Certainty and Doubts, Hope and Faith

18 Guests, 0 Users

You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake. ~ Jeannette Rankin

Advanced search

Dilber MulticolorMarley TPSMF Default Theme -

[Michael]

Thanks for the conversation guys, and thanks for joining in Steven.  BTW, I really enjoyed your recent cat and dog writings in Balderville.

I've been drawn to join in the general conversation there occasionally, with one main question in mind.  But I don't have the time or energy to really engage in the way that such discourse requires.

The big question that stays with me still is simply this:  What is theory actually good for?  This conversation adds something to that...

I'm reminded of Robert Pirsig's statement about metaphysics being "a degenerate activity"  which I always thought amusing...

I came to the theory-game late in life, and took to it like a duck to orange sauce.  I remember when I first dove into the theories of evolution and relativity...  what fun that was!

What it gave me was a fab sense of understanding that seemed to wash through my whole being, filling me with meaning.  Nice.  It also gave me the wonderful illusion of control when I needed that.  It also gave me the sense that I was smarter than the average bear... 

But for me, being something of the garage mechanic type...theory could never really be much more than hypothesis.  In other words, provisional, innovative, improvisational...in a word: working.  When theory metamorphed, and aspired to such lofty realms as metaphysics, and universals, I found myself getting quite restless with the enterprise.

Hanging out with the brainchildren on IN in those early years certainly accelerated  the restlessness, and turned the lofty endeavor of Grand Universal Theorizing into a comic strip...

For non-scientist, non-academics, I really DO have to wonder what theory is actually good for?  In a healthy sense I mean.  The quest continues...

 

[jimtzu]

i've heard before and it's been my experience so far, "that theory is after the fact", that it's a way of developing a language to describe some thing or event.
the quote is usually applied to music theory, but it applies to theories in general. when applied in that manner of communicating what has happened it serves its purpose, depending on the theory of course, but when extrapolations are made based on the theory things get a little messy.  there are too many possiblities to account for and it turns into a subjective excercise
with egoic underpinnings, when taken too seriously.

when theory is used to describe music, the language (often more abstract than "normal language") used leads one a step away from the actual sounds that are heard.  the best way to experience what a theory describes is not to get lost in the theory but to actually witness the even itself.  theory is an abstraction, using language (another abstraction) of an actual event/being.   

[Michael]

Learning music in my youth was very much like what Mark Twain describes, in Life on the Mississippi, how the river lost its magic once he learned to navigate it as a riverboat pilot.  The depth of beauty and magic from the music of my childhood is apparently forever gone, replaced by a fascination with music theory, - chord relationship-structure etc...The theory replaced the simple encompassing beauty of the listening experience with the mental beauty of theory.  Then that appreciation faded too...

Dang.

Here's what Mark Twain wrote:

Now when I had mastered the language of this water and had come to know
every trifling feature that bordered the great river as familiarly as I
knew the letters of the alphabet, I had made a valuable acquisition.
But I had lost something, too. I had lost something which could never be
restored to me while I lived. All the grace, the beauty, the poetry had
gone out of the majestic river! I still keep in mind a certain wonderful
sunset which I witnessed when steamboating was new to me. A broad
expanse of the river was turned to blood; in the middle distance the red
hue brightened into gold, through which a solitary log came floating,
black and conspicuous; in one place a long, slanting mark lay sparkling
upon the water; in another the surface was broken by boiling, tumbling
rings, that were as many-tinted as an opal; where the ruddy flush was
faintest, was a smooth spot that was covered with graceful circles and
radiating lines, ever so delicately traced; the shore on our left was
densely wooded, and the somber shadow that fell from this forest was
broken in one place by a long, ruffled trail that shone like silver;
and high above the forest wall a clean-stemmed dead tree waved a single
leafy bough that glowed like a flame in the unobstructed splendor that
was flowing from the sun. There were graceful curves, reflected images,
woody heights, soft distances; and over the whole scene, far and near,
the dissolving lights drifted steadily, enriching it, every passing
moment, with new marvels of coloring.

