dear
alan,
your
comments to ‘friends of wisdom’ are very much what we need. i am
reminded of edward r.murrow in the recent film ‘Good Night and Good Luck’, whose
comments helped to keep things in balance, when the balance was being tipped
towards hysteria and pre-emptive strikes against innocents to avert a communist
holocaust, by ‘mccarthyism’.
of
course, like the meteorologists that are being threatened with de-certification
in the broadcast industy, you too may be (mis-)cast by some as a
‘holocaust-denier’, ... although in this case, the holocaust is a future
scenario that ‘the john waynes’ intend to rally the masses to ‘pre-empt’.
‘listen up son, ... we’ve got to join together to put the train of
nature back on its proper tracks before disaster strikes. if you’re not
with us, you’re against us’.
the
popular assumption seems to be that man can control the climate by his causal
actions, whether unintentionally (by absent-mindedly jacking up greenhouse gas
levels) or intentionally (by reducing greenhouse gas levels), and also that
there is a ‘good’ (‘normal’) thermal condition for the earth and a ‘bad’
(‘abnormal’) thermal condition; i.e. ‘global warming is
bad’.
in the context of man-caused global
warming, karl uses the term ‘culpability’; i.e;
‘[those] irresponsible
and ignorant crackpots ... [that] will no doubt continue to try to confuse the
issue and maintain a state of denial, [in spite of] overwhelming evidence of human
culpability for creating the conditions leading to global warming
through industrial pollution.’
the
use of ‘culpability’ is interesting since it immediately splits the dynamic into
two black-and-white parts, and presents us with the scenario of ‘abuser’ (man)
and ‘victim’ (earth), ... ‘culpability’ being defined as ‘blameworthiness’, the state of deserving to be blamed for a
crime or offence.
two
foundational assumptions are ‘built in’ to this notion; (a) there exists a
‘good’ or ‘correct/normal’ thermal condition for the earth, and (b) there is a
‘cause-and-effect’ relationship between man’s thermal-dynamics related
activities and the thermal-dynamics of the earthspace we are all included
in..
it
seems to me that these two ‘absolute existence/behaviour’ based assumptions, in
varying forms, are enjoying an unusual surge of popularity on a variety of
social fronts; e.g. the ‘war on terror’. these assumptions imply that
there exists a ‘normal’ (‘good’) operating condition for a system (the earth’s
climate, the global social dynamic, the functioning of the human body etc.), ...
that departures from this ‘normality’ are the work of ‘causal agents’ acting
upon the system (these agents are necessarily ‘bad’ in this modeling since they
move the system away from its ‘good/normal’ state, and ‘moving away from good’
is equivalent to ‘moving towards bad’).
thus, this model of ‘climate change’ not only
takes on ‘religious’ (‘good’ and ‘evil’) overtones, it recalls newton’s
first law of motion wherein ‘the base case’ is ‘stasis’ (a body/system will
remain at rest (its ‘normal’ state) unless acted upon by an external
force.)
the
‘stasis’ in newton’s first law corresponds to the ‘normal climate’ and the
‘external force’ that causes the departure from ‘normality’ corresponds to the
industrial activities of modern man.
what’s wrong with this model? (why not ask
since many would mobilize all of humanity in a grand ‘pre-emptive’ strike to
eliminate the causal agencies that are moving our climate from ‘good’ towards
‘bad’)
one
thing that’s wrong is that ‘stasis’ and ‘normality’ go hand-in-hand with the
notions of ‘causality’ and ‘culpability’
when
we were boys climbing around in the mountainous outback of british columbia, we
would find large rocks in the condition of ‘stasis’ on steep scree slopes and
push them down the slope causing mini-landslides dislodging further rocks the
size of our bodies that rolled furiously and noisily down the mountain splitting
and shattering and knocking into the odd lone tree with a sickening ‘thunk’ that
spoke of a force that would have crushed and killed any human in its
path.
our
egos inflated with the massive power of this ability to cause such humongous
departures from stasis/normality, ... and though the notion of ‘cause’ and
‘stasis’ over-simplify what went on, this did not stop the feeling of power that
accrued to us, individually and collectively.
