Tuesday, September 18, 2007
(II) kabbalah as practice
There are a variety of different ritualistic practices associated with the kabbalah. All of these interact with the kabbalah's metaphysical structure to some degree, though often these rituals are also consonant with the interpretation of kabbalah as psychological theory. The variation in kabbalistic practices is broad, including at least, but not exclusively:
1. "Traditional" Kabbalistic Practice ~ As depicted in the Zohar, kabbalistic practice involves close textual analysis of the Torah. Each letter is important and a number of arcane techniques are permitted in this analysis. For example, because Hebrew script does not notate vowels, the same word can be read in a variety of ways. Connections between words in different parts of the Torah are imbued with meaning. Complex techniques utilizing the correspondence between Hebrew letters and numbers are employed (i.e. Gematria). Although the purported purpose of this practice was to reveal the different manifestations of God (the Sephiroth) as concealed in the holy text of the Torah, scholars (e.g. Scholem) have speculated it also served a meditative function. By focusing all their thought on increasingly involved and arcane readings of a passage, kabbalists whipped themselves into a mystical frenzy or trance. Under this interpretation, these traditional practices are ambiguous between the metaphysical and psychological interpretations of kabbalah. Is the trance of textual analysis a contact with the external divine? ~ or is it a delving into those aspects of the divine which can be discovered within?
2. Magickal "Qabbalistic" Practice ~ Western magick utilizes a series of rituals to effect journeys to the various "spheres" or Sephirah on the Tree of Life. Each sphere signifies a different grade in the acolyte's magickal progress. Traversal of the spheres can be a long and laborious journey; Crowley, for example, began his magickal work as a neophyte in 1898, but only achieved the rank of "magus" with his visit to Chokhmah in 1915. The ritual associated with a particular sphere involves the use of the substances and imagery which correspond to that sphere. Thus, as Hesed corresponds to the element of fire and the color white, the ritual associated with it may require that the acolyte dresses in white and keeps fires burning in braziers. The image associated with Hesed is of a crowned and enthroned king, and the acolyte may be required to fix his mind upon this image while performing the ritual. Chanting, complex movements, and (occasionally) psychedelic drugs are employed to induce a mystical frenzy of hallucinations in the acolyte. Magickal kabbalah also involves a "practical" aspect, i.e. it can ostensibly be used to effect changes in the world. In this case, the adept invokes the sphere which corresponds appropriately with the type of change he desires to effect. Thus, if the adept wishes retribution and judgment to fall upon a business partner who has cheated him (say, to pick an occurrance which seems unusually frequent in the annals of Western magick), he may invoke Geburah, which corresponds to judgment. Even in the literature on "practical" kabbalah, however, there is a deep ambiguity. The rituals which ostensibly effect change in the world can often be interpreted instead as effecting change in the adept himself. Thus, even magickal kabbalistic practices can be consonant with the psychological interpretation of the kabbalah.
3. "Hollywood" Kabbalah ~ The recent popularity of kabbalah in Hollywood has little to do with either of the above traditions and a lot to do with traditional cult conversion techniques (c.f., for example, this personal testimony). Yossi Klein Halevi says it better than I could:
1. "Traditional" Kabbalistic Practice ~ As depicted in the Zohar, kabbalistic practice involves close textual analysis of the Torah. Each letter is important and a number of arcane techniques are permitted in this analysis. For example, because Hebrew script does not notate vowels, the same word can be read in a variety of ways. Connections between words in different parts of the Torah are imbued with meaning. Complex techniques utilizing the correspondence between Hebrew letters and numbers are employed (i.e. Gematria). Although the purported purpose of this practice was to reveal the different manifestations of God (the Sephiroth) as concealed in the holy text of the Torah, scholars (e.g. Scholem) have speculated it also served a meditative function. By focusing all their thought on increasingly involved and arcane readings of a passage, kabbalists whipped themselves into a mystical frenzy or trance. Under this interpretation, these traditional practices are ambiguous between the metaphysical and psychological interpretations of kabbalah. Is the trance of textual analysis a contact with the external divine? ~ or is it a delving into those aspects of the divine which can be discovered within?
