At asked:
>Does it mean that something is real as a result of culture? In other
>words, outside a culture something is not real?
And Arun Tripathi quoted in LO23297
>A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as
>if it is real, so he escapes the suffering. --Buddha (B.C. 568-488)
What is real? This is a slight bending of At's question, and I think he
has a more subtle question in mind. But I think this question may be
interesting here on LO.
I think it's a Yogi Berra quote, "Reality is not all it's cracked up to
be!" ...and in some ways this question is "Deja-vu all over again."
IS THERE A "REALITY"?
I'm trained as a scientist and a rigorous analyst, and I am not a
particularly religious person. I have rarely been able to struggle through
the great philosophers.
In my pursuit of "What does it take to be really effective in the world?"
I have continually come across the tension between:
1. Science seems to determine what is real... and
2. If there is an objective reality that transcends our fallible
perception and experience, it doesn't matter to us: we have no way to have
contact with it. The reality we have is constructed in a social process.
Point (1) is empirical; we have made great practical strides with science,
and the accomplishments are tangible. We have computers, cell phones, and
man has been to the moon; these can't be faked. Our common discourse
frequently includes statements like "Scientists have found..."
Point (2) comes up over and over again. It comes from the spiritual domain
(e.g., Arun's quote), from philosophy, and now from science (Maturana's
biology of cognition).
But, when we ask Maturana how science makes progress, how different
observers reach the same conclusions, he replies, "Ah, but there is
coherence in human experience!"
A PROPOSAL
I have a proposal and a grand question.
The proposal is simple:
- If there is an objective reality that transcends our fallible
perception and experience, we cannot contact it. Each person
experiences a (potentially) different reality.
- But, there is coherence in human experiences. Newton invented the
way of knowing we now call science. Scientists study these coherences
and create explanations (theories).
- When the process converges, this becomes a "scientific
explanation," or a "generally accepted theory." In popular language,
we call this "reality."
- In rigorous language, it's not meaningful to talk about "reality."
Maturana introduces the notion of "reality in parentheses" to keep
reminding us of the point.
APPROPRIATING CONSTRUCTS FROM ONE FIELD TO ANOTHER
Consider the complaints about taking theories from physical science and
applying them in social/organizational settings. I think that the basis of
the complaint is a line of thinking, "Mass, momentum, gravity, pressure,
entropy... those are REAL things in the physical domain; when we move to
the the human domain, they are only metaphors, not real."
Well, I don't think they are real in the physical domain either. If we ask
what's really happening, the constructs above aren't so "real", viz:
- A body in motion tends to stay in motion, we attribute this to mass
and call it momentum. In popular thought, mass is so obvious we treat it
as real.
- A body tends to fall to earth. We call this gravity. To Newton it
seemed logical that gravity would go as the inverse square of distance,
this breakthrough explained a LOT, so mass and gravity became
well-accepted theories. In popular thought, mass and gravity are reality
in the domain of physical objects.
- Molecules are in motion and bump into each other. Molecules of gas
bump into the walls of a container. If not strong enough, the container
gives way. We call this pressure. The Gas Law is well accepted scientific
theory. In popular thought, we say that pressure is real for gasses.
- There is a one-way arrow of time. Many phenomena are not reversible.
If we release some gas in a room, it quickly disperses throughout the
room. We invent the concepts of partial pressure and entropy, and the 2nd
Law of Thermodynamics seems to explain a lot. In popular terms, entropy is
real for physical things, but it's something that humans made up to
explain the coherence of their experience.
The ultimate example:
- In observing the world, length, mass, and time seem like fundamental
elements of reality. But, Einstein, through a brilliant thought
experiment, concluded it would be a more elegant theory to suppose that
length and time could contract and expand and that mass might be
transformable to energy. Now, with atomic physics, space travel, and super
accurate atomic clocks, we find that length, mass and time can contract
and expand... "Reality is not all that it's cracked up to be!"
Conclusion: Mass, momentum, gravity, pressure, entropy are human
constructs we have created to explain our reality. They are reliable and
explain physical reality pretty well. (Anyone doubting gravity in the
domain of physical objects is invited to take the open window test...)
But, if "real" means they come from the domain and not from human
observers of phenomena in the domain, then they are not "real."
MY PROPOSAL AND A GRAND QUESTION
So, the gist of my proposal:
- Each person experiences a different reality
- We study the coherence and repeatability of experience and produce theories
- When the process converges, we have a properly "accepted scientific
theory." In the popular language, I suspect this will still be called
"reality."
That is, if there is an objective reality that transcends the fallibility
of human perception and experience, we cannot contact it. But, we can
approach closer and closer as Newton's grand method of knowing (i.e., the
scientific method) converges more and more closely on richer and richer
explanations that enable us to do things we want to do.
This reconciliation of the opposing views (1) and (2) above seems so
workable to me... It's practical, when the process converges we can say we
understand something. Usually, convergence enables us to do practical
things (computers, cell phones, man on the moon, etc.). When it does not
converge, we have to admit we don't know.
My grand question: Why isn't this the resolution for spiritualists,
philosophers, scientists, and public thinkers troubled by the tension
between (1) and (2)?
-=- Rick
--Richard Karash ("Rick") | <http://world.std.com/~rkarash> Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer | mailto:Richard@Karash.com "Towards learning organizations" | Host for Learning-Org Discussion (617)227-0106, fax (617)523-3839 | <http://www.learning-org.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>