if
we were to have examined these dynamics more closely, we would have had to
concede that (a) there is no ‘stasis’ in nature, only conditions of dynamical
balance since everything is in motion, and; (b) we did not ‘cause’ landslides,
we ‘triggered’ them by raising the accrued tensions amongst the rocks on the
slope beyond a ‘holding’ threshold where there was an explosive release of their
mutually accrued potential energy.
the
dynamics of the nature-space we all share inclusion in is innately dynamical
balance-seeking, and what we typically term ‘cause’ is more realistically seen
in terms of disturbing the dynamical balance, unleashing stored energies which
move things towards a new dynamical balancing.
the
rock-throwing boy that causes a huge flock of birds to take to flight and fill
the local skies may feel his ego inflate by the massive transformative power of
his act, ... though he was not the ‘cause’ of what was unleashed, but merely the
triggering agent that dislodged the dynamical spatial-relational configuration
from its tensioned condition of dynamical balance and setting it off on a quest
to find a new dynamical balancing configuration.
i.e.
what we commonly think of as ‘stasis’ or ‘normality’ is instead a condition of
dynamical balance that is ‘under tension’. the tensions can be raised
above a threshold where the current dynamical balance (which looks like ‘stasis’
since we cannot ‘see’ the tensions) can no longer be sustained and the potential
energy stored elastically in the tensions is explosively converted into kinetic
energy invested in material bodies that moves towards a new dynamical
balance.
we
intuitively know that we make this same over-simplification (stasis/normality,
causality) in the case of the global social dynamic. ‘criminal acts’ and
‘terrorist acts’ are not simply ‘causal acts’ that move the system ‘away from
normality’ but instead result from the building of tensions that reach
thresholds beyond which the energies stored in those tensions is explosively
released. rather than criminal acts and terrorist acts being
‘causal’ and ‘disturbing the stasis/normality’ as is the simplistic scenario in
newton’s laws of motion, the so-called ‘causal agents’, rather than being
sovereign agents with internally driven behaviours, are included participants
within the tensioned, dynamical-balance-seeking
hostspace.
insofar as one applies the base case of ‘normality’ to
the social dynamic and ‘causality’ to ‘departures from normality, ... one
interprets the ‘corrective response’ to be the ‘elimination of the cause of the
departure from normality.
that
is the ‘linear theory’ view where ‘normality’ is the base case to which the
system is assumed to return once the agencies ‘causing’ departures from
‘normality’ are eliminated.
in
the ‘nonlinear theory’, everything is in relative flux and ‘normality’ and
‘stasis’ are seen in the more comprehensive terms of ‘dynamical balancing
infused with potential-energy tensions’. ‘causality’ for which a sovereign
causal agent is fully ‘to blame’, is subsumed by ‘triggering’ that disturbs the
dynamical balance by elevating the tensions in the system beyond the threshold
of their dynamical balancing sustainability.so that the system ‘takes its
accrued potential energy out of storage and uses it for kinetic mobility’ as it
moves on in quest of some new dynamical balancing
configuration.
sure, we can say that ‘throwing stones’ CAUSES the flock
of birds to take flight but we cannot say that when we stop throwing stones
(when we eliminate the causal agent) that the birds will come back, ... that
‘normality will be restored to the system condition’, ... because the system
will have gone off in quest of a new dynamical balance. (it is not simply
screwed up in the manner of a machine that someone threw a wrench into its
works, which, when the wrench is removed, will return to ‘normal’ working
mode).
we
can ‘cause’ the cream to be stirred into the coffee, ... but eliminating the
causal agency does not equate to res
nature has a complexity that has exposed the inadequacy
of linear dynamics theory and invited the development of nonlinear dynamical
theory and nothing could be more deserving of inquiry by means of nonlinear
dynamical theory than ‘climate’, but that is clearly not ‘the popular choice’ in
our present era where the notions of ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ and the search for
culpable ‘causal agents’ responsible for moving things away from ‘normal’
towards ‘abnormal’ is going on with a passion reminiscent of our witch-hunting,
witch-burning days.
