Ever have one of those insights that seems so fundamentally right that knowledge comes before the ability for explanation? I think I had one of those today.
Everything in American society (I can only speak for America after all); the problems, the advances, everything, occurs in direct relation to the social structures and interactions in this nation. And our social situation has somehow erroneously left behind the balance of linear and parallel computation for an artificial “pure linear” computational existence.
Let me explain that last term as I see it. In the world of computation, there are 2 main forms, linearism and parallelism. Linearism is the method by which our computers so efficiently crunch numbers and process all that information for our use, using 1’s and 0’s (on/off, yes/no, etc), while parallelism is the method by which multiple inputs and outputs are utilized simultaneously. The former is the best means of isolating and determining the solution to set problems, while the latter is the means by which we arrive at an infinite number of degrees of “maybe”, and occurs on a subatomic (quantum) level, where math breaks down and reality defies our comprehension.
Even in this modern era of technology and science, we are completely unable to adequately describe the physical world on its own terms. We use mathematics as an approximation, but when it becomes useless, we can do nothing but idly watch the unknown with ignorant eyes.
Example one: microcosmic –On the atomic level, we lose all sense of realistic description. We cannot, for example, determine both the position and direction of an atom. When we know one for sure, the other is lost completely. We can choose to learn both on some intermediate level, but this is the best that we can do. Furthermore, it has been ultimately decided that this is the best that can be done. Adding to this confusion is “particle/wave duality”. Basically this idea states that an atom exists simultaneously in two states, that of a particle (with the physical properties and reactions of a particle), and that of a wave (with its associated qualities). Only when we observe atoms to they finally assume a definite property (“collapse of the wave function”). Further compounding this issue is the fact that the atom seems to know which properties we wish to see, and assumes those which reflect our experimental endeavors. When we wish to see particles, we get particles; when we wish to see waves, that’s what we get.
Example two: macrocosmic –Theories on the origins of the universe are all the rage. Of these, the Big Bang theory easily topples all others and has attained the ultimate (dogmatic?) supremacy over the collective mind of physical science. This is the theory we are all at least somewhat acquainted with; at the beginning of time the universe consisted of a super-dense singularity that exploded out to create all that we see today as the universe. This theory does seem to make sense, but there are all kinds of problems with it that “popular” science tends to disregard, such as the necessity of frequent additions of unobservable phenomena (such as dark matter) and inappropriate time frames (for the congregation of mass amounts of matter), and its inability to predict observable reality. In most forms of science, this compilation of inadequacies is more than enough to, if not discredit entirely, at least open opportunity for other scientific theories. Not so with the Big Bang. But that is another story.
The point of both of these examples is that our best scientists and mathematicians, at a certain level, must ultimately admit that they have no clue as to the nature of reality. Their equations are useless; their computations irrelevant. But this also shows something else; we are, for some reason, driven to act in this linear fashion. Using pure binary logic, we attempt to solve the problems of the universe and our daily lives. The fact that every attempt to explain (and by extension, solve) these sorts of problems in this way has resulted in at least as many problems as solutions has seemed to completely escape our notice.
If you have made it this far, congratulations. So far, you likely only think of me as an ignorant fool, but I will improve my status shortly, because I also intend to enrage many. This process we are examining of linear computation, I believe, is half of a computational whole granted to mankind by evolution; but, somewhat enigmatically, the processes of evolution worked to deprive mankind of the second half of the whole. This should be clarified. Evolution eliminates limitation, so eventually mankind can hope to shed itself of this one. The history of the evolution of man (itself an item that should be debated much more thoroughly than at present) is a long series of improvements on our species. The primary factors have remained more or less stable, and have been improved upon over time. These factors are mainly the separation of the species into male and female and the dispersion of evolutionary improvements given to each. In most respects this has been done on a completely equal basis. But in others, one or the other has advantage. In a world without abstract or complex thought, nature could do this without creating chaos, since various strengths were determined by nature to compliment each other and abstractions simply did not exist to impede this process. But for whatever purpose, mother nature decided to add a complex brain into the mix. This is where the fecal matter hits the fan.
Unfortunately for mother nature’s delicately balanced system of strengths and weaknesses, the brain offset the whole thing. From the very beginning, men were larger and stronger. Additionally, their thought processes were more linear in comparison to the female’s more parallel method of reasoning. By sheer force men were able to impose their view of reality (with their newly acquired brains) and impede that of the female. This was never done in nature before this time, since the lower life forms primarily concern themselves with the immediate needs of survival (find a log to sleep under, eat a leaf, have sex, take a nap), and simply did not have the neurons to contemplate abstract thoughts and complex ideas (for example, possible different futures). It was with the development of the advanced human brain that mankind began to exist in a manner not conducive to nature. If I didn’t know better I would say that our brains were artificially added to the mix. It simply does too much to undermine the processes of natural evolution.
With physical strength, men began to impose a reality conducive exclusively to their mental strengths (that of linear computation), which is just as vital as parallel computation, but incomplete in itself. This inevitably created imbalance in the social structure, and by extension the social evolution of mankind.
How has this affected us today? I have many theories. We have embraced the legitimate advantages of capitalism but fail completely to understand the consequences of our actions when taken to undue extremes. We form corporations that extract all conceivable resources, congregate them to a centrally localized area, and distribute them back to the actual people that extracted it in the first place (for a fee), and have by so doing robbed entire countries of their natural wealth and individuals of both property and self-sufficiency. We have in one mighty stroke by means of the corporate entity relegated nations into perpetual third-world status and extended the abyss between rich and poor to preposterous numbers. These giants have more physical, financial, and political power than any group of people could ever hope to acquire. All of this is a result of pure linear thinking philosophies. It is easy to see that linear thought, with its superior ability to spot and solve the biggest problem with the most efficiency is necessary. It is the means by which things are provided. But by taking and taking without regard to consequences, we have become less like an advanced species and more like a virus that simply consumes its host until both virus and host die. Debate all you want. Whether it’s a hundred years or ten-thousand, we are taking more than we put back and at some point that will have dire consequences. Such is the result of this isolation of half of our natural computational process. So what about that “other” computational device? What about parallelism?
