Classical physics bifurcated position and motion, studying each separately from the other. Einstein was interested in how objects relate to the overall behavior of space. What he discovered was that space “bends.” Consider how water responds when an object is submerged. It responds totally appropriately: absorbing the object and totally integrating itself with the object's every blemish. Space is similar. An object inserted into space, “disrupts” that space, creating a uniquely complimentary environment. Further, if that object is hurtling through space, how unique is the relationship now between space and the object?
The complexity of Einstein's genius is that he created a science independent of the referential frame of any observer. The simplicity of Einstein's genius is that two observers in the same referential frame (fixed point) moving at the same velocity of earth are likely to observe a single, similar phenomena while two observers in different referential time frames (and, therefore, moving at different speeds relative to each other) may not observe the same phenomena. Though relativity here is contingent upon the referential frame of two observers, the entire theory is contingent upon a point that exists independently of each observer.
Einstein's relativity challenged the simplicity of Newton's assumption of how mass and motion interact. As it became popularized, the effect of Einstein's theory was a significant contribution to the undoing of other classical assumptions that were largely religious and naturally underpinned a multitude of then current cultural expressions. Once Einstein's Special Relativity was published (his General Relativity followed in 1917), Western culture was self-consciously experimenting with the ramifications of relativity.
One view was the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system: the material world is all that exists. This scientific emphasis says that material laws are "high" or ultimate. If God exists, he is within the system as a material portion of that system. Because material begets material, God, in any personal sense, is necessarily the product of the material universe. This strictly scientific interpretation of reality was the dominant mindset of the Modern world and can be generally described as atheistic because, as a closed system, it claims a functionality independently of God or any deity whatsoever.
Following the popularity of Newton's discoveries, the 18th century Enlightenment galvanized the closed system position. That closed system can be described as all of natural law, including the total of natural causes and effects in the universe, is integrated (uniformity) into a reasonable way (closed system). To the Modern this goes without saying. To predecessors of Modern, scientific discovery, this was an epic revelation. So the pull of gravity on the moon relates to the pull of gravity on earth in such a way that all objects on earth weigh about one-third their earth-weight on the moon.
I can say “all” because within the Modern systematic mindset is a reasonable relationship between the pull of gravity on the earth and the pull of gravity on the moon. Materially, the entire universe is one environment. Its natural laws are self-contained and provide the Modern with a rigid form of consistency to which he can attribute his logical reliability and subsequent common sense. Consequently, the closed system perspective allowed the West to wrest from nature its mathematical formulae. The Enlightenment was committed to understanding the natural world on the basis of reason alone without the influence of religious belief. To sum it up, it can be said that the Modern worldview converges upon the focal point that what can be known can be known apart from God.
Scientists contributed to Newton's discoveries for the next two hundred years until Einstein changed physics altogether. In his Laws of Motion, Newton's “object” was an idealized particle in which he theorized an infinitesimally small “center” without consideration of the other real particles making up the object. Though eventually proven to be an oversimplification, the idealized particle was used to illustrate such complex behaviors like planetary motion and human behavior. Strict interpretation of Newton's Laws would apply to every particle of the object, resulting in exponentially erratic behavior of the object not yet understood by classical science.
Einstein published his Special Relativity in 1905. Einstein's discovery was a science of space, not objects, per se. Classical physics bifurcated position and motion, studying each separately from the other. Einstein was interested in how objects relate to the overall behavior of space. What he discovered was that space “bends.” Consider how water responds when an object is submerged. It responds totally appropriately: absorbing the object and totally integrating itself with the object's every blemish. Space is similar. An object inserted into space, “disrupts” that space, creating a uniquely complimentary environment. Further, if that object is hurtling through space, how unique is the relationship now between space and the object?
The complexity of Einstein's genius is that he created a science independent of the referential frame of any observer. The simplicity of Einstein's genius is that two observers in the same referential frame (fixed point) moving at the same velocity of earth are likely to observe a single, similar phenomena while two observers in different referential time frames (and, therefore, moving at different speeds relative to each other) may not observe the same phenomena. Though relativity here is contingent upon the referential frame of two observers, the entire theory is contingent upon a point that exists independently of each observer.
Einstein's relativity challenged the simplicity of Newton's assumption of how mass and motion interact. As it became popularized, the effect of Einstein's theory was a significant contribution to the undoing of other classical assumptions that were largely religious and naturally underpinned a multitude of then current cultural expressions. Once Einstein's Special Relativity was published (his General Relativity followed in 1917), Western culture was self-consciously experimenting with the ramifications of relativity.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
THE BASELINE OF MODERN LOGICAL RELIABILITY
Modern logical reliability is no core value of the POMO. The most competent of POMOS prefers debilitating ignorance, mental anguish and copious amounts of anxiety medication to the common sense of Modern predictability, and this repulsion spans every cultural variant in his life from airbags to religion. The problem, I believe, hinges upon a proper framing of the Modern concept of truth.
