Images Of Order
What lies at the deepest level --- order or disorder? It is possible to divide human beings into two groups: in the first are those who believe it is 'order' and the second comprises those who are convinced that it is 'disorder'. Why do we, in any case, use this vocabulary of a deeper or the deepest level? Is not the world just one homogenous uniform expanse to which these contrastive terms do not quite apply? Looking out through the window, we see the sky, the sun, trees, birds, grass, humans moving to and fro, dogs loitering around, and so on. Are they not all at the same level, and, indeed, is not the very attempt to speak of ‘levels’ misleading in this context?
One reason why we do speak in certain contexts of 'levels' (or sometimes 'degrees') of reality is our proneness to illusion, deception and error. When we discover that we had been deceived in believing in the existence of a certain object XY, we believe that somehow XY could not have been truly (or 'really') real. So, for the instance, the traveler in the desert sees a water body in the distance, though later he realizes it was a mirage. However, during the few moments when he was under the deception, the water body was indeed a real object that he perceived. Subsequent reflection leads him to assert that it was, however, not quite real, it is not really ‘out there’. Or, to move into the domain of interpersonal relations, we may arrive at the conclusion that a certain person is cruel and ruthless towards his friends. On knowing him more intimately, we may be forced to revise our perception, and led to believe instead that he is 'really' a kind-hearted person. We then use the contrastive terms 'superficial' and 'deeper': while at the superficial level he seems or appears to be brutal and pitiless, when we dig through the crust of these upper layers and arrive at the subterranean deeper levels, we realise that he is in fact compassionate and benevolent.
Extending this discussion, we may now ask what lies really beneath the world around us. Those in the first camp will reply that there is a deep order, harmony and tranquility underneath the multiplicity, plurality and chaos that strike us on and from every side in our daily lives. This order is not simply a product of our subjective fantasies; in some sense at least it is really out there. For instance, even before human beings appeared on earth, the planets in our solar system moved smoothly in accordance with Newton's law of universal gravitation. It is true that this law was discovered at a certain point in time (in fact, quite late after the emergence of homo sapiens) but the planets, so to speak, did not have to wait for their Newton. And the same applies to many other cosmological processes that would not break down if humans were to disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow. All these processes can be explained in terms of and subsumed under, it is hoped, some very simple laws, and it is the task of the investigator to unearth these laws. Therefore, according to these investigators, there is no randomness or arbitrariness at the ultimate or deepest level of reality: everything happens for a reason (even if that reason is not known to us, and even if it will forever remain unknown). If some event or phenomenon turns up which is apparently accidental or haphazard, it is believed that someday in the future we shall we able to explain it in terms of a yet undiscovered law. In short, there is nothing that is ab-surd; everything can be, sooner or later, be fit into our conceptual schemes or intellectual frameworks through which we explain why things happen the way they do.
Those in the other group oppose this contention that the world is ultimately explainable through theories which depict reality as an ordered system and encapsulate its structures within their ambit. They contest that the deepest level is a murky zone of the inexplicable, the meaningless, the illogical and the unsystematic. It is true, they hold, that at the superficial levels at which most of us conduct the everyday business of living, there is some degree of order and organization. After all, the building in front of which I am standing does not disappear into thin air for a moment and then reappear the next. Aeroplanes fly through the air along their normal courses; water boils when it is heated to 100°C and human beings die when they are deprived of oxygen. However, our ability to explain such macroscopic phenomena should not lead us to believe that the world is explicable all the way down. We are so habituated to the seeming order around us that we (mistakenly) transpose our images, categories and concepts of order onto the deepest levels of reality where, in fact, there is nothing but sheer flux, change, transition, instability and randomness.
