the myopia of objectivity

I noted in my last post that I have certain concerns about the proclaimed “objectivity” of modernity and specifically modern science, and the fact that those in the West increasingly seem to subscribe to this notion as if we have somehow found, in no more than the last 3 centuries or so, an undeniably objective perspective on reality that negates everything that came before, or at least places all of it in the dustbin of dark, superstitious, and ignorant history.  What I think that perspectives like the Bhutanese can do, and again I’m referring here to the necessary challenge that a spiritual notion like happiness as a defining, in fact the defining, characteristic of being, is stand up and say that there are other ways of thinking about who we are, other dimensions of being than the material, and other qualities than those which we tend to limit ourselves to these days.  For me, starting from a materialistic perspective does not constitute being objective, as measurable and objective are in no way the same thing.  Whether non-material qualities can be effectively measured, as is attempted by GNH, is another matter, but the fact that they are acknowledged is at least of enough significance to think seriously about.

The danger remains that attempting to quantify spiritual qualities does them a disservice.  Quantification through statistics, measurement, and the like tends to objectify something that, in my humble opinion, is very difficult to meaningfully measure.  For example, some of the measurements used in Bhutan to quantify happiness include number of hours spent in meditation, going to community ceremonies, as well as some sort of measure of karma.  Now, all measures are proxies at best, but it is obvious that quality is far more important than quantity in this sort of scenario.  Yet, despite the difficulties, I also feel that there may be something to be said of this type of measurement.  Surely it must be considered that if the young continue to be raised within the spiritual tradition, which necessarily involves a certain amount of hours taking part in these types of activities, then what the society considers happiness is likely to be increased.  One can argue against this, but it’s an argument against the efficacy of religion and not really against the religious/spiritual principle, and if you don’t believe there’s anything there, then all of this is bunk anyways.

 

So, despite the difficulties and challenges of these types of measurement, they may still be effective proxies to some extent, and can be used to challenge overly materialistic definitions of development.  They put forth the premise that, yes, the spiritual dimension is as important as the material, and we’re going to at least attempt to measure this dimension of being and define the goals of our society by it.  Now, for me, this is a challenge to the type of proclaimed objectivity of modern science that reduces all things to the material level, and even now dissects them to the atomic, molecular, quantum, to a place now where even modern science’s own laws break down.  You’d think scientists would notice, but they continue to push for more all-encompassing laws, and more inclusive measurements that will somehow, eventually, explain everything and leave nothing to the imagination, not to mention the spirit.

What I continue to notice, as one who feels pretty challenged by much of the modern mentality, is how increasingly myopic this perspective is, how little we are able to see out of the box of the assumptions of modernity, many of which begin with its greatest dogma, modern science.  An example of this is history.  I’m really starting to feel that, beyond the last 2 or 3 centuries, history no longer matters to anyone, except insofar as it is used to justify, explain, and project our current path.  Look at Google, as a fairly random example.  Every few days they come up with some inane thing to celebrate by changing their homepage font (the big Google word that I believe they call ‘Google Doodle’, and which appears as too many of our homepages), as if the things they come up with are worth celebrating.  But, don’t you notice that they all are very much rooted in modern culture?  Recent ones I’ve noticed, now worse than most, have included: Jules Verne’s birthday, Mr. Dressup’s birthday, Bob Ross's 70th birthday?!  Certainly nothing that ever goes back beyond the 2 or 3 centuries of modern history that I mentioned.  

 

Now, what’s so special about these last few centuries?  Nothing really, except that we are in their midst, and even so caught up in them that we no longer are really able to see beyond them.  If we dare look beyond the horizon of the dawning of the modern, scientific age (and of course, the dawning of our current ‘objectivity’), we see something that is so entirely different that we no longer even recognize it.  We see everywhere ages of faith, of spirituality, of people living in relative harmony with their environment, of sustainable lifestyles that were certainly more difficult, less ripe with comforts, but who’s to say that they weren’t more fulfilling or meaningful?  I for one can hardly believe they could be less.  Anyways, my point is that we are so encapsulated in our modern lifestyles and paradigms that we no longer can imagine life beyond it, life before Google and modern science.  Life beyond this anomaly that is the modern world.

To get back to my point at the beginning, to a certain extent we’ve come to justify our own myopia by convincing ourselves that we’ve found not only true objectivity, but the true definition of who we are.  But this definition is very much rooted in a mechanistic-materialistic 18^th century paradigm that we are too often encapsulated by, and fail to see beyond.  Celebrating Jules Verne’s birthday and forgetting that probably a thousand more important things happened on that date goes to prove my point.  That we fail to see beyond the confines of the modern paradigm makes attempting to define ourselves by more robust measures, including those not limited to the material, all the more important.  Just as remembering that history is more than just who did what where, and who was born on what day.  The most important date in the Western calendar remains the day that Jesus most likely wasn’t even born.  But alas we know probably know the date that the current incarnation of Santa Claus was invented, and I’m sure Google will tell us when that was one of these days, so keep an eye on that home page!