This is something that I find myself occasionally returning to.
As I make the statement “I exist” I confirm that I do, in fact, exist.
That I choose to use the word “I” determines that I am self aware.
Since I exist, and have the ability to choose my own actions, I choose actions that I subjectively value.
Since I conceive of the concept of others while writing this, I determine that I believe others exist.
Since others have acted toward me in a way that I do not act toward myself, I understand that others have a separate existence from me.
Since others exist separately, I choose to create a belief system that allows for myself and others to exist together.
Since I value my existence and choice of action, I choose to create a system of values that protects my existence and my choice of action.
Since I interact with and depend upon others, I choose to create a set of values that protects others’ existence and their choice of action.
Since the rules of a just system apply equally to all members of that system, I choose to grant each individual free choice of action since I do not want others to determine my actions.
Since this system of values allows for maximum choice of action, and maximum existence, this creates a resilient and sustainable basis for fre society and law.
Since existence and free action depend upon additional qualities, I would support a system that allows for the protection of those qualities.
Since the system is created to support quality of life, the system’s effects should be measured by both the protection of existence and free action as well as by its support of the quality of life of individuals within it.
Since Quality of Life is individually experienced, it must be measured by each individual. Useful measures of this quality may be termed happiness, satisfaction, or otherwise.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Why Am I Writing You?
Last night I showed yesterday's post to my wife. She's a beautiful woman; Smart, patient, supportive, kind. She was generous in her comments, but then let me know, in that oh-so-sweet way she has, that maybe I could do a better job of considering my audience. And she was right. I've got unexamined intentions. So, if you will humor me, I'll take a moment to see if we have some common ground to stand on...
I have, I find, many hopes in writing to you.
I hope to connect with you. I'm no recluse. I've got friends - a few really good ones but I don't feel anyone should have to be all things to all people - and I don't want to burden the friends I have with being all things to me. I've found great joy in life, as well as sorrow. And I've found, occasionally to my astonishment, that friendship enhances the joys, and eases the pain. And so if I can find in these writings, a way to connect to a greater number of people around a wider variety of interests, well that seems like a good thing to me.
I like to be helpful. I also enjoy teaching. In this blog I hope you find information you will use.
I love to learn. I hope to connect with people who have rich and interesting new ideas, and enjoy the experience of learning something new.
I want to help make this world a better place. The best way I can think of to help is sharing and building ideas. Besides, it gives me a purpose in life. I've found depression and boredom in selfishness. Helping out is just more fun.
I find myself at a crossroads in life. Caught between here and there, past and future, paths in a wood. I'm writing to gain clarity and to keep myself from being mired in inaction. To learn to be more open and to see what comes.
And an additional thought. I find, as I live within our culture, that much wisdom and dialog seem to be artificially divided into factions. These premises permeate our interactions in subtle ways. I've found joy in questioning black and white issues to find there is often truth in either side Sometimes important ideas come to light after removing these unnecessary divisions.
Why not let me know, if you find this helpful, thoughtful or weird... I'll appreciate it, and who knows what else may come of it?
I have, I find, many hopes in writing to you.
I hope to connect with you. I'm no recluse. I've got friends - a few really good ones but I don't feel anyone should have to be all things to all people - and I don't want to burden the friends I have with being all things to me. I've found great joy in life, as well as sorrow. And I've found, occasionally to my astonishment, that friendship enhances the joys, and eases the pain. And so if I can find in these writings, a way to connect to a greater number of people around a wider variety of interests, well that seems like a good thing to me.
I like to be helpful. I also enjoy teaching. In this blog I hope you find information you will use.
I love to learn. I hope to connect with people who have rich and interesting new ideas, and enjoy the experience of learning something new.
I want to help make this world a better place. The best way I can think of to help is sharing and building ideas. Besides, it gives me a purpose in life. I've found depression and boredom in selfishness. Helping out is just more fun.
I find myself at a crossroads in life. Caught between here and there, past and future, paths in a wood. I'm writing to gain clarity and to keep myself from being mired in inaction. To learn to be more open and to see what comes.
