Pursuing praxis

In writing my paper today, I wrote out some useful, apparent parallels in modes of thinking. They are brash, rampant dichotomies that beg for de-dichotomization, but I wrote them nonetheless. Because this is my blog, and it appears that most people here are either spammers, google touch-n-go’ers, or lurkers, I will thus dichotomize and speculate with impugnity.

Here are the opposing pairs I came up with: (Note: analytic and synthetic are general descriptors; I’m not referring to particular schools of thought. Rather, these pairings came up in the context of advocates of non-rational theology; that is, irrationalism and other icky variants; I tried to give them a fair airing, a charitable viewing.)

Analytic  -  Synthetic
Rational  -  Irrational / a-rational
Divisible  -  Indivisible
Reductionistic -  Wholistic
Particulate - Unitary/Unifying
Logic  -   ???????

The first is the main polarizing pair. The middle pairs are simply descriptive. The last pair is method. I couldn’t think of what method one can use to skip right to the wholeness of things other than passive experience, which is not knowledge and which is, at any rate, possible also to the Analytic column. I considered a deduction/induction dichotomy, but logic and analysis are not contradictory with induction, although deduction seems more contradictory to the synthetic viewpoint. I set a high bar for the title of Objective Knowledge. I reject mere assertion, no matter how persuasive, bombastic, detailed, or outlandishly possible. I also reject arbitrariness, whim, feeling, and other forms of subjectivism. Still, I can’t think of a Synthetic method - valid or proposed - that sets out rules for knowledge.

Aha. Rules. Do we need rules? What is their value? Why are we so fixated on them? Do they do us any good? Do they do us any harm?

Given the garbage our minds are so adept at collecting, I am convinced of the value of rules. Of course, good rules and bad rules produce wildly different results. The question boils down to, I think, how much garbage are you willing to store, in the hopes of finding a diamond? Moreover, is it that kind of sliding probability? Or is there a shortcut, a truly beautiful solution, where we can virtually eliminate all garbage, while amassing diamonds like mad? And not just lots, but all possible diamonds? That is the holy grail of epistemology, I think.

The question is, where are we at now? And how do you know ahead of time what that best possible solution is? Do you just have to stumble upon it? My mind rebels against that answer. If such a solution exists and we are capable of knowing it, there must be clues, or observable trends that we have access to. From these trends, we either follow the method and acquire new content, or amplify the rate of the method (i.e. do things faster) for more of the same kind of content, so that we come across more diamonds. I’m a fan of the former, though I’m not sure what exactly it means, what it entails practically, so that I can go out and try it.

A lovely pithy sign in today’s coffee shop:

Men, coffee and chocolate - the richer, the better.

Ha.

But don’t get me wrong.

I was recently asked what the purpose is of my life. Generally speaking:

The purpose of my life is the pursuit of a noble goal, one which ultimately furthers, extends, maintains, preserves and nourishes my life. I have picked what I perceive to be the noblest goal available to me, given my talents and the particularities of my time and place in history. To that extent, my goal is rational, realistic, and achievable.

If that is the case, isn’t the highest goal possible - the one that best extends and preserves and nourishes my life - more life? That is, mental and bodily immortality?

Yes.

Is that what I’m working for? Yes, in a way. But not directly. As in, I don’t work in the science of aging, cryogenetics, or gerontology. That’s not where my talents lie (see above), nor do I always consider the most obvious or immediately direct route to be, in the very longest run, the best route. To be fully efficacious, the science of preserving and extending human life must have the appropriate tools (cognitive and technological) at its disposal, and the final application of these technologies are only acceptable in an objectively moral society, which we do not have. Thus, I see myself working on the philosophical and scientific foundations that properly enable the ultimate goal. As a friend says, "begin at the beginning."

Do I expect to reap the rewards of all this myself? If you mean, do I think I’ll achieve immortality, of course the answer is no. We’re far too removed from that end point for me to even entertain the idea that I might live past 120 years. So then why do I do what I do?

Because I expect to reap partial rewards of this goal along the way. Even if I do not live forever - even if I die tomorrow - I will be (and am) satisfied and fulfilled with my life, every step along the way, because I am spending my life in pursuit of a noble goal. The knowledge that I am participating in something I immeasurably value pays spiritual dividends every second, whether I reach my destination or not. This is sufficient in itself.

Whether I live on through my work does not make any actual difference to me when I am gone. That is part and parcel of being dead; no reflection, no what-ifs, no regrets, no wandering souls and dissatisfied spirits. Lights out. Gone. But this is not sufficient reason to not look beyond the stretch of your own life. Truly great goals, like great problems in math, do not often come within reach in a single human lifetime. But you can’t tear people away, once they’re on the trail. The prize is too big not to try, and try hard.

If I have done a good job throughout my life, even while ultimately falling short of my goal, perhaps I will have done well enough such that I enable someone else to reach the finish line ahead of me. If I am still alive, this benefits me immeasurably more than if I had hoarded my knowledge, kept my advancements to myself, to spite or trump my competitors. (Another reason to do public science, though properly). If I am no longer alive, then it doesn’t actually matter to me, whether someone reaches the goal instead of me. Plus I will still stand a chance at being cognitively immortalized as one of the great stepping stones on the way to the ultimate goal. All historical heroes are such stepping stones.

But this is not my primary motivation. My life now is, and moment to moment, it is abundantly worthwhile.

[Do you know the meaning of Aristotle’s name? From the Greek name Αριστοτελης (Aristoteles) which meant "the best purpose", derived from αριστος (aristos) "best" and τελος (telos) "purpose, aim".]

[Addendum 11/5/06: "Life" in terms of human life and my life means much more than physical subsistence or continued biological survival. That’s implicit in much of the above, but I muddled it on a couple of counts. Provided one has the reason, means and motivation to continue living, more life is a worthwhile goal. In the absence of reason to live, and the spiritual rewards of that reason, bodily subsistence is no life at all for the conceptual creature that is Man.]