understanding by way of
linear/causal theory and ‘departures from stasis/normality’ yields an
over-simplified view of natural phenomena that often leads to radical gaps
between the linear-causal-theory predicted dynamic and the actual dynamic (as
the ‘butterfly effect’ connotes, the limiting of predictive accuracy is
unavoidable); e.g. as Lorenz (MIT) showed, in the nonlinear dynamics of weather
(short term variations in the ‘stasis’, or better, ‘stability’ of atmospheric
dynamics relative to longer term ‘climatic’ dynamics), predicted behaviours may
diverge with respect to actual NOT ONLY in magnitude, but also in ‘direction’
(e.g. while a warming trend may be predicted, ... the prediction may diverge
from actual due to an effect too small to be measured, and the actual resulat
may be a ‘cooling’. Lorenz illustrated this by building his ‘Lorenz
water-wheel’ to demonstrate this deviant characteristic of nonlinear
dynamics. A simulation of this nonlinear dynamical or ‘complex systems’
effect can be seen at http://people.web.psi.ch/gassmann/waterwheel/WaterwheelLab.html
Click on ‘run the waterwheel’. http://people.web.psi.ch/gassmann/waterwheel/Wwheel1.HTML
but
this is very ‘technical-subtle’ and the notions of ‘normality’ and ‘good’ and
‘bad’ and causal agents (ourselves) that it is popular to purport are taking us
from ‘good’ to ‘bad’ have a far more powerful effect on the emotions/mood of the
general public.
karl’s proposition is that ‘we are causing a departure
from the ‘good’ and ‘normal’ thermal condition of the earth. this
envisions the earth’s climate as putty in the causal hands of man, the
uncertainty being in man’s not knowing exactly what shape he is kneading the
putty into (a very different envisioning than man triggering a debalancing and
pursuit of a new dynamical balancing configuration of nature’s
dynamics).
“While we cannot predict the consequences of our industrial
practices, it is evident that we are causing irreversible and unpredictable climate change, and the
melting of polar icecaps and glaciers, increasing the intensity of storms and
incidents of flooding, eroding coastlines, and threatening both the future of
humanity and the environments upon which many other complex animals and plants
depend and are an intricate part. We are causing global warming in the sense that
the pollutants that have been artificially pumped into the atmosphere by our
fac
the
simple linear model, implicit in karl and nicks comments, further suggests that
if man has the causal power to push the earth’s climate away from its ‘condition
of normality’, then man must also have the causal power to push the earth’s
climate back towards its original ‘condition of normality’ (to cause the system
to go from ‘bad’ back towards ‘good’) and it is this mission that people are
being vigorously rallied to give support to.
those of us being labelled ‘holocaust deniers’,
ignorant, crackpots, and ‘insane’, meanwhile, believe that this vision of us
being able to cause massive change
in the world (rather than having the capability of simply triggering movement
towards new forms of spatial-relational dynamical balance) is the root source of
the ‘destabilization’ that we are perceiving in terms of ‘rising
abnormality’.
if
we see ‘terrorists’ as ‘the cause of terrorism’ (departure from the ‘good’
condition of ‘normality’ in our social dynamic) AND NOT AS TRIGGERING AGENTS OF
DEBALANCING IN A HIGHLY TENSIONED DYNAMICAL HOSTSPACE, ... and if we seek simply
to ‘return the system to ‘goodness’ and ‘normality’ by eliminating the causal
actions of the agents of terror, ... then we shall continue to ignore the fact
that our ‘normality’ is a highly tensioned ‘dynamical balancing’ that
‘naturally’ has to be allowed to ‘move on’ and find a less tensioned condition
of dynamical balancing.
similarly, if we see ‘man’ as ‘the cause of global
warming’ (departure from the ‘good’ condition of ‘normality’ in our climate
dynamic) AND NOT AS TRIGGERING AGENTS OF DEBALANCING IN A HIGHLY TENSIONED
DYNAMICAL HOSTSPACE, ... and if we seek simply to ‘return the system to
‘goodness’ and ‘normality’ by eliminating the causal actions of man, the agents
of climate change, ... then we shall continue to ignore the fact that our
‘climatic normality’ is a highly tensioned ‘dynamical balancing that has to be
allowed to ‘move on’ and find a less tensioned condition of dynamical
balancing.
