-->

Pages

Thursday, December 26, 2019

More Thoughts About Isms

Thinking about isms, one of the obvious questions: is there a way to evaluate where an ism falls on a scale of function / dysfunction. The first question is what are the metrics for this evaluation. Here is a first pass of measures that may be useful measures to gauge the health of an ism:

  • Is it oriented to the past, present, or future? If we agree that we are part of an evolving, changing universe, then it seems that a future orientation is critical. Walking while looking backwards at the past as our authority is prone to serious accidents of running into obstacles as they always seem to arise in this ever changing context. Being focused on the present, smelling the flowers and enjoying the moment is also prone to accidents. If we agree that on a long journey, as this universe seems to be, then survival and thriving entails preparing for the future to the best of our abilities. For example, we prepare for winter by making sure we will have heating and sustenance for that season.
  • How large is the circle of inclusion? Does the ism create a tribe in which most members of our species is outside our tribe? This is a serious dysfunction. One of the lessons from our understanding of complex systems and the very basic evolution / trajectory of the universe, is that diversity is critical for the stability, resilience, and viability of an ecology. 
  • Is it an evolving ism?  Does it evolve with us and our understanding of us and our place in this universe? There is a feedback loop in the evolutionary process. Many factors causes change, including the entity in question. These changes, with awareness and acknowledgment of them, are feedback that change / evolve the "ism" structurally. By structurally is meant everything from the basic axioms / presuppositions of an ism to its rules / policies, perspective, ...
  • Is it an open ism? Does it allow membership to all? And in its tenets, does it allow both joining and leaving without side effects?
By these rather basic and simple measure, most (if not all) of our current isms are very dysfunctional isms. This includes almost all the religions either in their basis or their practice or both. The same dysfunction applies to other isms such as nationalism, communism, capitalism. fascism, totalitarianism,  atheism, anarchism, ...

How do we go about creating an ism that creates a healthy, resilient, antifragile, and viable ecology for our species with the two above metrics?  Are there other metrics that we need for this evaluation?

A side issue to note is that an "ism" proposes a causal chain with a first cause. That first cause is a reflection of the level / stage of development of the creator of the ism. Ism followers often take their notion of first cause as "absolute truth", rather than a window into their own level of development and understanding.

1 comment:

  1. Hi Moody,
    After Jeans last email I wrote quite a long response but decided to hold it and see if she really wanted to engage in discussion. The Hitchens line about biologist not killing each other is a logical fallacy. It sounds kinda right but if you think about it more than two minutes it becomes obvious that he is being deceptive. I might ask him, how many priests kill each other or doctors or garbage men? Even generals, how many kill each other? He purposely doesn't ask how many people are kill by scientists, which is a whole nuther question. what he is really trying to say is that people of science are superior to people of religion. Yet another way to divide people from each other.
    Frank

    ReplyDelete