Do Abstract Systems Work?
Our species’ hypertrophied linguistic abilities have allowed us to create entire systems composed of elements that we either cannot directly observe or cannot observe at all: mathematics, physics, ideologies, theologies, economies, democracies, technocracies and the like, which manipulate abstractions – symbols and relationships between symbols – rather than the concrete, messy, non-atomistic entities that have specific spatial and temporal extents and that constitute reality for all species. There is a continuum between products of pure thought, like chess or mathematics, sciences which produce theories that can be tested by repeatable direct experiment, like physics and chemistry, and the rest – political science, economics, sociology and the like – which are a hodgepodge of iffy assumptions and similarly iffy statistical techniques. Perfectly formal systems of thought, like logic and mathematics, seem the most rigorous, and have served as the guiding light for all other forms of thinking. But there’s a problem.
The problem is that formal systems don’t work. They have internal consistency, to be sure, and they can do all sorts of amusing tricks, but they don’t map onto reality in a way that isn’t essentially an act of violence. When mapped onto real life, formal systems of thought self-destruct, destroy nature, or, most commonly, both. Wherever we look we see systems that we have contrived run against limits of their own making: Burning fossil fuels causes global warming; plastics decay and produce endocrine disruptors; industrial agriculture depletes aquifers and destroys topsoil; and so on. We are already sitting on a mountain of guaranteed negative outcomes – political, environmental, ecological, economic – and every day those of us who still have a job go to work to pile that mountain a little bit higher.
Although this phenomenon can be observed by anyone who cares to see it, those who have observed it have always laid blame for it on the limitations and the flaws of the systems, never on the limitations and the flaws of the human ability to think and to reason. For some un-reason, we feel that our ability to reason is limitless and infinitely perfectible. Nobody has voiced the idea that the exercise of our ability to think can reach the point of diminishing, then negative, returns. It is yet to be persuasively argued that the human propensity for abstract reasoning is a defect of breeding that leads to collective insanity. Perhaps the argument would have to be made recursively: The faculty in question is so flawed that it is incapable of seeing its own flaws.
Dmitry Orlov – cluborlov.blogspot.com
120 comments on the article “Do Abstract Systems Work?”
Displaying 21 - 30 of 120
Page 3 of 12
Anonymous
We need to all adopt meditative thought.
Anonymous
We need to all adopt meditative thought.
Anonymous
I'm curious what the point of this article is then if it is railing against abstract thought. Not only is abstract thought something that we all do but it is something which we appear to not be able to help and indeed was what led to this article being written. Blogs and magazines by their very nature are predicated on abstract thinking or at least on the abstract idea that there is theoretically an audience for what is being written.
I have but one question, which is the question I always have when I read AdBusters articles, which is that regardless of whether I agree with what is said (in this case I do not but in every other AdBusters article I've read I would say that I do) what does the author propose that the reader do?
The author here is engaging in an exercise of abstract thought which was conveyed to me through the internet where he discusses the ways in which abstract thought have hurt humanity as a whole (another abstraction). But what do you suppose that we do? Any reasoned analysis is wholly useless if it does not then come with some call to action, however unreasonable. At least then the reader can have a conversation with the author that leads them to do something. This mad-as-hell type of analysis is all well and good but if you're just mad for the sake of being mad it's not only pointless but it feels like shit. Spinning in place and castigating everyone around you is foolish.
I like what the first commenter said: we should practice meditative thought. This allows us to see our minds, however scary or peaceful they may be, and then go and engage with our real world. If you're angry about something you should try to change it. If that means throwing a rock through the window of a Starbucks, burning a police car, making graffiti, working at a soup kitchen, teaching prison inmates how to read and write, or whatever it is that gets you going then so be it but at least you thought about it first and actually used the only thing that corporations and our government can't control with impunity yet.
Our minds are the last battleground. They have taken everything else from us. But at least we can still be free in our own minds. If that is where it has to start then we have a lot of work do to but at least it can start somewhere. To admonish us for thinking is the epitome of foolish.
Anonymous
I'm curious what the point of this article is then if it is railing against abstract thought. Not only is abstract thought something that we all do but it is something which we appear to not be able to help and indeed was what led to this article being written. Blogs and magazines by their very nature are predicated on abstract thinking or at least on the abstract idea that there is theoretically an audience for what is being written.
I have but one question, which is the question I always have when I read AdBusters articles, which is that regardless of whether I agree with what is said (in this case I do not but in every other AdBusters article I've read I would say that I do) what does the author propose that the reader do?
The author here is engaging in an exercise of abstract thought which was conveyed to me through the internet where he discusses the ways in which abstract thought have hurt humanity as a whole (another abstraction). But what do you suppose that we do? Any reasoned analysis is wholly useless if it does not then come with some call to action, however unreasonable. At least then the reader can have a conversation with the author that leads them to do something. This mad-as-hell type of analysis is all well and good but if you're just mad for the sake of being mad it's not only pointless but it feels like shit. Spinning in place and castigating everyone around you is foolish.
I like what the first commenter said: we should practice meditative thought. This allows us to see our minds, however scary or peaceful they may be, and then go and engage with our real world. If you're angry about something you should try to change it. If that means throwing a rock through the window of a Starbucks, burning a police car, making graffiti, working at a soup kitchen, teaching prison inmates how to read and write, or whatever it is that gets you going then so be it but at least you thought about it first and actually used the only thing that corporations and our government can't control with impunity yet.