2. Magickal "Qabbalistic" Practice ~ Western magick utilizes a series of rituals to effect journeys to the various "spheres" or Sephirah on the Tree of Life. Each sphere signifies a different grade in the acolyte's magickal progress. Traversal of the spheres can be a long and laborious journey; Crowley, for example, began his magickal work as a neophyte in 1898, but only achieved the rank of "magus" with his visit to Chokhmah in 1915. The ritual associated with a particular sphere involves the use of the substances and imagery which correspond to that sphere. Thus, as Hesed corresponds to the element of fire and the color white, the ritual associated with it may require that the acolyte dresses in white and keeps fires burning in braziers. The image associated with Hesed is of a crowned and enthroned king, and the acolyte may be required to fix his mind upon this image while performing the ritual. Chanting, complex movements, and (occasionally) psychedelic drugs are employed to induce a mystical frenzy of hallucinations in the acolyte. Magickal kabbalah also involves a "practical" aspect, i.e. it can ostensibly be used to effect changes in the world. In this case, the adept invokes the sphere which corresponds appropriately with the type of change he desires to effect. Thus, if the adept wishes retribution and judgment to fall upon a business partner who has cheated him (say, to pick an occurrance which seems unusually frequent in the annals of Western magick), he may invoke Geburah, which corresponds to judgment. Even in the literature on "practical" kabbalah, however, there is a deep ambiguity. The rituals which ostensibly effect change in the world can often be interpreted instead as effecting change in the adept himself. Thus, even magickal kabbalistic practices can be consonant with the psychological interpretation of the kabbalah.
3. "Hollywood" Kabbalah ~ The recent popularity of kabbalah in Hollywood has little to do with either of the above traditions and a lot to do with traditional cult conversion techniques (c.f., for example, this personal testimony). Yossi Klein Halevi says it better than I could:
The [Kabbalah] Centre is hardly the first California-based faith to combine self-help techniques, a smattering of postmodern physics, and Star Wars spirituality (the "emperor of evil" versus the "light force"). But, unlike, say, Scientology, the Centre has co-opted one of the world's great mystical traditions. It draws on just enough authentic Kabbalah to make the deception credible to the credulous. Concepts like the evil eye and blessed water do exist in Jewish mysticism, but they are Kabbalah's least spiritual and intellectual elements. And that's precisely why the Centre is promoting them as Kabbalah's essence. In fact, the Centre doesn't merely trivialize Kabbalah; it inverts its intention. In traditional Kabbalistic meditation on the names of G-d, the goal is to transcend the separated self and experience oneness. "It's about annihilating the ego, not reinforcing it," notes Pinchas Giller, professor of Kabbalah at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles.
Suffice to say, the Kabbalah Centre supports the discredited first century AD theory of Zohar authorship, attributes Platonic philosophy and Newtonian optics to kabbalistic study, and claims that AIDs is caused by nuclear waste. Furthermore, the Kabbalah Centre teaches that mere possession of its ($415) Zohar brings spiritual and material benefit:
The Zohar is not merely paper and ink. It’s the truth, and as such is alive with divine energy and is the ultimate instrument for generating miracles. An amazing number of people have reported them just from housing a copy of it in their home. By simply possessing the books, power, protection, and fulfillment came into their lives. You may find that hard to believe, but that’s before you owned a set.
Interestingly, the Kabbalah Centre's store does not direct one to the new critical translation of the Zohar currently being undertaken by Daniel Matt (perhaps versions published by other organizations lack the divine power of the Kabbalah Centre's edition . . . ?).
(1) and (2) are both complex and difficult practices, involving years of study, asceticism, and hard work. Whether any benefit can actually be achieved from these endeavors depends upon one's expectations. Certainly the Spanish kabbalists of the 13th century derived spritual fulfilment from their rituals, but it is doubtful that they achieved either the material success or physical immortality promised to practitioners of (3). Furthermore, although (2) and (3) involve progression through stages of spritual development, these are measured by onerous tasks in (2), but monetary contribution in (3). Only (3) claims any benefit from mere monetary outlay (such as simple purchase of the Zohar), and as such may be discredited as a serious interpretation of kabbalistic practice.
Monday, September 17, 2007
dreams in which . . .
. . . inanimate objects talk to one, urging one into nefarious exploits, are unsettling in the extreme.
(I) kabbalah as metaphysics
The kabbalah involves the study of a system called The Tree of Life or the ten Sephiroth. Each Sephirah involves a group of associated concepts. For instance, Geburah is associated with Isaac, "power," "judgment," the color red, the planet Mars, the concept of height, etc.; while Hesed is associated with Abraham, (fatherly) "love," "grace," the color white, the planet Jupiter, the element of fire, etc. The Tree of Life is an arrangement of the ten Sephiroth as the vertices of a graph. The 22 edges of this graph represent "paths" between the Sephiroth; these paths also participate in a series of correspondences, for example with the 22 Major Arcana of the tarot.