And an additional thought. I find, as I live within our culture, that much wisdom and dialog seem to be artificially divided into factions. These premises permeate our interactions in subtle ways. I've found joy in questioning black and white issues to find there is often truth in either side Sometimes important ideas come to light after removing these unnecessary divisions.
Why not let me know, if you find this helpful, thoughtful or weird... I'll appreciate it, and who knows what else may come of it?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Changing the System (Part 1)
This is the first of a three part post regarding Changing Systems.
It gives me great joy to read articles about problems where a well reasoned plan results in positive change to a system – creating a better situation for everyone involved. It gives me hope. Occasionally, however, I read a well intentioned article that leaves me with a gnawing sense of frustration. Sometimes this is because the author frames the problem in one-sided terms or because I feel like the perspectives of the people embedded within the situation were only partially considered, or dismissed out of hand. Often, in these cases, I find the solution well intentioned, but bound to fail because some deeply entrenched stakeholder’s interests are ignored.
The following posts are my attempt to add to our collective set of skills for tackling the complex problems we often encounter in the world around us. I welcome your feedback – I’m well aware that I don’t have all the answers.
We all live among systems. We drive systems, we are paid by systems, we are surrounded by systems. Often we may feel frustrated by the way that some of the systems around us work. We may decide that we want to make a change to a system.
System Dynamics was first introduced at MIT. It has produced a powerful set of tools for those of us who are interested in changing our world for the better. Broadly collected, some call these tools Systems Thinking. This way of thinking allows us to recognize what happens when a number of individuals come together for a common purpose. The lenses of System Dynamics often produce startling insights. I am looking forward to creating a small tutorial on Systems Thinking. Until then, these posts are offered for those who already feel at home thinking in terms of systems and are ready to take a more active approach to tackling change now. Alternatively, for those of us who may have tried to make a change, and been frustrated by the resilience of the world around us, this post may help to create an understanding of where you might be able to get your change unstuck.
When considering what we usually think of as systems (governments, corporations, schools, and in one school of thought, families), it is important to recognize that human-created systems exist without values. This might be viewed controversially, but all I am saying is that Values (as we understand and appreciate them) only exist within conscious minds. Values can be supported or discouraged by the structure of a system, but the system itself does not experience values. (This includes the context of Family System Theory. The important idea is that there is a difference between family members, and the systems they co-create. “Family Values” are those values supported by the family system – whatever those values may be. The idea of “functional” or “dysfunctional” is a values judgment from an observer.)
The qualities that systems might conceivably be thought to “value” are those qualities that pragmatically contribute toward the system’s continued existence, stability or growth - but even those values are not emotionally felt by a system. Other values that we may observe inside a system are, in fact, human imposed. This is an important understanding, as it clearly places the responsibility for designing systems that support human well-being on our own shoulders. Since human systems exist to support humanity, tolerating harmful systems arising from tradition or custom is indefensible. Since our systems are human created, they must be managed by us as well – no matter how complex or resistant they may be to change once they are in place. Those who argue for the “rights” of systems (most often in terms of corporations) are using arguments that only have validity if these systems experience consciousness.
Systems typically exist to fulfill human needs and desires. As long as stakeholders’ purposes are fulfilled, they will continue to support the system. Systems also tend, especially at higher level of complexity, to create unanticipated (emergent) effects. These can be in the form of new feedback loops (think lobbyists), unanticipated growth (pork barrel projects) or new stable patterns in unanticipated and sometimes unwanted forms (corruption, the incumbent effect, etc.) Occasionally an observer or participant will label this behavior with a human value (i.e. “the system is corrupt.”) It is important to remember that systems themselves, while highly complex, do not to our knowledge contain what we consider to be consciousness or self-awareness (We might be better served to think, “this system encourages corruption.”) The difference in perspective can be massively enabling, and just a change in wording can sometimes begin to suggest a remedy to the problem. (Instead of “throwing the bums out,” we might instead look deeper to increase penalties, or decrease opportunities to outside of the system.)
Some of the reasons that systems exhibit emergent behaviors are due to the combined effects of multiple human agents within the systems. These may stem from inherent biases present in the system architects themselves, or they may be due to emergent properties that arise from the complexity of the system itself (for reasons that Complexity Theory seeks to explain).
