In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Persig has his main character, at one point in the story, discuss the irony of modern westerners mocking Native American cultures for their beliefs in the supernatural, even ghosts. He goes on to say that many of our scientific beliefs are or have actually been just that: beliefs.
Gravity is the example he used. He mentioned, in particular, the Law of Gravity, and the fact that the concept of gravity did not really exist in the human mind before the law became "fact." Certainly, humans knew that they were not drifting around aimlessly prior to this pronouncement, but they also believed that the Earth, somehow, was at the center of all existence, and that God's universe was constructed around this nucleus. After various discoveries, not the least of which were those of Copernicus and Columbus, those ghosts were exorcised. The paradigm shift was immense. The scope of the Earth and the universe exploded in the human mind, setting off the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, and a whole new deluge of mental ghosts.
Today, the question seems to be: "Is gravity pulling us to the planet, is the large mass drawing smaller masses towards its center, or is the universe pushing us down to it?" Einstein theorized that gravity was not a force at all, that it was rather an illusion caused by the space-time continuum. What is the difference to us?
I know that when I jump, I expect to come back down, firmly on terra firma. When Matthew Stafford throws a bomb to Megatron, he, after many years of preparation and repetition, launches the football skyward to a space high in the air. His mind, even his arm "knows" how much force to apply to the pass, what trajectory to launch it on, and what point the ball will likely approach the Earth again. What does Matthew Stafford know about gravity in this case? He knows, intuitively, how to manipulate the ball in such a way that he can use gravity to his advantage. He uses no equations, no formulas, no slide-rules. His mind - and mind you, I think the entire body is mind, since neurons permeate every fiber of us - does all of these calculations intuitively. Muscle memory knows when to squeeze the ball a little harder, when to shift the weight on his feet, and at what point in the throwing arc the ball should be released to achieve the desired result.
So, what do we know? Gravity is a multifaceted concept, viewable from the perspectives of a number of different paradigms. In the end, we know, mostly, what goes up must come down. But why?
Monday, September 26, 2011
Who am I? How do I know myself?
Of course, you have heard people talk about finding themselves. Where had they gone in the interim? I am sure their friends and family could have told them where they were, but would that information have helped the person in search of self? Unlikely.
Rene Descartes said he knew he existed because someone or something (ego, I) was aware he existed (cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am). He said, outside of that, he had no idea if there was any external reality because he realized that much that his mind produced seemed to be untrustworthy. The senses can be fooled by optical illusions; rationale can be altered by paradigms (mindsets) and semantics (word-play); social organizations like governments and even families can easily be swayed by illogical, pathos-laced arguments.
When I consider definitions of myself, how much am I aware how their power to define me can also confine me? Soren Kierkegaard said, "Once you label me, you negate me." I read this to say, when you tell me who I am, I also must not be something else. In other words, your definition (de + finite, limited) limits me. But it is also true to say that our own definitions limit us. That is to say, because of the self-fulfilling prophecy, we become what we have limited ourselves to, to what definitions we have come to accept of self.
To quote a popular song by EnVogue - "Free your mind and the rest will follow." One key to opening up the human mind to its greatest potential is not being stuck on always knowing. Not knowing also has value, because it acts on the mind like thirst does for the body. It keeps us curious and modest, aware of both our strengths and our limitations.
Of course, you have heard people talk about finding themselves. Where had they gone in the interim? I am sure their friends and family could have told them where they were, but would that information have helped the person in search of self? Unlikely.
Rene Descartes said he knew he existed because someone or something (ego, I) was aware he existed (cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am). He said, outside of that, he had no idea if there was any external reality because he realized that much that his mind produced seemed to be untrustworthy. The senses can be fooled by optical illusions; rationale can be altered by paradigms (mindsets) and semantics (word-play); social organizations like governments and even families can easily be swayed by illogical, pathos-laced arguments.
When I consider definitions of myself, how much am I aware how their power to define me can also confine me? Soren Kierkegaard said, "Once you label me, you negate me." I read this to say, when you tell me who I am, I also must not be something else. In other words, your definition (de + finite, limited) limits me. But it is also true to say that our own definitions limit us. That is to say, because of the self-fulfilling prophecy, we become what we have limited ourselves to, to what definitions we have come to accept of self.
To quote a popular song by EnVogue - "Free your mind and the rest will follow." One key to opening up the human mind to its greatest potential is not being stuck on always knowing. Not knowing also has value, because it acts on the mind like thirst does for the body. It keeps us curious and modest, aware of both our strengths and our limitations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)