For many reasons I will provide, the Modern "liberal" and "conservative" concepts of truth are both relative. I know that the especially conservative Modern argues that he has stood and continues to stand solely upon "absolute" truth, but I am going to eventually explain how every Modern, regardless of his religious or political affiliation, is a product of a relative view of truth. Then I am going to explain how the POMO's context and baseline of truth has been this relative view of truth. Then I am going to illustrate from the POMO's cultural perspective how if truth is relative, then the POMO is obligated to "play" with logic.
For many reasons I will provide, the Modern "liberal" and "conservative" concepts of truth are both relative. I know that the especially conservative Modern argues that he has stood and continues to stand solely upon "absolute" truth, but I am going to eventually explain how every Modern, regardless of his religious or political affiliation, is a product of a relative view of truth. Then I am going to explain how the POMO's context and baseline of truth has been this relative view of truth. Then I am going to illustrate from the POMO's cultural perspective how if truth is relative, then the POMO is obligated to "play" with logic.
Modern logical reliability relies upon a mechanistic system indispensable to the rational thought of the Modern, whereas the POMO navigates mechanistic systems with incessant suspicion ultimately undermining his ability to reason with Modern logic. The net result is his genuine inability to logically deduce within the constraints of Modern thought-forms. Let me be clear: Modern and POMO thought forms are not the same. Because of incompatible referential frames, Modern common sense is not the same common sense to the POMO. And I am talking about a baseline standard.
Key to understanding the matrix of POMO reasoning is analyzing contrasts between POMO and Modern cultures. Observing their differences in science is a demonstrable way to extrapolate the values of each. I will outline the development of these two views through three scientific developments: Newton's Laws of Motion (1687), Einstein's Theory of Relativity (1905) and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (1927).
Newtonian Physics is the direct ancestor of Modern logical reliability and largely responsible for the development of Modern sensibilities, aka, common sense. In his Laws of Motion Newton outlines three rules of deduction to be applied to physical objects:
Law 1: Every object remains in a state of rest unless acted upon by an equal or greater outside force. Every effect has a sufficient (strong) cause, so that it is impossible to attribute an effect to an insufficient (weak) cause. For wood to burn (effect), it must be produced by a cause strong enough to produce the burning. A series of sufficient causes and effects is called a “chain of events” and makes it possible to trace an event back to its original cause. The ability to "link" ideas in this way is a Western value and a hallmark expression of a free individual.
Law 2: Any object enacted on by an outside force will respond in the direction of a right line from the point at which it was enacted upon. An object forced upon by another object is “forced” to move in the direction of a right line from the point of impact. Notably called the law of entropy, an object at rest will move in the direction of a right line eventually to return to a state of rest once more. A fire will burn up wood until the wood is no more. A fire “wants” to extinguish itself. So the Western aspiration to satisfactory “conclusions” was codified. Perpetually inconclusive motion (like anxiety) is no original Western value.
Law 3: The effect of an action upon an object results in an equal and opposite reaction of the subject. The action-reaction law or reciprocal motion maintains that not only does fire interact with wood, but the wood reciprocates by “wanting” to be burned. The wood, assumed to be passive, is equally contributive. So the Western value of reciprocal motion (reciprocal engagement) via organically covenantal or mutually contractual relationships is an expectation unique to the Western Hemisphere.
Newton's laws codified the idea of the integrated system and contributed to the normalization of the common Modern man an unwavering logical reliability in the material consistency of the universe. The idea eventually splayed into two very broad, divergent interpretations of Newton's system.
Monday, February 21, 2011
CHILD REARING & THE APOCALYPSE
Christian activity heightened remarkably in the West during the 20th century because Christians believed that Christ would imminently return within the century. However, that strict Apocalyptic interpretation 1) has ultimately resulted in a broad but shallow Christian presence in the emerging global community and 2) has cultivated within the Modern Christian—at the impulse level—a short-term orientation for both the physical world and for his own physical existence. Nevertheless, Apocalypse has been integral to the Western psyche. Whether the religious End Times or a non-religious nuclear fallout.
With the implosion of that popular Cold War interpretation of the Last Days, the Modern parent must now actually consider that it is far more likely he will die than be raptured. And with disarmament, the non-Christian must now actually consider that it is far more likely he will die in the suburb than be the collateral damage of a Soviet attack. This poses a serious problem for the Modern Christian who has considered himself to be immune from death and for the non-Christian who lived it up in his younger years beause he saw nothing but death and destruction in the future. Both are not prepared for the kind of future that demands a long-term direction that lasts beyond his individual life.