I stood like one bewitched. I drank it in, in a speechless rapture. The
world was new to me, and I had never seen anything like this at home.
But as I have said, a day came when I began to cease from noting the
glories and the charms which the moon and the sun and the twilight
wrought upon the river's face; another day came when I ceased altogether
to note them. Then, if that sunset scene had been repeated, I should
have looked upon it without rapture, and should have commented upon it,
inwardly, after this fashion: This sun means that we are going to have
wind to-morrow; that floating log means that the river is rising, small
thanks to it; that slanting mark on the water refers to a bluff reef
which is going to kill somebody's steamboat one of these nights, if
it keeps on stretching out like that; those tumbling 'boils' show a
dissolving bar and a changing channel there; the lines and circles in
the slick water over yonder are a warning that that troublesome place is
shoaling up dangerously; that silver streak in the shadow of the forest
is the 'break' from a new snag, and he has located himself in the very
best place he could have found to fish for steamboats; that tall dead
tree, with a single living branch, is not going to last long, and
then how is a body ever going to get through this blind place at night
without the friendly old landmark.

No, the romance and the beauty were all gone from the river. All the
value any feature of it had for me now was the amount of usefulness it
could furnish toward compassing the safe piloting of a steamboat. Since
those days, I have pitied doctors from my heart. What does the lovely
flush in a beauty's cheek mean to a doctor but a 'break' that ripples
above some deadly disease. Are not all her visible charms sown thick
with what are to him the signs and symbols of hidden decay? Does he ever
see her beauty at all, or doesn't he simply view her professionally, and
comment upon her unwholesome condition all to himself? And doesn't he
sometimes wonder whether he has gained most or lost most by learning his
trade?

[Francis]

What good is a theory? It helps you reach goals. Have you ever heard of the theory that if you work and study hard and become a professional that you'll get a good job and have a comfortable life? This is just a theory! It doesn't always work, but thousands, I dare say millions of people use it every day to make their own life more comfortable and secure. There's another theory that indicates that if you put water instead of gasoline in your fuel tank that the car will not run. This is just a theory! It's not a fact until you try it and see what happens. It may have already happend to other people who tried it, but without the theory, you'd have no way of knowing what would happen when you tried it. Does this help?

[Michael]

Thanks.  See above about hypothesis.

[Francis]

 I agree with your point above, that all theories, no matter how well established, are more or less tentative. A hypothesis is a newborn or baby theory. Of course many of these are stillborn, and people often attempt to save its life anyway. In doing so, they may then  come up with a more viable version. A hypothesis has to go through some kind of validation process before it can be trusted. On the other hand, no theory should ever be trusted absolutely for all cases and situations. I like to think of it this way: A hypothesis should not be trusted, ever. A hypothesis remains a hypothesis until it has gone through some kind of validation process. After people are satisfied with its (limited) validity and start relying on it, it becomes a theory. The next important step in its life is finding its limits of applicability. This can happen accidentally or deliberately, and sometimes a limitation can even come to light during hypothetical validation.

["A Specific Type of Integrity"]

Exactly.

Now apply that thinking to universal theories, meta-theories, and integral theory in particular.

There has to be a validation test, (falsification criteria) and there are no adequate tests for integral theory.

Visser: "integral theory as meta-theory (or theory about  theories) should decide on what type of empirical evidence—if any—it  takes to falsify it."

More on falsification:
http://www.integralworld.net/visser26.html

"A Specific Type of Integrity"

Geoffrey Falk, an acerbic and "strong negative" Wilber critic who has written a book-length critique of Wilber, has approvingly and instructively quoted Richard Feynman, during the heyday of the Wilberian Evolution debate, of which I will for now spare you the messy details, on another issue related to Wilber's scientific credibility.

Feynman, physicist and Nobel prize winner, once famously speeched on the phenomenon of "cargo cult science"—"work that has the semblance of being scientific,  but is missing 'a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of  scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty.'" (See: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!)

Feynman described this integrity as a prime requirement for science:

[T]here is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult  science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying  science in school—we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope  that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It  is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it  explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of  scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind  of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not  only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly  explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated  by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other  fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
   
   Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it.