Within the world of Systems Engineering, many design questions are left to unnamed system designers, many are left to plant managers, and many are left to emerge from the complexity within the workforce itself. Often, this ad hoc approach leads to future problems that can become very difficult to eradicate. I’m encouraged by the excellent work being done by Jay Forrester at MIT with his System Dynamics in Education Project. I just heard of this program through this post and was encouraged by this idea with genuine potential to help our society create better intentioned, better designed systems in the future.
Due to human beings' natural ability to create simple feedback loops, and because of the resilience created by many agents creating reinforcing loops, systems may tend to become more stable and strong over time. Due to the competing goals embedded within systems, and the competing purposes that various system designers and stakeholders embody, systems may appear to contain inefficiencies if viewed from any singular perspective. It's important to realize that this is not necessarily a bad thing. We are fortunate in that systems serve many stakeholders – in fact, that's why systems work at all. Well designed systems operate from principles of voluntary, incentive based exchange, and become more robust as they meet more needs of individual stakeholders.
Important to note is the idea that any stakeholder left out of the system design will modify the system to accommodate his, her or its needs. I call this the Stolen Penny Problem. Typically (although not always) a low status member of a system has some amount of value taken away by the system. That person or entity may then feel justified in recouping two pennies at the system's expense (the justification relies on the involuntary nature of the initial trade). This can, in turn, lead to another party in the system reacting even more harshly to the perception that two pennies have been stolen. In extreme cases, entire systems can cease to function from the exponential nature of the Stolen Penny problem.
Examples of this may be as simple as parents experiencing a disrespectful attitude or disobedience from a child after setting a curfew, management experiencing reduced productivity after instituting a policy of longer work hours, or, plants being relocated away from cities where the workers’ compensation system is habitually abused.
Since human systems themselves appear to be essentially without values, it becomes important that the inevitable impact of systems on people are carefully considered and designed for. This might take the form of allowing a child to stay up as late as he or she wants one night a week. It might take form as down time purposefully unaccounted for during shift changes to accommodate a wide range of diverse needs (including daycare arrangements, communication about new kinks in the machinery to be aware of, or good old-fashioned friction-easing gossip). Or it might look like ambiguity and flexibility deliberately engineered into bonus programs to allow for the possibility of rewarding unforeseen acheivements, or sick leave policies that appear “poorly defined” but are in fact left deliberately vague to allow for a variety of emergency family situations.
If human personality and individuality is not anticipated and appreciated, many stakeholders may end up dissatisfied and as a result the system will function poorly, creating unforeseeable negative repercussions in unexpected places. Excellent system design only occurs where all stakeholders have been included equally in the process and when the process is managed with wisdom and dignity. It may sometimes occur that managers, supervisors, parents or other high status individuals will expect that their views should be more completely adhered to or more thoughtfully considered during the design process, but this is in fact opposite to what intelligent design might recommend. Since higher status generally confers the ability to adjust the system after it is implemented, it is in fact the low status individuals, who will have less say in ongoing operation, whose views may wisely be more carefully considered during the design process, (so as not to introduce a Stolen Penny problem that can be extremely difficult to correct after implementation.)
In short, when we find systems difficult to change, it is because we have not understood the competing goals of all stakeholders. Very often we may not even be aware of all of the stakeholders to a system or how those parties provide their feedback.
Until this point, this has been largely a theoretical piece. In my next post, I’d like to consider some real world examples of systems – especially those with unacknowledged stakeholders operating through unaccounted-for communication channels.
I hope this post has some value in the continuing search for a better future. Please let me know if you find anything helpful, or if you have any suggestions.
It gives me great joy to read articles about problems where a well reasoned plan results in positive change to a system – creating a better situation for everyone involved. It gives me hope. Occasionally, however, I read a well intentioned article that leaves me with a gnawing sense of frustration. Sometimes this is because the author frames the problem in one-sided terms or because I feel like the perspectives of the people embedded within the situation were only partially considered, or dismissed out of hand. Often, in these cases, I find the solution well intentioned, but bound to fail because some deeply entrenched stakeholder’s interests are ignored.