Our minds are the last battleground. They have taken everything else from us. But at least we can still be free in our own minds. If that is where it has to start then we have a lot of work do to but at least it can start somewhere. To admonish us for thinking is the epitome of foolish.
Rene
"This allows us to see our minds, however scary or peaceful they may be, and then go and engage with our real world. If you're angry about something you should try to change it. If that means throwing a rock through the window of a Starbucks, burning a police car, making graffiti, working at a soup kitchen, teaching prison inmates how to read and write, or whatever it is that gets you going then so be it but at least you thought about it first and actually used the only thing that corporations and our government can't control with impunity yet. "
And why is, do you think, that people aren't as radical as they once were? Abstraction.
Too much abstraction made the next generation incapable of true expression. People don't act any more because there's so many abstractions telling them how to act.
Arrested development is a result of too much abstract thought.
Rene
"This allows us to see our minds, however scary or peaceful they may be, and then go and engage with our real world. If you're angry about something you should try to change it. If that means throwing a rock through the window of a Starbucks, burning a police car, making graffiti, working at a soup kitchen, teaching prison inmates how to read and write, or whatever it is that gets you going then so be it but at least you thought about it first and actually used the only thing that corporations and our government can't control with impunity yet. "
And why is, do you think, that people aren't as radical as they once were? Abstraction.
Too much abstraction made the next generation incapable of true expression. People don't act any more because there's so many abstractions telling them how to act.
Arrested development is a result of too much abstract thought.
Rational Ivan
It's clear that humans aren't perfect thinking machines. Kant's dream of a perfect rational being which could decipher everything using reason is limited by our social instincts which often call upon parts of the brain not involved in logical analysis.
For example, a man who wrote a research paper and presented it at a conference might be denigrated at that conference by his peers, not because his propositions are wrong, in the logical sense, but because his peers are jealous, etc. He might defend his ideas not on the basis of their logical consistency, but because he takes pride in his work, etc.
I visualize human intellectualizations, such as the stuff the author writes about, as a balance struck between the neocortex and the lizard brain (i.e. the thinking brain and the emotional brain).
However, I think the author is misconstruing the powers of human abstraction.
People have thought of systems which can represent nature as best as our puny minds can manage. Just learn a little about cybernetics, fractal geometry, or quantum electrodynamics.
In the social sphere, cybernetics (which studies feedback and circuit-like systems) can, and I believe has, found successful application.
---Then again, only in the stuffy rooms of people at MIT.
Rational Ivan
It's clear that humans aren't perfect thinking machines. Kant's dream of a perfect rational being which could decipher everything using reason is limited by our social instincts which often call upon parts of the brain not involved in logical analysis.
For example, a man who wrote a research paper and presented it at a conference might be denigrated at that conference by his peers, not because his propositions are wrong, in the logical sense, but because his peers are jealous, etc. He might defend his ideas not on the basis of their logical consistency, but because he takes pride in his work, etc.
I visualize human intellectualizations, such as the stuff the author writes about, as a balance struck between the neocortex and the lizard brain (i.e. the thinking brain and the emotional brain).
However, I think the author is misconstruing the powers of human abstraction.
People have thought of systems which can represent nature as best as our puny minds can manage. Just learn a little about cybernetics, fractal geometry, or quantum electrodynamics.
In the social sphere, cybernetics (which studies feedback and circuit-like systems) can, and I believe has, found successful application.
---Then again, only in the stuffy rooms of people at MIT.
Tim Racine
As a piece of persuasion or literature, I suppose that this reads well enough, although it is a bit hyperbolic for my taste. But the main arguments presented don't seem to have anything obvious to do with formal systems. If so, an example of how "formal systems of thought self-destruct, destroy nature, or, most commonly, both" would be useful. As it stands, it seems like an obscure way of presenting fairly well-understood ideas, such as the fact that humans have difficulty reasoning about complexity. And maybe this that has to do with the fact that, for example, our hominid ancestors who lived in groups of about 150 would never have needed this sort of a capacity and it is therefore quite difficult for us modern humans to reason about complexity, bidirectionality, nonlinearity, etc. But in either case, it doesn't seem right to blame peak oil or climate change on algebra (a formal system), and the like. Pretty silly idea actually. Adbusters, although I enjoy reading your articles, I think you should have reviewed this one a bit more carefully.
Tim Racine
As a piece of persuasion or literature, I suppose that this reads well enough, although it is a bit hyperbolic for my taste. But the main arguments presented don't seem to have anything obvious to do with formal systems. If so, an example of how "formal systems of thought self-destruct, destroy nature, or, most commonly, both" would be useful. As it stands, it seems like an obscure way of presenting fairly well-understood ideas, such as the fact that humans have difficulty reasoning about complexity. And maybe this that has to do with the fact that, for example, our hominid ancestors who lived in groups of about 150 would never have needed this sort of a capacity and it is therefore quite difficult for us modern humans to reason about complexity, bidirectionality, nonlinearity, etc. But in either case, it doesn't seem right to blame peak oil or climate change on algebra (a formal system), and the like. Pretty silly idea actually. Adbusters, although I enjoy reading your articles, I think you should have reviewed this one a bit more carefully.
Pages
Add a new comment