that’s ‘the way of nature’. nature does not have a
‘base condition’ of ‘normality’. it is continually in a
dynamical-balance-seeking quest, ... trying to ‘rid itself of rising tensions’,
to dissipate them prior to them becoming too
extreme.
man
is meanwhile stressing himself with tensions of his own as he seeks to control
his environment, rather than moving (sailboat style rather than powerboat style)
on a continuing basis, in pursuit of relatively less tensioned dynamical
balancing within the dynamical hostspace he is situationally included
in.
karl
and nick’s statements reflect today’s popular founding of understanding on the
notions of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’ (‘good’ and ‘evil’) and ‘causality’
(e.g. the ability of a sovereign being with internally driven behaviour to push
the social or climate dynamic away from ‘normality/goodness’ in the direction of
‘abnormality/badness’ and question the ‘intelligence’, ‘sanity’ and/or ‘motives’
of anyone who disagrees).
in
this view, man (the boy throwing rocks to set the geese in flight) is seen as
having the causal powers of creating a climatic holocaust (where all of the
birds would disappear along with the golden eggs we are dependent on).
the corollary to this linear view is that we must mobilize an army
to launch a pre-emptive strike to avert the holocaust we are causing (i.e. the
reasoning goes; by reducing the number of rocks we are throwing, at least some
of the birds will start coming back to their ‘normal’ behavioural patterns, ..
though anyone who has dispersed a covey of quail by snapping a small twig
underfoot may question the applicability of this linear
modeling.).
* * *
ah
well, you may ignore all of the above as the babblings of one who is by popular
implication; ‘ignorant’, ‘crackpot’, ‘insane’, and ‘apologist for unfettered
greed’.
meanwhile, if our egos suffer too severely from being
belittled and demonized, we can join ‘em rather than be beaten by ‘em,
rejuvenating the puniness of our egos by a hike into the mountains where we can
re-demonstrate to ourselves ‘our causal powers over nature’ by setting flocks of
birds to flight and rolling large rocks down into the valley while pounding our
chests amid the thundering din of the avalanches that ‘we have
caused’.
resonantly,
ted
----- Original Message
-----
From: Alan Rayner
<[log in to unmask]>
To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 06 February 2007
16:50
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
>
Dear All,
>
>
"Somehow we need to get across to our fellow human beings that
our
>
institutions of learning and research really are damagingly defective
when
>
it comes to learning how to live, learning how to resolve our
conflicts
and
>
problems of living. Before the advent of modern science, this might
not
>
have mattered too much. Now, after the advent of modern science, it
is
>
disastrous. It is the crisis behind all the
others."
>
>
>
Agreed. But where lies the problem behind the crisis? Is it not a
crack
(if
>
not a crackpot!) in those logical foundations that would have us
dislocate
>
material cause from spatial context?
>
>
>
"The rational pursuit of wisdom has become, not a luxury, but an
urgent
>
necessity"
>
>
>
I don't honestly think it is possible wisely to understand our
human
>
involvement in (as distinct from 'responsibility for') such processes
as
>
climatic transformation using the same kind of simplistic thinking
that
has
>
precipitated the current crisis. I don't honestly think we can
adequately
>
address the crisis - indeed we could aggravate it - through
simplistic
>
totalitarian attributions and counter-measures that take a partial
(in
both
>
senses) view of nature and human nature. There is a need to transform
our
>
understanding of fluid dynamic natural geometry and our selves if we
are
to
>
be able to attune with our living space in a sustainable, loving
and
>
respectful way that accounts for ever-changing circumstances
through
>
watchful, feeling awareness, not wilful ignorance. I don't think we
can
>
pursue wisdom by severing nature into discrete factions and fractions,
at
>
odds with one another, and playing resentful, definitive games of
naming,
>
blaming and shaming.
>
>
By opening up the possibility for less definitive forms of
understanding,
>
Friends of Wisdom could contribute much to the alleviation of all sorts
of
>
adversity, including climatic adversity, induced through
rationalistic
>
neglect and exploitation of our living space as 'something to be
occupied
>
and controlled by force' rather than somewhere that co-creatively
includes
>
us.
