Where do we think humanity is headed? Whatever this is now, is definitely unsustainable. An anthropocentric ontology trickles down as power hierarchies in all levels of human-manifested structure. Consuming fiction is the primary mode of existence, and the sense of the self is like an image that one sees on a screen. The TV is filled with imagery of a happier ending than the state of the world right now, and many would go far enough to say that the state of affairs resemble their cultural images of Kalyug or the end of a cycle. So wherever humanity is headed, whether it be space exploration, a society of enlightened individuals, peaceful co-existence with aquatic life and wild animals, humans enhancing inter- and intra- biological species communication or manipulating the atmosphere of other planets, it is safe to say whatever we are, we are far from having reached a saturation.
Some moments of clarity have shown pathways of downward manifestation from the Platonic ideal of a Revolution. Upon contemplating further the ‘finger’ that I raised upon blaming media for misusing statistics to replace a known unknown with an unknown defined purely symbolically such that it gets its meaning from the differential power structure around them, I realized I need to expound this problem.
When we are thinking consciously, we sometimes manipulate words in a stream of inner chatter, and sometimes images and emotions in the minds eye. Clearly, different modes of thinking use different energy, and have their own areas of applicability, but purposeful thinking has a well defined motive, successful manipulation of something physical external to the sense of self. The term successful is defined on a personal basis, however the existence of succeeding and failing is still an objective truth once the intentions are made clear prior to the implementation of a decision.
Now, let us see an example of how language, and thus the inner voice has changed over the years to represent different things. Consider ‘electrons’. Classically it referred to a physical entity with reproducible empirical repercussions, and now stands formalized as a purely mathematically defined object (some representation of the Poincare group). Is that fair? Why are we forced to believe that mathematically defined objects can be equated with something in nature? If this is not religious dogma, then what is? Replacing a physical singularity with words, and then replacing words with other words, then using the words to normalize reactions towards the physical.
But this is how one uses language, right? You have infinitude of experience and only a finite set of words, of course this will happen, so pigeon hole principle condemns us to many to one mapping of words and meanings. If we are irritated, we can propose that all of science should be formalized mathematically, or we say that theorists build a new vocabulary accompanied by a dictionary. Of course, this is very far from the point that I want to make, after all we are talking about a real revolution!
What is the point of media? Any self-organizing structure works on feedback loops, the basic principle of which is reflecting on the current state to determine the next strategy. This makes it very easy to then guess what the point of media is, to report current affairs and broadcast rational and scientific forecasts. The hope is that this report then informs the citizens, which then act in their best interests and that updates the media report again.
The above strategy only works however, if the citizens are equipped with the right set of cognitive tools which at least generate the conceptual structure in which they operate on a daily basis. However, we are a decadent society that loves abstraction! We bracket all the messy details, and thus create a feedback loop of specialized technology and intellectual retardation.
This is my problem with media, science and education as it is right now. If there is going to be a revolution, it better hit the three of them simultaneously.