So this is where we are... I think: 1a) There are objective facts that exist independent of human experience 1b) These objective facts, when taken collectively, contain all of existence 1c) A fact is a piece of incontrovertible truth which exists at a specific point in time, or over a length of time 2) Under no circumstances can humans be perfect (or optimized) 3) As a result, humans can't have perfect knowledge of facts
Result: No claim by humans of objective truth can be correct. Humans can only have working rules. 1) Humans can't have perfect knowledge of facts 2a) Humans can improve their situation by applying solutions based on correct understanding of facts 2b) The human situation is the current state of either a single person, a group, or collective humanity 3) As a result, humans can improve their situation, but their application of solutions is imperfect Result: There is a distinction between "correct knowledge", which can help humanity improve its situation, and "perfect knowledge", which is an impossibility involving total understanding. 1) Humans can improve their situation, but their application of solutions is imperfect 2a) Humans can improve their situation through careful study and application of innovation 2b) Innovation is anything created or concocted by humans that exists outside of nature 3) As a result, careful study and application of innovations can improve humanity's situation, though imperfectly Result: Broad (ideological, say) rules don't suffice in improving the human situation. 1) Careful study and application of innovations can improve humanity's situation, though imperfectly 2) Even though facts don't change, our understanding of facts can change 3) As a result, our imperfection in applying innovations is a reflection of a lack of understanding Result: When we change our position, it's not an admission that we don't think facts are absolute- it's that we were wrong. Overall, we've: a) retained eternal objectivity, and removed objective truth from the controlling hands of humans b) removed human perfectibility from consideration (destroying communism), yet protected things like transhumanism and futurism as incremental enhancement c) defended the ability of humanity to continue solving problems d) wholesale destroyed broad "moral imperative" ideologies (socialism, modern progressivism, evangelicalism), in favor of incrementalism On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > On Jan 10, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Mike Gonzalez wrote: > > > My concern involves the seeming contradiction between believing that we > can improve the human condition, and the belief that we don't necessarily > know what's best for ourselves, which leads to the logical conclusion that > we conduct aimless action. If there's no contradiction, and humility means > something to the effect of "understanding our role within the construct of > a whole society and the universe", then that eliminates the contradiction. > Rather, that makes humility akin to "self awareness", which brings into > play Socrates' and Thales' exhortations to "know thyself". If that's the > case, then I agree, we can avoid the terms "pride" and "humility", until > they're extremely carefully defined. > > > > It would create a situation, though, where we would need to know where > to place "excellence" in all this. We want people to exceed expectations > and create all these technological and medical advances to address all the > ills in the world but, at the same time, we seemingly want to express that > this advancement means nothing in the long run. How do we get people to > continue to press the boundaries of human achievement? > > Excellent discussion. Mike actually touches on the critical tension: we > need to believe we know what is best to make improvement, yet an unhealthy > certitude that we are right is usually disastrous. Excessive humility is > as dangerous as excessive pride. > > The word I've coined to resolve that tension is the "prefuture". That is, > we are creating a better world, and we have a pretty good idea of the next > step, but we'll never finish, and we're never going to get it 100% right. > > We are for improve-ability, but against perfectibility. > > I agree that there is a tension between humility as "knowing my place > within a rigid social system" and 'knowing my proper place in the cosmos." > And to be sure, the latter is a fiendishly difficult question to answer > properly. Alas, like Billy, I don't know a better term, especially from > within the Christian tradition. > > That said, for many purposes the word "modest" might serve, especially as > an adjective. A "modest progressivism" would capture the spirit of what > we're doing, at least when talking to the Right. > > E > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community < > [email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