>
>
>
I know.... I have said this all before on this list, and in view
of
>
painful past experience I thought long and hard about whether to say
it
>
again.
>
>
>
But there we are. I'd quite like Earth Space to remain receptive for
human
>
presence for some while yet.
>
>
>
Warmest
>
>
>
Alan
>
>
>
>
>
--On 06 February 2007 10:18 +0000
>
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Friends of Wisdom,
>
>
>
> Well said, Karl. I agree with those who see global warming as being
the
>
> greatest threat to humanity. We have known that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas
>
> since John Tyndall made the discovery in 1859. That our production
of
>
> CO2 was going to have the effect of causing global warming was
first
>
> realized by Arrhenius, as long ago as 1896. Guy Callendar was the
first
>
> person to provide evidence for this in 1938 - although it would be
fair
>
> to say that it was only really in the 1960s that the yearly increase
in
>
> CO2 was firmly established. CO2 absorbs infrared light reflected
from
>
> the surface of the earth, and sends a good proportion of it back
to
>
> earth, an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere thus having the effect
of
>
> heating up the planet. We know the planet is heating up; we know
the
>
> level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing; we know we are
emitting
>
> vast and increasing amounts of CO2; and the physics of how and
why
>
> increased CO2 leads to warming is known and understood. Indeed,
all
this
>
> has been known for a long time, as I have indicated above. What
is
>
> horrifying is our lack of response to this
knowledge.
>
> My concern to try to get across the need to transform
knowledge-inquiry
>
> into wisdom-inquiry has everything to do with our having a kind
of
>
> inquiry that gives priority to problems of living over problems
of
>
> knowledge. If wisdom-inquiry had been in place, academics would
have
>
> been urgently exploring questions about what we need to do to
decrease
>
> global warming, and to deal with the worst consequences of
global
>
> warming. They would have been urging on the public, on politicians,
on
>
> people in the media, industry and so on, that we need to change the
way
>
> we live in all sorts of ways. This would have been the task of
those
>
> working in the fields of social inquiry and the humanities, working
in
>
> conjunction with the scientific community. Scientists themselves
are
not
>
> necessarily the best people to explore problems of living,
policy
issues,
>
> and get the message across in sufficiently vivid
terms.
>
> We have known about global warming for several decades - at least
since
>
> the 1960s - and we have let these decades go by without taking
action.
>
> Academia as it is constituted at present is simply not designed to
help
>
> explore, argue for, and stimulate appropriate action in response to
our
>
> problems.
>
> Indeed, in my view, all our current global problems have arisen
because
>
> of the immensely successful pursuit of scientific and
technological
>
> research dissociated from the more fundamental pursuit of
wisdom.
Modern
>
> science and technology have made possible modern industry
and
>
> agriculture, population growth, global warming, the lethal character
of
>
> modern war and terrorism, the threat of modern
armaments
("conventional",
>
> chemical, biological and nuclear), destruction of tropical rain
forests
>
> and other natural habitats, rapid extinction of species, even the
aids
>
> epidemic (aids being spread by modern travel).
>
> Somehow we need to get across to our fellow human beings that
our
>
> institutions of learning and research really are damagingly
defective
>
> when it comes to learning how to live, learning how to resolve
our
>
> conflicts and problems of living. Before the advent of modern
science,
>
> this might not have mattered too much. Now, after the advent of
modern
>
> science, it is disastrous. It is the crisis behind all the
others. The
>
> rational pursuit of wisdom has become, not a luxury, but an
urgent
>
> necessity.
>
> Of course we do not know by how much the earth will heat up in the
next
>
> 50 or 100 years. It would continue to heat up even if we
immediately
did
>
> everything we can to reduce emissions of CO2. What is so alarming
is
>
> that we do not know. It might be anywhere from 3 to 10
degrees
>
> centigrade. Even 3 degrees would have disastrous consequences
for
>
> millions. 10 degrees might be sufficient to wipe out
civilization. We
>
> do not know. It is insane not to try to err on the side of
caution.
