Detta är min vilja, vilja, min livslånga dröm, min livslånga dröm
Niklas Kvarforth
Idéer, idéer, har någon konkreta idéer?
Concepts : Time, space, geometry, politics, ideology, art. Are those descriptions of a (possible) reality ? or something else ?
There is an idea which is called determinism. Pierre-Simon de Laplace (1749–1827), developed a theory which is called “Laplace’s demon“. According to the theory, if given every location and momentum of every atom in the universe, we can know the past and future. This Newtonian idea, by now should be very outdated. Science suggests time is relative, so there is no ‘one picture of the universe’, particle physics and quantum mechanism suggests there is no certainty at a sub atomic level, we need to use statistics, which leads to the multiverse theory, and there is more to it : the concept of entanglement demonstrates how the point of view of a person can alter reality, scientists talk about “changing our basic notions (e.g. simultaneity, logic, ontology) about the ‘behaviour’ of the universe”. To be honest, those ‘strange’ notions only happen at a scale level which we usually do not experience. This is also why the Newtonian notions are still quite a close approximation of reality, though limited.
Magic is kind of a paradox, we experience it every day, but deny its existence. The digital world which allows us the make contact which other people all across the world, to be able to reach all at once, almost immediately, by using light (fiber optics), is quite magical. Scientists would say, there is no magic to it, it is just part of the material world. But again, the phenomena we encounter, is so far away from what is called human, we cannot grasp it, and when we do, its only through concepts which translates a phenomenal experience into (dead) numbers. It is at the same time not human but still anthropocentric “In order to draw a limit to thinking, we should have to think both sides of this limit.”
There is a theory / strategy named “operational rationality”. This theory sees language and use of math, only as tools that their greatest achievement is to allow people to be on the same page and therefore achieve the same goals. They are not relevant in terms of describing the universe (i.e. ‘the mirror of nature’). Even our basic existence in what we call ‘time’, is an imposed illusion : its a universe which has linear and simultaneous time, in which everyone experience time the same. Henry Bergson offered an alternative, so he described ‘duration’ in which time is experienced in a personal, phenomenal, non-linear non-simultaneous way, his ideas today is mostly uncommon, though used in canon western literature. Linear ‘wristwatch’ time is an illusion because it tends to ignore, the now scientific fact, that time is in essence non-linear, to say : phenomenal. Watches relate to universal determinations, man can choose to relate to universal determination, man choose to wear watches.
Here lies is they key to my post-romanticist theory. Science takes pride in the fact that two people from across the globe can communicate, and make sure they meet each other at a certain point at an accuracy of the second. We can calculate if a meteor will hit the moon, and when would be the exact moment that it would happen. These possibilities still gives as the illusion of a linear and simultaneous world, which is actually a concept which is based on a very specific perspective, which could be limiting. “Operational rationality” describes how such a common concept is in the use of social control mechanisms, it means that from a utilitarian point of view, from a materialist point of view, its quite useful to be under that spell of that illusion. That illusion is still quite under the influence and spell of the enlightenment monotheistic mindset (the one god, one reality).
My post-romanticist question : If two people want to meet, how come they can make it happen, if they cannot relate to the same universe ? What does it have to do with determination ?
We can definitely predict, when a meteor will hit the moon, but that prediction is valid only for a certain viewer. We can definitely look at a watch and see what time it is, and definitely meet someone so at a point of a synchronisation of the watches.
But here is the trick : determinations exists for man, but only to a certain extent and only at a certain distance. It sounds simple, but its not : There is definitely an amount of determinism in the universe, we are born to the same human reality, we can (only) discuss the same reality. There is space, there is the moon and the sun, and the cycles. The greatest achievement of science : When two people meet through watch synchronisations, when a spaceship lands on the moon, there are men, and there are determinations, there is a non-deterministic reality and there is the will. The fact of two people meeting can be attributed to their will, and if only because its a matter of decision if they will meet or not, from a human point of view : it does not have to happen, the human perspective leave a space for non-determination, call it will. Physics can describe how something works, and why, according to ‘forces’ and ‘action at distance’ and thing popping out and disappearing into nothing, but not why something will work according to internet. Some philosophers called this sphere the “Noosphere” (νόος nóos, “mind, spirit”). The opposing force for talking about such idea of Noosphere is Ockham’s razor, misunderstood as a criteria for a mirror imagine of the world, instead of a very strong criteria for rational co-operation, used in language. Which kind of existence literature has outside the Noosphere ? Is it why its going extinct ?
Although already back in Greek tragedy the human will was confronted with determinations : It failed every time. Those were mostly social determinations (Antigona, Oedipus). Even until the day of Balzac, Stendal, Even Ibsen, the western culture has continued the same tradition : describing man only in the context and boundaries of determinations.
The Greek and the Enlightened cultures conceived themselves under higher unknown powers. Today we see things differently. We understand the known higher powers are mostly social determinations, and our own limits : The ancient Greek city-state, their social order, the contemporary ‘post-enlightened’ scientific materialistic perspective, the social order that comes with it, operational rationality.
In the classical description of the will, it can only come crushing against determinations, unless we are talking about Romanticism, which was a rebel movement against the classical mechanist (Newtonian) point of view. In the post modern era, we are stil dealing with social determinations, but the social determinations has even more sophisticated ways to abolish what we call “will”, our social determinations still deny the possibility of such ‘will’ through social mechanisms. The materialistic scientific point of view does not see where will can exist in a world of material, in a world of light.
It is only though darkness and magic we can establish the will. Outside social conformity and science or any other materialistic point of view. What is unique to us humans, what can be expressed it art, it is our ability to imagine new worlds, to dream the fantasise of new worlds. The imagination works through darkness, the unsocial realm of dream at night time. It might be true to say that our reality is anthropomorphic, and as such, its not limited by anything external, only internal to human, which is always is a state of change. It is paradoxical from a logical point of view. We talking about a different thinking than logic, which is also not emotional (and therefore not classic Romanticist).
There is something which we cannot speak about, which can make the will quite effective. Everyone can dream about new possibilities, but taking a decision to make those possibilities happen is something quite different. I personally believe, and history serves a good meta-example, that what we choose to believe can make a difference. Therefore there is much room for a system of believes (call it religion if you like) and as much as art, to motivate us and break us free from social or natural / anthropomorphic / ontological determinations. The use of language and imagination are key in this case.
The notion I am trying to describe here can be tricky, even paradoxical, I am not talking about a notion that is common to us. Using our current language, we can say that we might be only able to choose which determinations to face, choose you battles, but battles can be fought and win until a certain extent. The total war can never be won (Ragnarök, Twilight of the gods), evidence of the higher determination of death (time is our worst enemy). The will feeds from dreams, and those dreams favour the individual over nature, society, and death, the true battleground.