Now pay attention, for this is crucial:

If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out,  then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as  well as those that agree with it.

Feynman continues:

There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas  together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when  explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the  things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished  theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
   
   In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help  others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the  information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or  another....
   
 We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other  experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were  wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with  your theory. And, although  you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a  good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful  in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of  care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of  the research in cargo cult science. (emphasis added)

So different from the rhetoric of "the evidence is overwhelming", which Wilber so frequently deploys.

And since Ken Wilber is so much into popularizationm these days,  this further comment from Feynman is good to take note of as well:

I would like to add something that's not essential to  the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should  not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying  to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your  girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a  scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave  those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm  talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying,  but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you  ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. (emphasis added)

This is a quality that I have found consistently to be lacking in  Wilber's writings, increasingly so in his more recent ones. Wilber's  current prose has the quality of a sales manager, who tries to sell his  theories/products to as many students and lay people as possible,  abundantly praising the benefits of his model, but rarely if every  going into the thorny matter of its validity.

Not to mention, facing the all-important question: what  possible criticism could be levelled against it? And second best: what  criticism has already been levelled against it?

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. ~ Mark Twain
 

[Francis]

Now apply that thinking to universal theories, meta-theories, and integral theory in particular.

I'd be happy to try, but I need a concise formulation of an integral (or other universal) theory. I'm very confused about what Wilber's integral theory is espousing. I don't see how it's a meta-theory. My impression is that it's not even a theory but more like a daydream.

[Francis]

Integral theory
Integral theory is a term often used to describe the teachings and work of the American writer Ken Wilber, referring either to the synthesis of different perspectives and methodologies, or to his own "AQAL" theory. More recently, the term has been adopted by Hungarian systems theorist Ervin László in a scientific context.
Wilber's Integral theory
Although Wilber originally spoke of Integral theory in terms of a synthesis of different methodologies that can be used in the study of consciousness, "Integral theory later came to be considered synonymous with "AQAL". AQAL refers to "All quadrants, all levels", and equally connotes "all lines, all states, all types".
AQAL: "All Quadrants All Levels"
AQAL represents the core of Wilber's work. AQAL stands for "all quadrants all levels", but equally connotes 'all lines', 'all states' and 'all types'. These are the five irreducible categories of Wilber's model of manifest existence. In order for an account of the Kosmos to be complete, Wilber believes that it must include each of these five categories. For Wilber, only such an account can be accurately called "integral." In the essay, "Excerpt C: The Ways We Are in This Together", Wilber describes AQAL as "one suggested architecture of the Kosmos".
All of Wilber's AQAL categories — quadrants, lines, levels, states, and types—relate to relative truth in the two truths doctrine of Buddhism, to which he subscribes. According to Wilber, none of them are true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness, "the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.
An account or theory is said to be AQAL, and thus integral (inclusive or comprehensive), if it accounts for or makes reference to all four quadrants and four major levels in Wilber's ontological scheme. ~ Wiki

Clearly we have an arbitrary set of categories (i.e. 'none of them are true in an absolute sense'). I don't see a theory here. What I see is a thesis: more comprehensive approaches are better. Is this news? 

[Michael]

Ken Wilber's Twenty Tenets

Presenting on the second of the four conference topics, cross-domain patterns of evolution, the self-described generalist and President of Esalen, George Leonard, gave an overview of philosopher Ken Wilber’s Twenty Tenets of evolution (from his book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, 1995 Shambhala).

Ken Wilber’s Twenty Tenets are:

1. Reality is not composed of things or processes, but of holons, which are wholes that are simultaneously parts.
2. Holons display four fundamental capacities:
a. self-preservation (agency)
b. self-adaptation (communion)
c. self-transcendence
d. self-dissolution
3. Holons emerge.
4. Holons emerge holarchically.
5. Each holon transcends and includes its predecessors.
6. The lower sets the possibilities of the higher; the higher sets the probabilities of the lower.
7. The number of levels which a hierarchy comprises determines whether it is ‘shallow’ or ‘deep;’ and the number of holons on any given level we shall call its ‘span.’
8. Each successive level of evolution produces greater depth and less span.
9. Destroy any type of holon, and you will destroy all of the holons above it and none of the holons below it.
10. Holarchies co-evolve. The micro is always within the macro (all agency is agency in communion).
11. The micro is in relational exchange with macro at all levels of its depth.
12. Evolution has directionality:
a. increasing complexity.
b. increasing differentiation/integration.
c. increasing organization/structuration.
d. increasing relative autonomy.
e. increasing telos.

