There is an increasing tendency among philosophers and other intellectuals to insist that everything is interconnected. So consistently will they harp on the sickness and wrongheadedness of the tendency to divide the world up into discrete, autonomous entities, that one wonders who exactly they're arguing with. The Cartesian worldview is dead, and Aristotelianism doesn't get much praise either. So who is contesting this interconnectedness that all these intellectuals insist upon?
One person challenging this view is Graham Harman. In his object-oriented approach, he critiques both the undermining of objects in which they are reduced to their component parts as well as the overmining of objects in which they are reduced to their relations. He suggests instead that objects recede from their relations -- that they are always more than any of their properties or relations, and have hidden capacities to relate in other ways than they currently do. In this sense, no object ever encounters another directly. They only encounter a caricature of the other objects, experiencing only a small portion of the objects properties that are relevant to it within their particular relation. Objects do not relate to each other directly, but only vicariously through a third object which constitutes the relation between them. Thus, according to Harman, nothing is directly connected, and the connections that do exist have to be made by the objects, and are not all simply pre-existing. He describes a reality that is "clunky" and not a smooth continuum like that described by someone like Alfred North Whitehead or David Bohm.
There is an important political dimension to this. If you assume that everything is already interconnected, then it's difficult to see how conflicts arise. One should pause to remember the degree to which fascists embraced holism. The Doctrine of Fascism by Giovanni Gentile is full of passages about society as an organic whole united under the state. Phenomena like class struggle, patriarchy, white supremacy, and all forms of privilege exist precisely because of disconnections and fractures in society. Privilege exists because the oppressed are invisible to the oppressors. In other words, there is a very real disconnect between oppressor and oppressed.
So one might say that everything is not connected, and that is precisely the problem. This unity and interconnectedness is not so much a living reality, but rather a spiritual longing towards which we strive. This is rather in line with the traditional Judeo-Christian view that the world is fallen. Judaism, particularly in the mystical tradition of the Kabbalah, tells of a "shattering of the vessels," in which the world is fractured and torn asunder, and that our great work in this world is to perform works of "tikkun olam," or "mending of the world." This can be contrasted with the Dharmic tradition of the east, in which the goal is simply to realize the already-existing oneness of existence.
It is interesting that even as we seek unity and interconnectedness, the general thrust of the cosmos seems to be toward ever-greater differentiation. Existence will never again be as unified as at the moment of the Big Bang. There seems instead to be a movement toward the creation of ever-new forms, creating more and more diversity. We see this in evolution as well. So is this longing for unity and interconnection an illusion? A lost cause?
I think not. I would say that there is a source at which everything is always already unified, and that it is the very same source as this creative differentiation. This creative force, somewhat comparable to Bergson's élan vital, is the ever-present ground of all its iterations. As the ground of all being, it can be found by turning within, as mystics of every religious tradition have done throughout history. But as a creative force, it also serves as a beacon of hope toward which we strive.
In striving toward this end, however, what we find is not the primordial unity from which we came, but new and higher syntheses. It is precisely these synthesis that are part and parcel of the creative process. And yet, some of these syntheses end up creating harmful divisions. Capitalism is such a synthesis. So is patriarchy, white supremacy, and so on.
So synthesis is not necessarily the same as the unity we're looking for. In this primordial unity, there is also equality. Achieving this means tearing down the syntheses based on domination, and replacing them with more harmonious alternatives. It is therefore often necessary to amplify disjunctions and fractures to bring about a higher and more righteous unity. This creative destruction is also part of the great work.
In summary, there is a primordial unity which is both ever-present and toward which we always strive. This unity is also a creative process that drives the ever-expanding differentiation of forms. It is thus both a sublime center in which we can place ourselves, and a moral call to action by which we are guided. It is simultaneously the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.
One person challenging this view is Graham Harman. In his object-oriented approach, he critiques both the undermining of objects in which they are reduced to their component parts as well as the overmining of objects in which they are reduced to their relations. He suggests instead that objects recede from their relations -- that they are always more than any of their properties or relations, and have hidden capacities to relate in other ways than they currently do. In this sense, no object ever encounters another directly. They only encounter a caricature of the other objects, experiencing only a small portion of the objects properties that are relevant to it within their particular relation. Objects do not relate to each other directly, but only vicariously through a third object which constitutes the relation between them. Thus, according to Harman, nothing is directly connected, and the connections that do exist have to be made by the objects, and are not all simply pre-existing. He describes a reality that is "clunky" and not a smooth continuum like that described by someone like Alfred North Whitehead or David Bohm.
There is an important political dimension to this. If you assume that everything is already interconnected, then it's difficult to see how conflicts arise. One should pause to remember the degree to which fascists embraced holism. The Doctrine of Fascism by Giovanni Gentile is full of passages about society as an organic whole united under the state. Phenomena like class struggle, patriarchy, white supremacy, and all forms of privilege exist precisely because of disconnections and fractures in society. Privilege exists because the oppressed are invisible to the oppressors. In other words, there is a very real disconnect between oppressor and oppressed.
So one might say that everything is not connected, and that is precisely the problem. This unity and interconnectedness is not so much a living reality, but rather a spiritual longing towards which we strive. This is rather in line with the traditional Judeo-Christian view that the world is fallen. Judaism, particularly in the mystical tradition of the Kabbalah, tells of a "shattering of the vessels," in which the world is fractured and torn asunder, and that our great work in this world is to perform works of "tikkun olam," or "mending of the world." This can be contrasted with the Dharmic tradition of the east, in which the goal is simply to realize the already-existing oneness of existence.
It is interesting that even as we seek unity and interconnectedness, the general thrust of the cosmos seems to be toward ever-greater differentiation. Existence will never again be as unified as at the moment of the Big Bang. There seems instead to be a movement toward the creation of ever-new forms, creating more and more diversity. We see this in evolution as well. So is this longing for unity and interconnection an illusion? A lost cause?
I think not. I would say that there is a source at which everything is always already unified, and that it is the very same source as this creative differentiation. This creative force, somewhat comparable to Bergson's élan vital, is the ever-present ground of all its iterations. As the ground of all being, it can be found by turning within, as mystics of every religious tradition have done throughout history. But as a creative force, it also serves as a beacon of hope toward which we strive.
In striving toward this end, however, what we find is not the primordial unity from which we came, but new and higher syntheses. It is precisely these synthesis that are part and parcel of the creative process. And yet, some of these syntheses end up creating harmful divisions. Capitalism is such a synthesis. So is patriarchy, white supremacy, and so on.
So synthesis is not necessarily the same as the unity we're looking for. In this primordial unity, there is also equality. Achieving this means tearing down the syntheses based on domination, and replacing them with more harmonious alternatives. It is therefore often necessary to amplify disjunctions and fractures to bring about a higher and more righteous unity. This creative destruction is also part of the great work.
In summary, there is a primordial unity which is both ever-present and toward which we always strive. This unity is also a creative process that drives the ever-expanding differentiation of forms. It is thus both a sublime center in which we can place ourselves, and a moral call to action by which we are guided. It is simultaneously the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.
No comments:
Post a Comment