There are a variety of different interpretations of The Tree of Life as a metaphysical system. For example, the ten Sephiroth can be interpreted as stages of creation, from Kether, the divine singularity of God, to Malkhut the mundane work-a-day world of human experience. Instead of interpreting the Sephiroth as temporally distinct, however, we might alternately interpret them as materially distinct. Under this analysis, each Sephiroth represents a distinct "level of reality" or "plane of existence." Again, Malkhut corresponds to the work-a-day world of ordinary appearance (prison of the uninitiated), while Kether represents the transcendent level of the Godhead, where all is one.
A third, more deeply theological interpretation is also possible. Traditionally, the Sephiroth were taken to represent different aspects of the Divine. For example, Geburah would represent the judgmental, retributive aspect of God, while Hesed would represent his fatherly love.
As a metaphysical system, the kabbalah leaves little to recommend it. The original draw of kabbalistic thought for Western occultists was its supposed origin in antiquity. Until quite recently, the kabbalah was taken as an ancient Jewish system, dating back to the first and second centuries AD. The most important early kabbalistic work, however, the Zohar was written in the late 13th century AD, after Maimonides' attempt at Aristotelianizing the Jewish faith. The Zohar's mysticism can be seen more as an attempt to reinforce the distinctiveness of Jewish culture in the face of widespread persecution and assimilation than as a legitimate recovery of ancient practices. This, at least, is the view popularized by Gershom Scholem.
There are a variety of different interpretations of The Tree of Life as a metaphysical system. For example, the ten Sephiroth can be interpreted as stages of creation, from Kether, the divine singularity of God, to Malkhut the mundane work-a-day world of human experience. Instead of interpreting the Sephiroth as temporally distinct, however, we might alternately interpret them as materially distinct. Under this analysis, each Sephiroth represents a distinct "level of reality" or "plane of existence." Again, Malkhut corresponds to the work-a-day world of ordinary appearance (prison of the uninitiated), while Kether represents the transcendent level of the Godhead, where all is one.
A third, more deeply theological interpretation is also possible. Traditionally, the Sephiroth were taken to represent different aspects of the Divine. For example, Geburah would represent the judgmental, retributive aspect of God, while Hesed would represent his fatherly love.
As a metaphysical system, the kabbalah leaves little to recommend it. The original draw of kabbalistic thought for Western occultists was its supposed origin in antiquity. Until quite recently, the kabbalah was taken as an ancient Jewish system, dating back to the first and second centuries AD. The most important early kabbalistic work, however, the Zohar was written in the late 13th century AD, after Maimonides' attempt at Aristotelianizing the Jewish faith. The Zohar's mysticism can be seen more as an attempt to reinforce the distinctiveness of Jewish culture in the face of widespread persecution and assimilation than as a legitimate recovery of ancient practices. This, at least, is the view popularized by Gershom Scholem.
(intro) kabbalah
The kabbalah has three fundamental interpretations or aspects.
I. the kabbalah as metaphysics.
II. the kabbalah as practice.
II. the kabbalah as psychological theory.
In order to understand the kabbalistic literature, one must consider all three. Nevertheless, it is commensurate with this literature to hold only one (or any combination) as the correct interpretation.
I. the kabbalah as metaphysics.
II. the kabbalah as practice.
II. the kabbalah as psychological theory.
In order to understand the kabbalistic literature, one must consider all three. Nevertheless, it is commensurate with this literature to hold only one (or any combination) as the correct interpretation.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
9 / 11
One event at the start of the third millenium anno domini changed the face of US foreign policy, US domestic policy, and, correspondingly, the security policies of most of the world. Travel by air has always exposed one to insult and humiliation by the airlines, but now the government itself has stepped in to ensure that every single traveller is treated with the same respect and decency as a common criminal. The "privilege" of habeas corpus has been suspended, a measure only licensed by the Constitution "in cases of rebellion or invasion." Yet questions still remain about the exact nature of the events that transpired that day and where exactly they fit in the historical map of US foreign and domestic policy. Even if a fully comprehensize answer to these questions is impossible, some kind of stopgap account is needed, and those presently available are far from adequate.