The following posts are my attempt to add to our collective set of skills for tackling the complex problems we often encounter in the world around us. I welcome your feedback – I’m well aware that I don’t have all the answers.
We all live among systems. We drive systems, we are paid by systems, we are surrounded by systems. Often we may feel frustrated by the way that some of the systems around us work. We may decide that we want to make a change to a system.
System Dynamics was first introduced at MIT. It has produced a powerful set of tools for those of us who are interested in changing our world for the better. Broadly collected, some call these tools Systems Thinking. This way of thinking allows us to recognize what happens when a number of individuals come together for a common purpose. The lenses of System Dynamics often produce startling insights. I am looking forward to creating a small tutorial on Systems Thinking. Until then, these posts are offered for those who already feel at home thinking in terms of systems and are ready to take a more active approach to tackling change now. Alternatively, for those of us who may have tried to make a change, and been frustrated by the resilience of the world around us, this post may help to create an understanding of where you might be able to get your change unstuck.
When considering what we usually think of as systems (governments, corporations, schools, and in one school of thought, families), it is important to recognize that human-created systems exist without values. This might be viewed controversially, but all I am saying is that Values (as we understand and appreciate them) only exist within conscious minds. Values can be supported or discouraged by the structure of a system, but the system itself does not experience values. (This includes the context of Family System Theory. The important idea is that there is a difference between family members, and the systems they co-create. “Family Values” are those values supported by the family system – whatever those values may be. The idea of “functional” or “dysfunctional” is a values judgment from an observer.)
The qualities that systems might conceivably be thought to “value” are those qualities that pragmatically contribute toward the system’s continued existence, stability or growth - but even those values are not emotionally felt by a system. Other values that we may observe inside a system are, in fact, human imposed. This is an important understanding, as it clearly places the responsibility for designing systems that support human well-being on our own shoulders. Since human systems exist to support humanity, tolerating harmful systems arising from tradition or custom is indefensible. Since our systems are human created, they must be managed by us as well – no matter how complex or resistant they may be to change once they are in place. Those who argue for the “rights” of systems (most often in terms of corporations) are using arguments that only have validity if these systems experience consciousness.
Systems typically exist to fulfill human needs and desires. As long as stakeholders’ purposes are fulfilled, they will continue to support the system. Systems also tend, especially at higher level of complexity, to create unanticipated (emergent) effects. These can be in the form of new feedback loops (think lobbyists), unanticipated growth (pork barrel projects) or new stable patterns in unanticipated and sometimes unwanted forms (corruption, the incumbent effect, etc.) Occasionally an observer or participant will label this behavior with a human value (i.e. “the system is corrupt.”) It is important to remember that systems themselves, while highly complex, do not to our knowledge contain what we consider to be consciousness or self-awareness (We might be better served to think, “this system encourages corruption.”) The difference in perspective can be massively enabling, and just a change in wording can sometimes begin to suggest a remedy to the problem. (Instead of “throwing the bums out,” we might instead look deeper to increase penalties, or decrease opportunities to outside of the system.)
Some of the reasons that systems exhibit emergent behaviors are due to the combined effects of multiple human agents within the systems. These may stem from inherent biases present in the system architects themselves, or they may be due to emergent properties that arise from the complexity of the system itself (for reasons that Complexity Theory seeks to explain).
Within the world of Systems Engineering, many design questions are left to unnamed system designers, many are left to plant managers, and many are left to emerge from the complexity within the workforce itself. Often, this ad hoc approach leads to future problems that can become very difficult to eradicate. I’m encouraged by the excellent work being done by Jay Forrester at MIT with his System Dynamics in Education Project. I just heard of this program through this post and was encouraged by this idea with genuine potential to help our society create better intentioned, better designed systems in the future.
Due to human beings' natural ability to create simple feedback loops, and because of the resilience created by many agents creating reinforcing loops, systems may tend to become more stable and strong over time. Due to the competing goals embedded within systems, and the competing purposes that various system designers and stakeholders embody, systems may appear to contain inefficiencies if viewed from any singular perspective. It's important to realize that this is not necessarily a bad thing. We are fortunate in that systems serve many stakeholders – in fact, that's why systems work at all. Well designed systems operate from principles of voluntary, incentive based exchange, and become more robust as they meet more needs of individual stakeholders.