More pertinent to our discussion is that the Modern parent has no long-term direction for his Post-modern child that lasts beyond the life of his child. Further, though the Modern has been able to sustain his view and hope in the Rapture or world war for the short-term, the political, social, and economic problems of his era have not disappeared, nor have they been suspended for his Post-modern child.
It is my understanding that the Modern parent’s unresolved cultural issues have rapidly morphed into new forms of anxiety and, therefore, customary norms for his child. These anxieties and the methods for coping with them is what distinguishes the Post-modern from the Modern. In other words, the current generation gap is not merely the stereotypical gap between parents and their children as we have been told by both Christian and non-Christian sources. It is a cultural gap accompanied with all of the expected upheaval of a cultural gap, because it is fundamentally about a view of truth.
If the cultural gap were merely generational, then little of the culture would be affected. That is because the influence of a stereotypical generation gap is relegated to the small sphere of the parent-child relationship. However, because the concept of truth has been challenged, its influence envelopes the entire culture—from how one views religion, politics, cows or a can opener. Fill in the blank. It doesn't matter.
The new cultural view is total and has been gaining momentum for two decades to the extent that the Modern world and the Modern parent are rapidly becoming marginalized. What the Modern thinks or says either does not matter at all or it does not matter much anymore. There is no nostalgic “going back” to the way that it used to be. Nostalgia might be a temporarily comforting strategy for dealing with such stress for the short-term, but it is not useful or even constructive for the long-term.
What the Modern parent often does not realize is that his children are psychologically oriented for the long-term and must be paced to deal with the long haul of life. The Post-modern child has no cultural concept of an Apocalypse, so he is not hard-wired into thinking there is anything special enough about his generation that would alleviate the normal pressures of humanity for himself. This child is psychologically oriented for the long haul. That means that he knows he will die (after living a "boring" life) and must deal with it.
In addition, he looks at the social, political and economic problems and is exponentially anxious at the global scope of stress his already very personal, stressful future holds. So he is in revolt against the Modern and everything for which the Modern stands. He despises the Modern for the "efficiency" with which the Modern can compartmentalize his life and indefinitely suspend his own anxiety.
The Modern does not see it this way. He sees the hatred with which he is treated as another proof of the decadence of culture to precede the coming of Christ or end of the world. And he is at fault for glorying in it. I knew a family about fourteen years ago. The parents were into church and did not let much of anything else concern them. One day the mother complained to me that she was nervous her nine-year-old was into boys so early. She then proclaimed "But I'm not even going to worry about it, because Jesus is coming back!" Five years later her little daughter was a slut. And the parents did not think they had anything to do with that outcome.
With the implosion of that popular Cold War interpretation of the Last Days, the Modern parent must now actually consider that it is far more likely he will die than be raptured. And with disarmament, the non-Christian must now actually consider that it is far more likely he will die in the suburb than be the collateral damage of a Soviet attack. This poses a serious problem for the Modern Christian who has considered himself to be immune from death and for the non-Christian who lived it up in his younger years beause he saw nothing but death and destruction in the future. Both are not prepared for the kind of future that demands a long-term direction that lasts beyond his individual life.
More pertinent to our discussion is that the Modern parent has no long-term direction for his Post-modern child that lasts beyond the life of his child. Further, though the Modern has been able to sustain his view and hope in the Rapture or world war for the short-term, the political, social, and economic problems of his era have not disappeared, nor have they been suspended for his Post-modern child.
It is my understanding that the Modern parent’s unresolved cultural issues have rapidly morphed into new forms of anxiety and, therefore, customary norms for his child. These anxieties and the methods for coping with them is what distinguishes the Post-modern from the Modern. In other words, the current generation gap is not merely the stereotypical gap between parents and their children as we have been told by both Christian and non-Christian sources. It is a cultural gap accompanied with all of the expected upheaval of a cultural gap, because it is fundamentally about a view of truth.
If the cultural gap were merely generational, then little of the culture would be affected. That is because the influence of a stereotypical generation gap is relegated to the small sphere of the parent-child relationship. However, because the concept of truth has been challenged, its influence envelopes the entire culture—from how one views religion, politics, cows or a can opener. Fill in the blank. It doesn't matter.
The new cultural view is total and has been gaining momentum for two decades to the extent that the Modern world and the Modern parent are rapidly becoming marginalized. What the Modern thinks or says either does not matter at all or it does not matter much anymore. There is no nostalgic “going back” to the way that it used to be. Nostalgia might be a temporarily comforting strategy for dealing with such stress for the short-term, but it is not useful or even constructive for the long-term.
What the Modern parent often does not realize is that his children are psychologically oriented for the long-term and must be paced to deal with the long haul of life. The Post-modern child has no cultural concept of an Apocalypse, so he is not hard-wired into thinking there is anything special enough about his generation that would alleviate the normal pressures of humanity for himself. This child is psychologically oriented for the long haul. That means that he knows he will die (after living a "boring" life) and must deal with it.