Questions about the events of 9/11 are often framed in terms of "official story" versus "conspiracy theories." Yet this dichotomy is spurious. For one thing, unlike in the cases of the JFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, and most other events which have inspired "conspiracy theories," the "official story" here also involves a theory about a conspiracy. Thus, the choice is quite literally between rival conspiracy theories (I have yet to see a non-conspiracy explanation for these events). Furthermore, it is a mistake to think there is a single, uniform "official story." The only unifying feature of advocates of the supposed "official story" is a kneejerk rejection of any criticism of the behavior of the US government or its officials concerning the events of Sept. 11. The 9/11 Commission Report does not provide an "official story" along these lines for a variety of reasons. First, it is far from complete, failing to address many issues potentially relevant to the events of Sept. 11, 2001 (e.g. the collapse of Building 7). Second, it is actually quite critical of various government agencies as dramatized in The Path to 9/11. Third, the findings of the commission on certain key issues, in particular the scientific explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers, are no longer a part of the consensus view. Strangely, the abandonment of the "pancake theory" in favor of the (slightly) more sophisticated NIST account vidicates early "conspiracy theorist" criticisms of both the theory itself, and the willingness to accept such an absurd theory on the part of the investigative committee.
However, it is not only the "official story" which has been unjustly treated as a well-defined and comprehensive account, the "conspiracy theories" as well are far from homogenous. "Conspiracy theories" can differ dramatically in both the nature of their accusations and the extent to which these diverge from the "official" consensus. Here's a sampling of the widely divergent nature of the accusations and sources:
Gross incompetence was demonstrated by the government in the years and months leading up to Sept. 11, 2001. In particular, adequate information on both the danger of bin Laden / al Qaeda and the specifics of the attack was available to the FBI and CIA, yet administrative red tape and cowardice prevented them from acting.
~ The Path to 9/11
Gross incompetence or criminally poor judgment was demonstrated by the government in planning a domestic defense exercise which would leave our nation's skies uncharacteristically unguarded on Sept. 11, 2001.
~ The 9/11 Commission Report
The government knowingly and with malicious forethought not only permitted the hijackings but furthermore assisted them and manipulated the events of Sept. 11, 2001 for maximum shock value on the American people.
~ Loose Change, Painful Questions, etc.
Either gross incompetence of deliberate malice has been demonstrated by the government in the events since Sept. 11, 2001 as it has fabricated an organization (al Qaeda) which actually has no substantive existence outside government imagination / delusion.
~ The Power of Nightmares
Deliberate malice and blatant opportunism has been demonstrated by the government in its behavior since Sept. 11, 2001. In particular, it willing failed to pursue bin Laden with maximum prejudice and instead merely juggled information until it could drum up enough public support for a war in Iraq.
~ Fahrenheit 9/11
This is only a rough sampling of the variety of accusations and theories out there. Rather than focus upon where exactly in this continuum of possible positions to demarcate the "official story," the crackpot "conspiracy theories," or the legitimate criticisms, I think there are pragmatic questions which can be answered without fomenting sectarian rivalries.
1. For domestic policy: Were there security measures in place before Sept. 11, 2001 which, if implemented correctly, would most likely have prevented the attacks from succeeding? This question is abosolutely crucial. The gross disruption of liberties, the denial of habeas corpus, the legalization of warrantless government spying, etc. which have been perpetrated upon the American people over the last 6 years depend for their justification on the thesis that the 2001 attacks succeeded because sufficient preventative measures were not in place. If it turns out that sufficient measures were in place, they were merely were not implemented as designed, then our focus should not be on giving government more power, but on reforming the existing government power structures to remove the threat of incompetence. I believe the evidence (including that of the "official" Commission Report) points overwhelmingly to an affirmative answer to this question; however, there is no consensus.
2. For foreign policy: Was interventionist US foreign policy in the decades before 2001 a major causal factor in the attacks of Sept. 11? If the answer to this question is "yes," then the US should reconsider its strategy for preventing future terror attacks with an aggressively interventionist foreign policy. The answer to this question most certainly is "yes," with the consensus overwhelming. In fact, so far as I know, the only group in the world which wouldn't answer in the affirmative here is the Republican presidential hopefuls. Nevertheless, I repeat, there is widespread consensus on this point, yet our foreign policy proceeds along interventionist lines without the subtle and convincing arguments needed to justify this strategy in a post-9/11 world.