Important to note is the idea that any stakeholder left out of the system design will modify the system to accommodate his, her or its needs. I call this the Stolen Penny Problem. Typically (although not always) a low status member of a system has some amount of value taken away by the system. That person or entity may then feel justified in recouping two pennies at the system's expense (the justification relies on the involuntary nature of the initial trade). This can, in turn, lead to another party in the system reacting even more harshly to the perception that two pennies have been stolen. In extreme cases, entire systems can cease to function from the exponential nature of the Stolen Penny problem.
Examples of this may be as simple as parents experiencing a disrespectful attitude or disobedience from a child after setting a curfew, management experiencing reduced productivity after instituting a policy of longer work hours, or, plants being relocated away from cities where the workers’ compensation system is habitually abused.
Since human systems themselves appear to be essentially without values, it becomes important that the inevitable impact of systems on people are carefully considered and designed for. This might take the form of allowing a child to stay up as late as he or she wants one night a week. It might take form as down time purposefully unaccounted for during shift changes to accommodate a wide range of diverse needs (including daycare arrangements, communication about new kinks in the machinery to be aware of, or good old-fashioned friction-easing gossip). Or it might look like ambiguity and flexibility deliberately engineered into bonus programs to allow for the possibility of rewarding unforeseen acheivements, or sick leave policies that appear “poorly defined” but are in fact left deliberately vague to allow for a variety of emergency family situations.
If human personality and individuality is not anticipated and appreciated, many stakeholders may end up dissatisfied and as a result the system will function poorly, creating unforeseeable negative repercussions in unexpected places. Excellent system design only occurs where all stakeholders have been included equally in the process and when the process is managed with wisdom and dignity. It may sometimes occur that managers, supervisors, parents or other high status individuals will expect that their views should be more completely adhered to or more thoughtfully considered during the design process, but this is in fact opposite to what intelligent design might recommend. Since higher status generally confers the ability to adjust the system after it is implemented, it is in fact the low status individuals, who will have less say in ongoing operation, whose views may wisely be more carefully considered during the design process, (so as not to introduce a Stolen Penny problem that can be extremely difficult to correct after implementation.)
In short, when we find systems difficult to change, it is because we have not understood the competing goals of all stakeholders. Very often we may not even be aware of all of the stakeholders to a system or how those parties provide their feedback.
Until this point, this has been largely a theoretical piece. In my next post, I’d like to consider some real world examples of systems – especially those with unacknowledged stakeholders operating through unaccounted-for communication channels.
I hope this post has some value in the continuing search for a better future. Please let me know if you find anything helpful, or if you have any suggestions.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Uncertainty
There’s an idea I was introduced to in my college humanities class; Tolerance for Ambiguity. One might say that almost every aspect of human life is ambiguous. The few areas that can be said to be least ambiguous might be mathematics and physics, but even those disciplines, with the rise of modern “M theory,” have areas sometimes referred to as “Murky” and “Magic” by their leading scientific proponents.
Politics is steeped in ambiguity. Climate change scientists will admit, that they have great chasms of uncertainty.
Those who search for certainty in religion are likewise left to dangle without firm foundation.
About the only thing that I can say with any confidence is that life seems to operate in a regular way. Apples fall down, electricity travels through wires, food is turned into energy, the sun rises and sets (or the world keeps on spinning). And while seeking knowledge is a noble activity, I am against a certain trait that exhibits itself in many who do the seeking...
It seems that unfounded certainty obscures clarity.
Socrates stated often that he knew nothing. If we look deeply enough, it appears that every field of human endeavor rests upon a mystery. It seems that every person who claims “ultimate knowledge,” has, within a few years had the theory struck down, revised, or thrown out altogether. In fact, the current theory of how the universe works is so completely complex, that if it were clearly mapped out, and the ultimate theory of the universe were spread in front of our most brilliant mathematicians, they would still not be able to intuitively comprehend the 11 dimensions, alternate universes and other weirdness within it. They would probably be able to work the equations, and maybe even get some useful understandings, but at the end of it all, it’s like an ant watching a square dance. The mind is probably not capable of conceiving 11 dimensions.