According to Wilber, the Twenty Tenets are an attempt to summarize and draw some basic conclusions from dynamic systems theory and the contemporary evolutionary sciences. Calling them "tendencies of evolution" or "propensities of manifestation," the Twenty Tenets operate throughout the three great domains of evolution: the physiosphere, the biosphere, and the noosphere (or matter, life, and mind).

[Francis]

According to Wilber, the Twenty Tenets are an attempt to summarize and draw some basic conclusions from dynamic systems theory and the contemporary evolutionary sciences.

Summaries and conclusions are distinct from theory. This set represents an arbitrary group of conclusions, framed in an awkward set of obscure terms. I find this list of conclusions utterly useless and I've never seen anyone use any of these 20 formulations for any practical purpose.

[Francis]

Reality is not composed of things or processes, but of holons, which are wholes that are simultaneously parts.

So a holon is not a thing or a process. But wholes and parts are both things. The relationship between a whole and its parts is always some kind of process. And the four attributes are all processes:

a. self-preservation (agency)
b. self-adaptation (communion)
c. self-transcendence
d. self-dissolution

A holon is a set of processes. But if all things are connected at the deepest level, perhaps all processes are really just one process.

[Jana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_iYoGRhjUw&feature=related  —Integral Sustainable Renaissance man mentions Ken Wilber.  Peak moment TV
www.cascadiatraining.com/ —Cascadia Training & Mediation was founded by Alan Seid & Tricia King in 2004, to provide empowering, sustainability-related workshops, classes and seminars.

[Nickeson]

But if all things are connected at the deepest level, perhaps all processes are really just one process.

One doesn't need to look real closely to notice that everything is connected at the surface too. On taking note of that one has to realize that most of the civilians of Integral Province have never looked at the world at all, or put any credibility in their perceptions if they have. Otherwise why would they have spent so much time and money on studying maps when the territory will tell them everything they will ever need to know.

[Francis]

The holon is a dumb concept because of the contradiction in its definiton. This concept has a design, deliberately or not, that is logically slippery. The modern word is "fuzzy" but this goes beyond fuzzy all the way to complete contradiction and such a concept undermines logic.

Of course this is much like the wave particle duality* that was a paradox in classical physics and was addressed in quantum theory by compartmentalization. Some people did suggest that the world was composed of "not particles, not waves, but 'wavicles'.." does this sound at all familiar? Anyway the hybrid concept was found to be unuseful. What they did was divide the world into wave-reality (Young's double slit, Debroglie waves, etc.) and particle reality (Photovoltaic effect, ionization, etc) This was a highly controversial and dubious step that left Einstein, et al in a tizzy. They wanted to unify, not divide. One pattern fits all, according to the unify crowd. Schroedingers box was sealed until you opened it, collapsed the wave-function and saw which reality you're dealing with. The point being that a definitive map was not possible in this new approach. You could only give probabilities of what you'd find in the territory and you had to go there to see it if you wanted to know. Like Nick says.

A [mapped] quantum state is a superposition of other [territory] quantum states, for instance, the spin states of an electron. [The map consists of a hybrid of all the possbile spin states and the territory is only one spin state. That is, whichever one is actually observed in the experiment.] In the Copenhagen interpretation, the superposition of [territory] states was described by a wave function [i.e.map], and the wave function collapse [i.e. measurement] was given the name decoherence. Today, the decoherence program studies quantum correlations between the states of a quantum system and its environment. But the original sense remains, decoherence refers to the untangling of [mapped] quantum states to produce a single macroscopic reality [i.e. territory] ~ wiki

*The wave–particle duality is the concept that matter and energy sometimes exhibit wave-like and other times exhibit particle-like properties, depending on the experimental conditions.