3. For the peace of mind of the American people, for the dignity of the US in the eyes of the world, and to provide a consensus on the answer to (1): Is there sufficient cause to initiate a new independent investigation into the events of Sept. 11, 2001? Here, again, I believe the answer to be "yes." The fact that we have no consensus answer to (1), the single most important question for the daily lives of the American people, is reason enough for a new independent investigation.
I do not expect to ever discover the "truth" of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Furthermore, such a goal is unnecessarily ambitious. Nevertheless, pragmatic considerations alone prove our current understanding of these events inadequate. The only responsible behavior for the US government is to a) initiate an independent investigation which will deliver a definitive answer (at least) to (1); b) heed the consensus position on (2) and, at the very least, offer the American people a more robust and nuanced justification for its current foreign policy choices (ie one sensitive to the role of an interventionist foreign policy in instigating the 2001 attack).
Questions about the events of 9/11 are often framed in terms of "official story" versus "conspiracy theories." Yet this dichotomy is spurious. For one thing, unlike in the cases of the JFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, and most other events which have inspired "conspiracy theories," the "official story" here also involves a theory about a conspiracy. Thus, the choice is quite literally between rival conspiracy theories (I have yet to see a non-conspiracy explanation for these events). Furthermore, it is a mistake to think there is a single, uniform "official story." The only unifying feature of advocates of the supposed "official story" is a kneejerk rejection of any criticism of the behavior of the US government or its officials concerning the events of Sept. 11. The 9/11 Commission Report does not provide an "official story" along these lines for a variety of reasons. First, it is far from complete, failing to address many issues potentially relevant to the events of Sept. 11, 2001 (e.g. the collapse of Building 7). Second, it is actually quite critical of various government agencies as dramatized in The Path to 9/11. Third, the findings of the commission on certain key issues, in particular the scientific explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers, are no longer a part of the consensus view. Strangely, the abandonment of the "pancake theory" in favor of the (slightly) more sophisticated NIST account vidicates early "conspiracy theorist" criticisms of both the theory itself, and the willingness to accept such an absurd theory on the part of the investigative committee.
However, it is not only the "official story" which has been unjustly treated as a well-defined and comprehensive account, the "conspiracy theories" as well are far from homogenous. "Conspiracy theories" can differ dramatically in both the nature of their accusations and the extent to which these diverge from the "official" consensus. Here's a sampling of the widely divergent nature of the accusations and sources:
Gross incompetence was demonstrated by the government in the years and months leading up to Sept. 11, 2001. In particular, adequate information on both the danger of bin Laden / al Qaeda and the specifics of the attack was available to the FBI and CIA, yet administrative red tape and cowardice prevented them from acting.
~ The Path to 9/11
Gross incompetence or criminally poor judgment was demonstrated by the government in planning a domestic defense exercise which would leave our nation's skies uncharacteristically unguarded on Sept. 11, 2001.
~ The 9/11 Commission Report
The government knowingly and with malicious forethought not only permitted the hijackings but furthermore assisted them and manipulated the events of Sept. 11, 2001 for maximum shock value on the American people.
~ Loose Change, Painful Questions, etc.
Either gross incompetence of deliberate malice has been demonstrated by the government in the events since Sept. 11, 2001 as it has fabricated an organization (al Qaeda) which actually has no substantive existence outside government imagination / delusion.
~ The Power of Nightmares
Deliberate malice and blatant opportunism has been demonstrated by the government in its behavior since Sept. 11, 2001. In particular, it willing failed to pursue bin Laden with maximum prejudice and instead merely juggled information until it could drum up enough public support for a war in Iraq.
~ Fahrenheit 9/11
This is only a rough sampling of the variety of accusations and theories out there. Rather than focus upon where exactly in this continuum of possible positions to demarcate the "official story," the crackpot "conspiracy theories," or the legitimate criticisms, I think there are pragmatic questions which can be answered without fomenting sectarian rivalries.
1. For domestic policy: Were there security measures in place before Sept. 11, 2001 which, if implemented correctly, would most likely have prevented the attacks from succeeding? This question is abosolutely crucial. The gross disruption of liberties, the denial of habeas corpus, the legalization of warrantless government spying, etc. which have been perpetrated upon the American people over the last 6 years depend for their justification on the thesis that the 2001 attacks succeeded because sufficient preventative measures were not in place. If it turns out that sufficient measures were in place, they were merely were not implemented as designed, then our focus should not be on giving government more power, but on reforming the existing government power structures to remove the threat of incompetence. I believe the evidence (including that of the "official" Commission Report) points overwhelmingly to an affirmative answer to this question; however, there is no consensus.