I think it is noble and good that our leading minds are trying to shed light on the deepest mysteries of our existence. I hope they do find a useful Theory of Everything. All I'm saying is this: In order to be truly honest, truly in integrity with our minds, our hearts, and our society, shouldn't we have the courage to admit what we do not know – even when it is at the very core of our being?
I’ve looked long and hard at society – and one of my only remaining beliefs is is that claiming certain knowledge leads to mistakes and sometimes to suffering. It is not ignorance that leads to suffering – far from it. Acknowledged ignorance can be a spur to our actions and a benefit to mankind. Unacknowledged ignorance, or wrong certainties that lead to pain and suffering.
Yes, we can drop an apple and be relatively certain it will fall to the floor. But we had best be absolutely certain, as physics teachers, that we’re not guilty of telling our students that we understand exactly why it happens. Let them know there are unanswered questions, or you may doom them to a life of arrogance and alienation to themselves as they proselytize through life. Our children are certain enough, already, without our adding to it. If you fear for their fragile egos, perhaps you haven’t heard what goes on in the halls between classes, they would probably welcome a bit of uncertainty and mystery in their studies as well.
And those of you who feel that certainty in education is the only way to fight the soothing balm of certainty some of those who have less integrity may offer, I say be cautious. If you don't want to be a hypocrite you mustn't step on the slippery slope. If the only way that you can entice minds away from the lulling effects of certainty is by artificially creating your own, you will certainly lose your sheep to the next peddler of placebos. Children are no more blind to contradictions than they are to the motivations of their teachers, or we are to the motivations of our leaders.
So say it with me, I don't know. We don't know. Maybe nobody knows. Who knows?
It should be hardly necessary to point out the inconsistencies and deep uncertainties in psychology, politics and economics but interestingly enough, that's where we find some of the most vehement proponents of certainty. If we can agree that science and religion have mysteries at their core, how much more obvious must it be that the foundations of the more complex “softer” sciences are also incomplete? Who has not seen the vehemence of two “colleagues” arguing over Freud versus Jung, Efficient Markets versus Random Walks, Marxism versus Capitalism? And what is obvious to less partial observers is that neither one is correct.
We just don't know. Say it with me: We just don’t know. Make it your mantra: I don’t know. Get comfortable with it: We just don’t know! Be happy about it: We just don’t know! Embrace the mystery, Who knows?! I don’t know. Revel in the possibility of it all. Teach your children. It’s freeing, it’s calming and it’s obvious. We just don’t know :)
Please forgive my pedantry! I guess I’ve become a little frustrated by the repeated claims of certainty and the endless search for the truth at the base of these claims. I suppose I’ve let my emotions run a little high. That’s okay, I’m human. It’s normal to be frustrated. And we often encounter people who want us to buy into their world view just so they have someone else to reinforce their certainty upon. We know, they're just lonely. Deep down, don’t we all know that’s what’s happening when we get into one of those arguments with a passionate believer? And haven’t most of us been guilty of being that true believer too? If you think back to the last time you were involved in one of those haranguing arguments, that smidgen of doubt you were trying to force out of the other person may have actually been inside of you all along.
So let me end with an apology. I realize that this has become a bit of a tirade. I have become guilty of the very thing I was railing about. I suppose that, if I’m honest with myself, in all of this trying to convince you that “we just don’t know,” perhaps there was a little bit of my own doubt that I was trying to convince out? Possibly I was trying to erase that nagging suspicion that maybe someone out there really does know.
Oh well, it's just one more uncertainty. I’ll learn to live with it. It’s kind of fun once you get used to it.
Politics is steeped in ambiguity. Climate change scientists will admit, that they have great chasms of uncertainty.
Those who search for certainty in religion are likewise left to dangle without firm foundation.
About the only thing that I can say with any confidence is that life seems to operate in a regular way. Apples fall down, electricity travels through wires, food is turned into energy, the sun rises and sets (or the world keeps on spinning). And while seeking knowledge is a noble activity, I am against a certain trait that exhibits itself in many who do the seeking...
It seems that unfounded certainty obscures clarity.
