Very good read about the provisional nature of our social constructs. Correct me (or not) about some of the assumptions that you (Caitlin) and I seem to have in common:

We more or less subscribe to the 'hard' version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (linguistic relativity), that logic and language determine our reality as much as describe it. Mathematical models or literary metaphors, I tend to think of it as a necessary lens through which we observe the world and self. Both the world and self, to some degree, are social constructs determined by that lens.

All language and logic is fundamentally metaphorical in origin, and 'real' only in provisional situations. Linear logic has its ceiling … as pointed to through Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, Wittgenstein's Ladder, the 'mystic epiphanies' found in traditional religion (Satori, Nirvana, Born Again) or extremes of the aesthetic experience. Narratives are necessary for the practicalities of the social primate and sustainable communities, but when it comes down to it, we never ask whether a particular melody is ’true’ or ‘false’. It either moves us, or it doesn’t. Similarly, narratives either sustain us, or they don’t … depending on who is included among ‘us’.

Pyschoactives have been of a help since the dawn of man, but more useful in the hands of he witch-doctors, priestesses, and artists (as therapists) who spend years learning the discipline of their role in the community ... not some random kid dropping acid or taking ecstasy without the background to put that experience into a context of any use to the community ... particularly to help the marginalized.

We all have the potential to catch a glimpse of what lies beneath our narratives, but varying degrees of capacity to bring that experience back up to a communicable level to express it. Even then, we run across Nietzsche's question of what would someone hear if we had experienced something the listener hadn't, and tried to express it? All they would hear is a cognitive vacuum.

Once we go beyond the immediately practical and provisional, even the 'hard' sciences have their logical limits. Without Einstein, we would not be able to make the fine adjustments necessary for practical GPS tracking, much less make a nuclear device. But when we push a paradigm's envelope, we have more questions and only proposed models for the 'beyond' ... what was 'before' the big bang? Does it make sense to even ask if anything can be smaller than a planck unit? What’s ‘inside’ a black hole? And through ‘spooky action at a distance’, even the most fundamental assumption of science, cause-effect, breaks down. Bertrand Russell’s mocking rebuke of the religious metaphysical metaphor of ’Turtles, all the way down.’ turns out to be just as true for science.

There may be a point where we might differ, and only say ‘might’ because there are only so many hours in a day to explain ourselves … Can we collectively progress as a species? Maybe. If historically, our Tower-of-Babble’ (pun intended) empires periodically collapse under the weight of their own corruption, there may be a counterpart in an equal number of ‘enlightenments’ … or perhaps parallel, local communal responses to the empire. Ha. That Lucas-Joseph Campbell collaboration of ‘Star Wars’.

I don’t know if we can collectively ‘awaken’ because there is at least one level of our mandelbrot set that grounds us. We are social primates. We are born, not as angels, but as ‘little monkeys’, fully dependent on parents. Another less pleasant way to put it, is before the social maturation process begins, we share the same traits as dark-triad personality types … the pathological narcissists, machiavellian opportunists, and morphologically defined psychopaths among us. It is through the natural growth process, good parenting, education as fostering that growth process, and the luck of the genetic draw through which we may become fully mature social primates (collaborative, critical-thinking, empathy-driven problem solvers) as opposed to remaining a dark-triad type (Susan Sontag’s ‘cruel 10% of any population’). Interestingly, if large groups of people can be thought of as having a collective personality, that large group is also more likely to resemble a dark-triad personality type rather than an altruist.

I am not a scientific-quant reductionist, but I do believe we have some biological constraints and capabilities as social primates. It is when we become herded/herding primates that I think we both agree all hell, periodically and predictably, breaks loose.

At the moment, I think some of the more salient variables include those high in dark-triad traits mentioned earlier, the majority who fall too easily into the camp of Francis Bacon’s ‘Four Idols of the Mind’ (common errors of thinking), the few altruists at the other end of a bell-curve for morality, and the limits of scale and empathy … particularly the moral implications of exceeding Dunbar’s number. JMHO.

Thanks for the great post Caitlin! It is a tribute to your post that a lot of readers' comments are good reads in themselves.

Cheers from Japan