2. For foreign policy: Was interventionist US foreign policy in the decades before 2001 a major causal factor in the attacks of Sept. 11? If the answer to this question is "yes," then the US should reconsider its strategy for preventing future terror attacks with an aggressively interventionist foreign policy. The answer to this question most certainly is "yes," with the consensus overwhelming. In fact, so far as I know, the only group in the world which wouldn't answer in the affirmative here is the Republican presidential hopefuls. Nevertheless, I repeat, there is widespread consensus on this point, yet our foreign policy proceeds along interventionist lines without the subtle and convincing arguments needed to justify this strategy in a post-9/11 world.
3. For the peace of mind of the American people, for the dignity of the US in the eyes of the world, and to provide a consensus on the answer to (1): Is there sufficient cause to initiate a new independent investigation into the events of Sept. 11, 2001? Here, again, I believe the answer to be "yes." The fact that we have no consensus answer to (1), the single most important question for the daily lives of the American people, is reason enough for a new independent investigation.
I do not expect to ever discover the "truth" of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Furthermore, such a goal is unnecessarily ambitious. Nevertheless, pragmatic considerations alone prove our current understanding of these events inadequate. The only responsible behavior for the US government is to a) initiate an independent investigation which will deliver a definitive answer (at least) to (1); b) heed the consensus position on (2) and, at the very least, offer the American people a more robust and nuanced justification for its current foreign policy choices (ie one sensitive to the role of an interventionist foreign policy in instigating the 2001 attack).
Sunday, September 9, 2007
informationless age
We must make a sharp distinction between data and evidence. Data are measurements, details, numbers ~ data simpliciter say nothing about any theory, any story about how and why these details and numbers fit together. Only evidence can support or refute a theory, and the process of turning data into evidence is neither trivial nor even congenial to any general systematization. At the very least, this process incorporates a vast array of background beliefs and expectations which, themselves, are immune to evidential support.
The "information age" is an age of increased data, not facts or evidence. The never-ending stream of "factoids" which the internet presents to us cannot hold the full-fledged status of "facts," as for every factoid that A, there exists another that not-A, and it is an intrinsic characteristic of facts that they are true. Since, A and not-A cannot both simultaneously be true, they cannot simultaneously be facts, and thus not all factoids are facts. Surely, some factoids are facts, and thus all we need is a theory about which "information sources" can be trusted and which cannot. Here, however, we run into the problem of turning data into evidence. For the trustworthiness of a given "information source" can only be judged against a background of prior beliefs and expectations. Thus, the factoids originating in that source alone give no evidence about its authenticity, they are merely data.
If all the factoids, all the "information," available on the internet is merely data, than the modern e-citizen is faced with the monumental task of turning data into evidence not just for theories about the world, but also for theories about the reliability of data-sources. This second-order uncertainty ensures that any modern e-citizen knows less in this "information age" than ever before ~ for the sheer proliferation of "information sources" via the internet magnifies the conceptual problem of validating said sources past the finite bounds of human ability. Yet faith in certainty ever abounds, and certainty has proved itself the chimera of the modern age.
The wise man says: attestation to knowledge is the hallmark of madmen and fundamentalists.
The "information age" is an age of increased data, not facts or evidence. The never-ending stream of "factoids" which the internet presents to us cannot hold the full-fledged status of "facts," as for every factoid that A, there exists another that not-A, and it is an intrinsic characteristic of facts that they are true. Since, A and not-A cannot both simultaneously be true, they cannot simultaneously be facts, and thus not all factoids are facts. Surely, some factoids are facts, and thus all we need is a theory about which "information sources" can be trusted and which cannot. Here, however, we run into the problem of turning data into evidence. For the trustworthiness of a given "information source" can only be judged against a background of prior beliefs and expectations. Thus, the factoids originating in that source alone give no evidence about its authenticity, they are merely data.
If all the factoids, all the "information," available on the internet is merely data, than the modern e-citizen is faced with the monumental task of turning data into evidence not just for theories about the world, but also for theories about the reliability of data-sources. This second-order uncertainty ensures that any modern e-citizen knows less in this "information age" than ever before ~ for the sheer proliferation of "information sources" via the internet magnifies the conceptual problem of validating said sources past the finite bounds of human ability. Yet faith in certainty ever abounds, and certainty has proved itself the chimera of the modern age.
The wise man says: attestation to knowledge is the hallmark of madmen and fundamentalists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)