Socrates stated often that he knew nothing. If we look deeply enough, it appears that every field of human endeavor rests upon a mystery. It seems that every person who claims “ultimate knowledge,” has, within a few years had the theory struck down, revised, or thrown out altogether. In fact, the current theory of how the universe works is so completely complex, that if it were clearly mapped out, and the ultimate theory of the universe were spread in front of our most brilliant mathematicians, they would still not be able to intuitively comprehend the 11 dimensions, alternate universes and other weirdness within it. They would probably be able to work the equations, and maybe even get some useful understandings, but at the end of it all, it’s like an ant watching a square dance. The mind is probably not capable of conceiving 11 dimensions.
I think it is noble and good that our leading minds are trying to shed light on the deepest mysteries of our existence. I hope they do find a useful Theory of Everything. All I'm saying is this: In order to be truly honest, truly in integrity with our minds, our hearts, and our society, shouldn't we have the courage to admit what we do not know – even when it is at the very core of our being?
I’ve looked long and hard at society – and one of my only remaining beliefs is is that claiming certain knowledge leads to mistakes and sometimes to suffering. It is not ignorance that leads to suffering – far from it. Acknowledged ignorance can be a spur to our actions and a benefit to mankind. Unacknowledged ignorance, or wrong certainties that lead to pain and suffering.
Yes, we can drop an apple and be relatively certain it will fall to the floor. But we had best be absolutely certain, as physics teachers, that we’re not guilty of telling our students that we understand exactly why it happens. Let them know there are unanswered questions, or you may doom them to a life of arrogance and alienation to themselves as they proselytize through life. Our children are certain enough, already, without our adding to it. If you fear for their fragile egos, perhaps you haven’t heard what goes on in the halls between classes, they would probably welcome a bit of uncertainty and mystery in their studies as well.
And those of you who feel that certainty in education is the only way to fight the soothing balm of certainty some of those who have less integrity may offer, I say be cautious. If you don't want to be a hypocrite you mustn't step on the slippery slope. If the only way that you can entice minds away from the lulling effects of certainty is by artificially creating your own, you will certainly lose your sheep to the next peddler of placebos. Children are no more blind to contradictions than they are to the motivations of their teachers, or we are to the motivations of our leaders.
So say it with me, I don't know. We don't know. Maybe nobody knows. Who knows?
It should be hardly necessary to point out the inconsistencies and deep uncertainties in psychology, politics and economics but interestingly enough, that's where we find some of the most vehement proponents of certainty. If we can agree that science and religion have mysteries at their core, how much more obvious must it be that the foundations of the more complex “softer” sciences are also incomplete? Who has not seen the vehemence of two “colleagues” arguing over Freud versus Jung, Efficient Markets versus Random Walks, Marxism versus Capitalism? And what is obvious to less partial observers is that neither one is correct.
We just don't know. Say it with me: We just don’t know. Make it your mantra: I don’t know. Get comfortable with it: We just don’t know! Be happy about it: We just don’t know! Embrace the mystery, Who knows?! I don’t know. Revel in the possibility of it all. Teach your children. It’s freeing, it’s calming and it’s obvious. We just don’t know :)
Please forgive my pedantry! I guess I’ve become a little frustrated by the repeated claims of certainty and the endless search for the truth at the base of these claims. I suppose I’ve let my emotions run a little high. That’s okay, I’m human. It’s normal to be frustrated. And we often encounter people who want us to buy into their world view just so they have someone else to reinforce their certainty upon. We know, they're just lonely. Deep down, don’t we all know that’s what’s happening when we get into one of those arguments with a passionate believer? And haven’t most of us been guilty of being that true believer too? If you think back to the last time you were involved in one of those haranguing arguments, that smidgen of doubt you were trying to force out of the other person may have actually been inside of you all along.
So let me end with an apology. I realize that this has become a bit of a tirade. I have become guilty of the very thing I was railing about. I suppose that, if I’m honest with myself, in all of this trying to convince you that “we just don’t know,” perhaps there was a little bit of my own doubt that I was trying to convince out? Possibly I was trying to erase that nagging suspicion that maybe someone out there really does know.
Oh well, it's just one more uncertainty. I’ll learn to live with it. It’s kind of fun once you get used to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)