It is possible to look at the concepts of order and disorder not in such oppositional terms but in more dialectical, that is, inter-related terms. In other words, it becomes possible to speak of disorder only against a background of relative order, and vice versa, we can also reflect on order as emerging from a background of relative chaos. Think for a moment of yourself as am omniscient being whose knowledge, in the form of a deep insight, can penetrate into every form and type of reality. What would you see? At the deepest level, you will see a mass of energy within which there are localized points which you might call particles. From the agglomeration of these rapidly moving particles emerges the relatively stable macroscopic objects such as chairs, tables, cars and skyscrapers. Even these entities, however, are not completely orderly or permanent, for they decay with time and pass away.
At the purely conceptual level, nothing much turns on the question of whether the deepest level is characterised by order or disorder: it is not the type of question over which most of us would lose our sleep (in contrast to, say, the question of whether at the deepest level my spouse really loves me or detests me). The socio-political implications, however, of viewing the ‘real world’ in one way and not the other can be significantly different. Those in the second group argue that the consequences of viewing the surface realities of the world as based on a deep underlying order are dogmatism and authoritarianism. Dogmatism, because if you believe that you have found this order, you will be likely to believe that this is the final solution to the grand mystery of existence. There can be no intellectual pilgrimage beyond this full stop. Authoritarianism follows almost immediately from the former stance, because if you hold your view dogmatically, you will perhaps be queasy about the presence of individuals who disagree with you. You may even feel that you have a sort of moral right to inveigh against your opponents whom you believe are misguided and misled, and whom you need to enlighten, even if forcefully.
One example will clarify the matter. The fact of women's oppression cannot be explained simply in terms of malevolent males and submissive females (although there is no shortage of individuals in these two categories); for even though benevolent males and active females are not so hard to come by, the realities of such oppression are still very much with us. Even as you are reading this very sentence, some woman not far from where you are is being beaten to death for not having paid her dowry. Such oppression is, in fact, grounded in some deep beliefs about how the world really is like at the fundamental level. At this level, the duties, roles and functions of men and women are clearly defined and discriminated in terms of an asymmetric power structure, in which authority can flow from men to women, but never in the reverse direction. Here, then, the opponents argue, is one instance of how the belief in ultimate orders (men over women) can have insidious effects.
In contrast, those who believe that there is indeed some primary or essential order retort that these consequences need not follow (although they may in some cases). First, it is possible to believe both that there is some such order at the deep level and that one's conceptions of it are somewhat mistaken and may require revision at some point in the future. So, for instance, one may believe that at the deepest level the world is indeed governed by a set of basic laws, but that our understanding of these laws, and in fact these laws themselves, may undergo significant modification at some point in the future. Second, the correct way to challenge ultimate beliefs, they argue, is not to jettison the entire vocabulary of an ultimate order but to constantly keep on trying to formulate new visions, images or models of order. Suppose, for instance, we claim that the view of the inherent superiority of men over women is mistaken. We may be pressed to state why we believe this is so. If we stated, ‘Oh, that is just what I like to feel’, we would probably receive the reply: ‘Well, you see, you and I are then in the same boat. You feel that men are not inherently superior to women in the sense discussed above, but I feel that they indeed are. It is simply a matter of feelings. You have not given me any reason why I should feel the way that you do on this matter. So let us keep our feelings to ourselves and go our own ways’. To block such a move on the part of this imaginary interlocutor, it is argued that we must seek some justification for our beliefs, even if such justification is not easy to come by and there are endless debates over precisely what counts as a justification. However, to give up the attempt to offer reasons through which we can persuade or attract our interlocutor towards our vision of order (men-with-women instead of men-over-women) is to plunge headlong into an ocean of mere feeling.
