Following Newton the universe was seen as a mechanistic concept. Like a machine, actions in the universe were predictable and answerable to a simple set of laws. So complete was this picture that towards the end of the 19th century scientists were predicting the end of science, for all the questions were nearly answered.
Such a view is intransigently stuck to by many scientists today. There are still factors to be answered, but they say they are on the right track and it is only a matter of time before all is revealed. But this is dogma. The reality is very different.
PARTICLE PHYSICS
Rather than being a predictable machine, quantum theory, which arose from theorising on the existence of the subatomic particle, tells a different story. Enshrined in the idea is the ‘uncertainty principle’.
Fundamental to this well accepted principle is the fact that a particle cannot be observed in its natural state. So small that they cannot be seen, you can only gain evidence of their existence by observing the reaction upon the particle by a bombardment of light.
Seeing light is, itself, made of particles, this reaction is the result of, not its natural state, but its bombardment. As particles are the fundamental building blocks of the universe, then the foundations of existence are forever shrouded in uncertainty.
Later theorists came to the conclusion that the natural state of the particle is probabilistic, in that until it is observed it can be in any state possible. This point is further complicated when we ask how this probabilistic state becomes definite through observation.
The most widely accepted answer is that it is the act of observation itself which turns probability into a definite. In other words, fundamental to the state of the observable universe is the act of observation by a consciousness capable of defining a definite from a probability.
RELATIVITY
This techno-Hinduism suggests that the universe is anything but a predictable machine. And the plot thickens when we look at Albert Einstein’s ‘relativity theory’. Fundamental to the theory are two points. First of all, nothing in the universe is at rest.
Rather, everything moves. Hence, there is no static place in the universe from which to measure it. The second point is a simple one - light travels, and can only travel, at a constant speed throughout the universe.
This means that wherever we are in the universe, we will always measure the same constant speed of light. But the problem is this: how can the speed of light always be constant if, at different points or states in the universe, the observer is travelling at different speeds?
The answer is that, dependent upon the speed you are travelling, time slows down to compensate for the constant speed of light. And the closer you get to travelling at the speed of light yourself, the more time slows down to compensate. Hence, the speed of light becomes relative to the state of the observer.
ENIGMATIC UNIVERSE
These concepts are at odds with the dogma of science. The universe is an enigmatic concept where consciousness can manipulate the universe and the actions of the universe can differ dependent upon the state of the observer.
As for the reality of the universe itself, it is forever locked out of understanding, existing in a probabilistic state. So what can we say about our state of knowledge and psychology today?
This history has followed human intellectual endeavour from early religious forms, through the great religious movements, their death in the Enlightenment, and the growing primacy of reason. One thing that becomes clear is that none of the systems of thought devised by man have been totally satisfactory.
INTELLECTUAL INFECTION
They have failed - and continue to fail - to answer who we are, what we are, or why we are here, other than a means of identity through local mythology based on individual cultures.
As soon as science and reason took over the reins of knowledge from religion, they too followed the same road of descending into cultural expressions from fascism to the present primacy of the scientific ethos of genetics.
And what must be remembered is that intellectualism, whether religious or scientific, always filters down to affect the society to which it belongs.
THE INDIVIDUAL AND GLOBALISATION
And so to today, and the scientific reality that the universe is without true explanation and devoid of certainty. Thus, filtering down to society, the same degree of uncertainty exists regarding who or what we are.
Hence, the only certainty we can grasp is that we exist in our individuality. The individual exists because we can see our reflection in the mirror. And to intellectualise further is to become uncertain, and our individualistic egos cannot take that, so we glory in our individual selves.
Into this world came globalisation and the multi-national, feeding our individuality and creating a world of sameness where identity doesn’t seem to matter - and our institutions, our families, our gender roles, our nation states, collapse.
They collapse because they are above our individuality and must be suspect; must be uncertain, perhaps, even untrue.
SOCIAL GLUE
But whether true or not, they are the glue, the cultural adhesive, of society, and without them only anarchy can truly rule in the end. Religions may not be an exact truth as was once thought, but in creating religions to bolster the institutions of society, they kept us together in our communities and offered guidance for life.
To leave them behind for the onward march of science and its spin-off, the multi-national, is to lose the sense of who we are. And in this realisation, the root of our psychologlcal ills is found.
So what sort of world does this predominance of individuality really leave us? Next to religion, the predominant institution that defined who we are is class. In one sense, this history identifies this with every society and every worldview being toppled by revolution to define the power of the class structure.
Today, class revolution has removed class to the point where the institution can no longer define our place, leaving ideology behind and problem-solving as the only occupation of government.
PROBLEM SOLVING
Most people would say this leads to a safer world, but we must remember this history. When the Roman Empire got to this stage, with ideology gone and problem-solving the only task, it disintegrated.
So, too, the Islamic empires. So, too, Christendom. And if war had not broken them, so would Napoleonic and Nazi Europe, and the Communist states that followed. Basically, when problem-solving becomes predominant, society is really on the point of fundamental transition.
This is because they destroy local identity and place a sameness on everything. And if this is correct, the onward march of globalisation as presently defined, bolstered, as it is, by our fear of facing anything above our individuality, could be sending us straight back to this repeatable error of history. So maybe we should look once more at our seemingly innocuous globalism and question it.
DIVERSITY
It is all to do with diversity - the way of nature and the road of evolution . Neither could have been successful without diversity, which is, of course, the very opposite of the mono-culture being devised by globalisation.
Without diversity - without alternatives - evolution would not have occurred, so it is fair to say that without diversity, the evolution of society can do nothing but cease.
Of course, such a resurgence of local identity providing diversity could well lead to antagonisms between nations and races, but surely this is the lesser evil to ceasing the evolutionary process through complacency?
And haven’t we yet grown up enough to find answers to these problems through cooperation as opposed to integration? Diversity CAN work with people finding identity in their local culture, yet also being tolerant of other ideas and aware that no one can ever be really right in the truths they utter.
Such a new world could allow the person to be secure in his individuality yet still connected to a local identity, and from here, be equally aware that he is a global man. Yet into this equation we must also remember that many advances, such as the European empire building, began when a particular society becomes bored with its achievements and wanted to move in directions new.
THE NEW FRONTIER
Applying such an idea to today, there appears to be nothing more to do on planet Earth.
Yet, in answering this, let us remember that day in April 1961 when Yuri Gagarin completed the first orbit of Earth. In July 1969 Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. A world apart in technological terms, but remarkably similar to that time when Columbus walked on the New World.
Is space the new frontier? If so, remember Armstrong’s words: ‘A great leap for mankind’. Not America. For mankind!
There is yet much to explore, still much for multi-nationals and hi-tech to achieve away from the trivia of consumerism, so perhaps man DOES have a future. And as long as he has a future, he will also have a history. For man will still be around to read about it.
(c) Anthony North, March 2008
Click History of Man on Blogroll for more posts in this series
HOW TO THINK GREEN
FROM THE ARCHIVES
FROM MY ARCHIVES
GLOBAL WARMING BACKLASH
FROM THE ARCHIVES
FORGET THE DOOMSTERS
FROM THE ARCHIVES
A SHRINKING ISLAND
HOT AIR AT BALI?