Seemingly unrelated to the above-mentioned situation are some underlying social issues that are compounding exponentially right under our noses. In this world dominated by the male linear computational pattern, it was established very early that the only way to succeed in society was to adopt this philosophy of linearism. For this reason, women were forced very early on to adapt and in many cases abandon their own natural strengths in order to survive in this lopsided reality. After many, many years of struggle, women are finally to the point to where they can get an equal education and have an equal voice in society. But who’s on the parallel side of the equation now? Nobody.
Linear thought requires a problem x and an answer y, which is determined as a yes/no solution to a concrete problem. It is very easy to measure, and therefore easy to provide the means of competition, which is the driving factor in all natural processes. It is not so easy to measure the success or failure of the parallel side of the equation because the answers are not so concrete, and in many cases are not manifest all at once, but cumulatively. To use a linear analogy, imagine a man with a 100 million dollars. He’s rich and successful. If he balances his spending with his income, he will continue to be so. But if he simply spends and spends based solely on what he wants, needs, or wishes to improve, that bank balance is going to begin to drop. He won’t notice it until its too late and all will be lost.
The family unit is the “income” of society. This is the little engine that creates wealth and success. It generates future growth in the form of offspring while simultaneously generating present-day wealth by means of production, invention, and communication. It hedges itself against the ills of society with its cohesiveness, and instills a sense of intimate belonging to all that are in membership, providing financial, mental, and emotional support throughout life. This is the responsibility that is to accompany the productivity of society. Without it what happens? Just look around; more crime, more violence, complete lack of morality, homelessness, isolation of the elderly, and government interventionalism to boot (to provide the proverbial ‘band-aid’ to the gaping wound). We are witnessing the beginning of the end. It only seems like a minor problem from a macrocosmic standpoint, but this is the way societies fall.
I am not the first to identify the family unit as the backbone of the nation. Long before I was born, this nation decided that it would encourage the creation and maintenance of the family unit by means of legislation. This is why people who are married get tax benefits. Married people who stay together create more stable households for the raising of contributing citizens, reducing crime, and increasing morality and sense of responsibility. Additionally, sense of community is much easier to establish between family units than between individuals. These are facts. And this is why this legislation was put in place. America could see the growing trend of divorce and broken homes. The more visionary could also see the coming onslaught of crime and violence. So the government used the only means at its disposal to increase the probability that people would get married and stay that way; by subsidizing it. But the problem persisted because we ignored the actual problem. We would fund marriage and family, but as a society still would not acknowledge the importance of the feminine aspect of the family unit.
So divorce rates continued to rise. Single mothers had to find a way to compete in a male dominated workplace, and society changed forever. Now our children are raised by “daycare” and television while single mothers work in many cases day and night just to pay bills and do everything in the realm of human ability to ensure the safety and welfare of their children only to have them, in many cases, wind up in prison, dead, or themselves parents at far too young an age (which has its own drawbacks for their children, further adding to the cycle of societal entropy). We attempt to correct this with things like “child support”, which is usually as adequate a term as “Social Security” is for retirees. Children need two parents. Our economy needs two parents. Without the family unit, America is doomed to eventual and utter failure. Our entire existence was fundamentally intertwined with this fact. Now its 2004 and all this has been forgotten. States left and right are working toward “gay marriage” and gay and lesbian Catholics are demanding Communion. What has the world come to? It is not enough that I accept your lifestyle (remember that argument? “All we want is to be accepted”). Now I must subsidize it just like I would a family unit, even though the gay marriage doesn’t create the same advantages heterosexual marriages do. They do not, for example, create contributing producers into society in the form of children, nor is their existence together necessary to preserve any form of family unit, since, as noted, there are no children to raise, protect, and educate, which was the primary reason for our government’s decision to aid the (heterosexual) family unit. And as far as this Communion thing goes, they should all be ex-communicated from the church. I’m not even close to being Catholic, but I know enough about their doctrine to know that their interpretation of the Bible forbids homosexuality. For them to attend this denomination of worship is inexplicable, but to then “demand” that the church recognize this as acceptable is beyond belief. Now they do not want to just be accepted in society, they want us to alter the fundamental nature of our beliefs for their minority purposes (after all, most people in the church are heterosexual Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong). This is just one more in an innumerable list of items contributing to the social downfall of this nation.
I don’t have an answer to any of this. I’m just as “linear” in my thinking as the next guy (maybe moreso). I don’t know how we could, as a society, quantifiably measure the importance of feminine strengths. Perhaps they cannot be quantified at all, like that mysterious atom that we can’t pin down. All I know for certain is that if we continue down this path of evolving society into one where women, in order to be a successful member, must shed their feminine qualities and trade them in for the masculine “linear” ones, crime will continue to rise no matter how many laws pass, no matter how many people are imprisoned. Violence and immorality will continue to run rampant through our media and our streets. Our children will continue to grow up in environments much less conducive to success, and with the slow entropy of nature our society will eventually crumble into forgotten dust. At the beginning of this seemingly endless rambling I wrote that I had an idea but not the means to explain it. My attempt looks fairly inadequate and perhaps wrong on many issues. But people need to start thinking about these things before it’s too late. There is a reason why strengths and weaknesses are given in nature. We simply have to re-gear our abundantly-evolved brains and create a societal environment that can compete with the technological one or we will over-run ourselves out of existence.