One reason why we do speak in certain contexts of 'levels' (or sometimes 'degrees') of reality is our proneness to illusion, deception and error. When we discover that we had been deceived in believing in the existence of a certain object XY, we believe that somehow XY could not have been truly (or 'really') real. So, for the instance, the traveler in the desert sees a water body in the distance, though later he realizes it was a mirage. However, during the few moments when he was under the deception, the water body was indeed a real object that he perceived. Subsequent reflection leads him to assert that it was, however, not quite real, it is not really ‘out there’. Or, to move into the domain of interpersonal relations, we may arrive at the conclusion that a certain person is cruel and ruthless towards his friends. On knowing him more intimately, we may be forced to revise our perception, and led to believe instead that he is 'really' a kind-hearted person. We then use the contrastive terms 'superficial' and 'deeper': while at the superficial level he seems or appears to be brutal and pitiless, when we dig through the crust of these upper layers and arrive at the subterranean deeper levels, we realise that he is in fact compassionate and benevolent.
Extending this discussion, we may now ask what lies really beneath the world around us. Those in the first camp will reply that there is a deep order, harmony and tranquility underneath the multiplicity, plurality and chaos that strike us on and from every side in our daily lives. This order is not simply a product of our subjective fantasies; in some sense at least it is really out there. For instance, even before human beings appeared on earth, the planets in our solar system moved smoothly in accordance with Newton's law of universal gravitation. It is true that this law was discovered at a certain point in time (in fact, quite late after the emergence of homo sapiens) but the planets, so to speak, did not have to wait for their Newton. And the same applies to many other cosmological processes that would not break down if humans were to disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow. All these processes can be explained in terms of and subsumed under, it is hoped, some very simple laws, and it is the task of the investigator to unearth these laws. Therefore, according to these investigators, there is no randomness or arbitrariness at the ultimate or deepest level of reality: everything happens for a reason (even if that reason is not known to us, and even if it will forever remain unknown). If some event or phenomenon turns up which is apparently accidental or haphazard, it is believed that someday in the future we shall we able to explain it in terms of a yet undiscovered law. In short, there is nothing that is ab-surd; everything can be, sooner or later, be fit into our conceptual schemes or intellectual frameworks through which we explain why things happen the way they do.
Those in the other group oppose this contention that the world is ultimately explainable through theories which depict reality as an ordered system and encapsulate its structures within their ambit. They contest that the deepest level is a murky zone of the inexplicable, the meaningless, the illogical and the unsystematic. It is true, they hold, that at the superficial levels at which most of us conduct the everyday business of living, there is some degree of order and organization. After all, the building in front of which I am standing does not disappear into thin air for a moment and then reappear the next. Aeroplanes fly through the air along their normal courses; water boils when it is heated to 100°C and human beings die when they are deprived of oxygen. However, our ability to explain such macroscopic phenomena should not lead us to believe that the world is explicable all the way down. We are so habituated to the seeming order around us that we (mistakenly) transpose our images, categories and concepts of order onto the deepest levels of reality where, in fact, there is nothing but sheer flux, change, transition, instability and randomness.
It is possible to look at the concepts of order and disorder not in such oppositional terms but in more dialectical, that is, inter-related terms. In other words, it becomes possible to speak of disorder only against a background of relative order, and vice versa, we can also reflect on order as emerging from a background of relative chaos. Think for a moment of yourself as am omniscient being whose knowledge, in the form of a deep insight, can penetrate into every form and type of reality. What would you see? At the deepest level, you will see a mass of energy within which there are localized points which you might call particles. From the agglomeration of these rapidly moving particles emerges the relatively stable macroscopic objects such as chairs, tables, cars and skyscrapers. Even these entities, however, are not completely orderly or permanent, for they decay with time and pass away.
At the purely conceptual level, nothing much turns on the question of whether the deepest level is characterised by order or disorder: it is not the type of question over which most of us would lose our sleep (in contrast to, say, the question of whether at the deepest level my spouse really loves me or detests me). The socio-political implications, however, of viewing the ‘real world’ in one way and not the other can be significantly different. Those in the second group argue that the consequences of viewing the surface realities of the world as based on a deep underlying order are dogmatism and authoritarianism. Dogmatism, because if you believe that you have found this order, you will be likely to believe that this is the final solution to the grand mystery of existence. There can be no intellectual pilgrimage beyond this full stop. Authoritarianism follows almost immediately from the former stance, because if you hold your view dogmatically, you will perhaps be queasy about the presence of individuals who disagree with you. You may even feel that you have a sort of moral right to inveigh against your opponents whom you believe are misguided and misled, and whom you need to enlighten, even if forcefully.