In addition, he looks at the social, political and economic problems and is exponentially anxious at the global scope of stress his already very personal, stressful future holds. So he is in revolt against the Modern and everything for which the Modern stands. He despises the Modern for the "efficiency" with which the Modern can compartmentalize his life and indefinitely suspend his own anxiety.
The Modern does not see it this way. He sees the hatred with which he is treated as another proof of the decadence of culture to precede the coming of Christ or end of the world. And he is at fault for glorying in it. I knew a family about fourteen years ago. The parents were into church and did not let much of anything else concern them. One day the mother complained to me that she was nervous her nine-year-old was into boys so early. She then proclaimed "But I'm not even going to worry about it, because Jesus is coming back!" Five years later her little daughter was a slut. And the parents did not think they had anything to do with that outcome.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
MODERNS & POMOS
The fundamental principle for understanding the broadest interpretation of Modern culture (and the Modern parent) is its aspiration to Atheism. Moderns (anyone born before 1989 or anyone with a substantive memory of life before1989) operate almost exclusively within the atheistic framework that what can be known can be known apart from God. For the non-Christian this means that God does not practically figure into any part of the world. For the Christian this means that, though God "figures" into the world, the world can still be understood and appreciated apart from Him. This concept, I argue throughout my entire book, is the focal point to which the Modern ignorantly seeks to orient his Post-modern child.
The Post-modern (anyone born after 1989 or anyone with no substantive memory of life before 1989) is culturally oriented to Polytheism—not Atheism. It is critical to grasp this point if one is to understand the distinction between the Modern parent and his Post-modern child. The Post-modern affirms the existence of deity so that both the non-Christian and the Christian Post-modern believe that deity theoretically and practically figures into the world. On the basis of belief in spirituality, there is no difference between the Post-modern Christian and non-Christian. In other words, religion is no longer a separate conversation from regular (read “secular”) life.
The Post-modern holds to the polytheistic aspiration that what can be known cannot be known apart from deity. This is even true for the Post-modern who calls himself an atheist. The Modern atheist said that there was no God for anyone—end of the discussion. The Post-modern atheist says that though there is no God for himself, there might be God for someone else. Herein is a culturally nuanced rift as divergent as any opposite.
I provide the year 1989 as a general marker for the generational shift from Modern to the Post-modern culture for the following reasons.
1) The tearing down of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was an indication of the beginning of the end of Communism. Communism was the political form of Atheism and the most comprehensive attempt by that revolutionary spirit to de-Christianize the Free West. Therefore, the death of Communism was the death of the dominating world spirit of Atheism. This does not mean that Atheism and its cultural expressions were dead in 1989. What it does mean is that optimism in Communism had peaked and was rapidly on the decline while being replaced by another dominant worldview.
2) The fall of Communism did not just happen because of politically democratic influences like Ronald Reagan or Gorbachev. Rather, it was attributed to the sum of the moral motives and actions of the "little" people on both sides of the Iron Curtain. History makes it clear that the common masses of non-governmental institutions behind the Iron Curtain were largely responsible for the tearing down of the Berlin Wall on the East German side in June 1989, for the overthrow of Ceaucescu in Romania on Christmas Day 1989, for the freeing of Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland in 1989 & 1990, for the beginnings of revolution in Yugoslavia in 1989, and for the democratic push in the Soviet Union the same year.
Gorbachev formally disarmed the Soviet Union in 1991, but his political decision was entirely preceded by an uncharacteristically democratic revolt behind the Iron Curtain. The common people did not just happen to suddenly revolt against the political form of Communism. They were revolting against the philosophy of Atheism, the engine of the Communist political system. Communism no longer resonated with the majority of people. The revolt against Communism indicated a definite shift from the dominating world spirit of Atheism to a world spirit of faith, however ambiguous and varied that faith has expressed itself these last two decades.
3) The generic interpretation of End Times prophecy was completely wrapped up in the outcome of the Cold War (c. 1945-1991). Most Christians now reject the once popular theological consensus (or at the least they are ambivalent to it). Before the European reforms in the late 1980’s, it was largely believed (with slight variations) that the Cold War would climax with the Rapture, followed by rise of Anti-Christ within the European Common Market, seven years of Great Tribulation, the rule of Christ on earth for 1,000 years, the Battle of Armageddon and finally Heaven. Or some similar order.
Cold-War-generation Christians typically believed themselves to be the chosen generation who would experience the initial climax of Biblical prophecy via a Rapture. Though the date was altered many times in the 20th century, those prophecies were finally mathematically predicted to happen by or around 1988 (40 years after Israel became a nation). Whatever the case, the Last Days and the climax of Communism were to be intimately entangled events. Since 2000, the Christian community has been reticent to project an actual date for the end of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)