>
>
Best wishes,
>
>
>
>
Nick
>
>
>
> ps There is, of course, a certain ambiguity in the meaning of "cause"
as
>
> I pointed out in a footnote to my paper "Can Humanity Learn to
Become
>
> Civilized?" (Journal of Applied Philosophy 17, 2000, 29-44). This
is
>
> what I said there:-
>
>
>
> "[2] It may be objected: it is not science that is the cause of
our
>
> global problems but rather the things that we do, made possible
by
>
> science and technology. This is obviously correct. But it is
also
>
> correct to say that scientific and technological progress is the
cause.
>
> The meaning of "cause" is ambiguous. By "the cause" of event E we
may
>
> mean something like "the most obvious observable events preceding E
that
>
> figure in the common sense explanation for the occurrence of E".
In
this
>
> sense, human actions (made possible by science) are the cause of
such
>
> things as people being killed in war, destruction of tropical
rain
>
> forests. On the other hand, by the "cause" of E we may mean "that
prior
>
> change in the environment of E which led to the occurrence of E,
and
>
> without which E would not have occurred". If we put the 20th
century
>
> into the context of human history, then it is entirely correct to
say
>
> that, in this sense, scientific-and-technological progress is the
cause
>
> of distinctively 20th century disasters: what has changed, what is
new,
>
> is scientific knowledge, not human nature. Yet again, from
the
>
> standpoint of theoretical physics, "the cause" of E might be
interpreted
>
> to mean something like "the physical state of affairs prior to
E,
>
> throughout a sufficiently large spatial region surrounding the
place
>
> where E occurs". In this third sense, the sun continuing to shine is
as
>
> much a part of the cause of war and pollution as human action or
human
>
> science and technology."
>
>
>
> pps. Apologies to the "Discussion" list for receiving most of this
email
>
> a second time, but I thought it important that I sent this email to
the
>
> primary list.
www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Karl Rogers
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 2:51 PM
>
> Subject: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Friends of Wisdom,
>
>
>
> While some irresponsible and ignorant crackpots (and apologists
for
>
> unfettered greed) will no doubt continue to try to confuse the issue
and
>
> maintain a state of denial, there is overwhelming evidence of
human
>
> culpability for creating the conditions leading to global
warming
through
>
> industrial pollution. While we cannot predict the consequences of
our
>
> industrial practices, it is evident that we are causing irreversible
and
>
> unpredictable climate change, and the melting of polar icecaps
and
>
> glaciers, increasing the intensity of storms and incidents of
flooding,
>
> eroding coastlines, and threatening both the future of humanity and
the
>
> environments upon which many other complex animals and plants depend
and
>
> are an intricate part. We are causing global warming in the sense
that
>
> the pollutants that have been artificially pumped into the atmosphere
by
>
> our fac
>
> in average climate temperature. It is time that human beings
took
>
> responsibilty for how we are living in this world and how, due to
our
>
> ignorance, foolishness, and greed, we are destroying the very
complex
>
> structures that sustain us and other forms of life. It is time that
we
>
> began to change many our industrial practices in the light of
the
>
> knowledge that our actions have consequences. For a start, as
consumers
>
> of industrial products, we can examine our lifestyles, what kind
of
world
>
> do we wish to live in and leave to our children, what products do
we
>
> actually need, and whether there are better alternatives. But,
beyond
>
> confronting the irrationality and shallowness of consumerism, we
should
>
> publicly make a stand in favour of building sustainable and
ecologically
>
> balanced industrial and agricultural practices, allowing the
>
> to have access to modern technologies and scientific knowledge,
and
>
> engaging in a rigorous debate about the role of education in
developing
>
> sustainabity and ecological sensitivity. None of these things
are
>
> meaningful unless we first admit that we are responsible for
the
>
> consequences of our actions, and use our intelligence to actually
change
>
> our practices when they lead to undesirable
consequences.
>
> Karl Rogers.
>
>
>
> If any Friends of Wisdom are interested in seeing the reports from
the
>
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they are to be published
soon
>
> and made available via the IPCC site, as well as many other
interesting
>
> documents and papers, then vist their site:
>
> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>
>
>