One example will clarify the matter. The fact of women's oppression cannot be explained simply in terms of malevolent males and submissive females (although there is no shortage of individuals in these two categories); for even though benevolent males and active females are not so hard to come by, the realities of such oppression are still very much with us. Even as you are reading this very sentence, some woman not far from where you are is being beaten to death for not having paid her dowry. Such oppression is, in fact, grounded in some deep beliefs about how the world really is like at the fundamental level. At this level, the duties, roles and functions of men and women are clearly defined and discriminated in terms of an asymmetric power structure, in which authority can flow from men to women, but never in the reverse direction. Here, then, the opponents argue, is one instance of how the belief in ultimate orders (men over women) can have insidious effects.
In contrast, those who believe that there is indeed some primary or essential order retort that these consequences need not follow (although they may in some cases). First, it is possible to believe both that there is some such order at the deep level and that one's conceptions of it are somewhat mistaken and may require revision at some point in the future. So, for instance, one may believe that at the deepest level the world is indeed governed by a set of basic laws, but that our understanding of these laws, and in fact these laws themselves, may undergo significant modification at some point in the future. Second, the correct way to challenge ultimate beliefs, they argue, is not to jettison the entire vocabulary of an ultimate order but to constantly keep on trying to formulate new visions, images or models of order. Suppose, for instance, we claim that the view of the inherent superiority of men over women is mistaken. We may be pressed to state why we believe this is so. If we stated, ‘Oh, that is just what I like to feel’, we would probably receive the reply: ‘Well, you see, you and I are then in the same boat. You feel that men are not inherently superior to women in the sense discussed above, but I feel that they indeed are. It is simply a matter of feelings. You have not given me any reason why I should feel the way that you do on this matter. So let us keep our feelings to ourselves and go our own ways’. To block such a move on the part of this imaginary interlocutor, it is argued that we must seek some justification for our beliefs, even if such justification is not easy to come by and there are endless debates over precisely what counts as a justification. However, to give up the attempt to offer reasons through which we can persuade or attract our interlocutor towards our vision of order (men-with-women instead of men-over-women) is to plunge headlong into an ocean of mere feeling.
I wonder if predictability (at the individual or statistical level) is a precondition for order... for it occurs to me that my perception of 'order' presumes an element of predictability about the phenomenon under investigation - that 'order' and 'predictability' are equivalent. To question if it's order or disorder (randomness) at the deepest level is to question if things are predictable or not in the most fundamental sense. Though 'predictability' as a property of the natural world is independent of the initial conditions, the initial conditions determine what the 'prediction' would be. So there are two things: a set of initial conditions (call them axioms if you wish) and the dynamics of how these initial conditions evolve in time or space. That there is some 'dynamics' (and, therefore, predictability) to what happens is the characteristic nature of order. The dynamics, however, is independent of the initial conditions. The dynamics are just a prescription of how the initial parameters will evolve. It places no constraint on the initial conditions themselves. The initial conditions are therefore arbitrary... which is where the disorder creeps in when we do not know what dynamics governed the selection of those precise initial conditions.
ReplyDeleteIf we could couple the initial conditions and the dynamics in a way that necessitates the initial conditions - so that the initial conditions are not arbitrary but are somehow related to or obtainable from the dynamics - the dilemma is resolved: the phenomenon we are investigating is characterized by order at the most fundamental level. However, so long as the initial conditions are arbitrary/random, the prediction that follows from the dynamics would be as arbitrary/random... which is not to say there is no order; the order is in the dynamics that govern how the initial is related to the final... (i think i should stop for i'm going on a tangent, apparently)