re: scientifc approach to social life-2
As we discussed before our current world view is that we utilize the so called scientific approach to see the world; this world view holds that Human researches Nature using experiment, gets objective data about how things really are and makes conclusions based on logic. A german filosofer Hegel thought that science as we know it creates its objects (scientific models of the real life fenomena) so that they do not contain contradictions; thus they (models) lack content to better present real life objects; also he insisted that the scientists should understand how human Mind works in order to apply our intellect in its fuller capacity which initiates further development of logics to help our ability to think, research and obtain the Absolute Truth.
Anyway, one of the major additions to our ontology on the road to amend society is introducing the Second Nature - the world of human mind, society.
So, the first item on our agenda to find out why our successful scientific set of skills, ontologies, and logics did not work when applied to society is to accept that there are two major domains to deal with: Nature-1 and Nature-2. We add one more domain rather than announcing Nature-2 a subset of the first Nature because we would like to keep all those goodies that we got while utilizing that scientific set of patterns-skills-utencils. On the other hand, as we will see further on, the laws, patterns-skills-utencils in those two domains differ too much.
Basically the major difference jumps in with this fact: the major tool to research Nature Two is also the object in focus. With Nature-1 we have Nature itself as the object and Human as the subject, the Observer. Once we start observing the Observer the tool becomes the object. And the thing in focus acquires both features that used to belong to two different fenomena. In terms of logical procedures that adds couple more procedures in analyzing received data: we have to account for the tools in use all the time.
As an a explanation to differences between the laws of these two Natures consider this: with Nature-1 we see macro-world and try to understand its inner structure, the micro-world, how matter is organized inside the objects that we normally perceive; with Nature-2 we normally sense the micro-world (one's inner self, one-to-one relations) and have to find out the rules that govern the macro-world, our society.
With Nature-1 we assume (postulate) existence of a number of various fields and their emissions, such as gravitation, magnetism, nuclear, light, etc. With Nature-2 the biggest issue is dualism of each major fenomena: we deal fizically with individuals only yet we have to admit existence of social substances that govern the behaviour of each individual. The major forces in Nature-2 are: Language, Power, Society, Mind.
Historically it happened so that people developed various disciplines to deal with each aspect of Nature-2. It will take great deal of effort to bring into mainstream understanding of interconnections among all those human related fenomena.
If we look at those four major aspects of Nature-2 -- Language, Power, Society, Mind - we can notice that the Power aspect is least known to public. More than that: it is the most abused and purposefully confused one.
The reason for that abuse is quite self-explanatory: Power is essential for survival. For scientifc-research reasons it is important to note that Power looks and behaves differently when seen from different aspects be it societal structure, or knowledge production, or manufacturing, or one's morals.
Power (like any other Nature-2 aspect) is exercised via individuals; each individual's psyche is regulated by one's place within the social structure. Thus every language instance, every spoken or written word has to be assessed through the influence of one's spot within power structure. As the say, every communication instance is an attempt to affect the interlocutor; everybody is trying to manipulate, to govern-guide the other person.
Here is the major pattern:
-- one's spot within power structure dictates one's values, judgements (what is good and what is bad);
-- those judgements guide one's motivation for actions;
-- the motives help choosing words from our shared language to deliver on one's intentions (hidden agenda).
In a sense it is a war of every social layer against all the other strata.
The only thing that helps to hold humanity intact, as one unit working together, is that the major social (human) priority is survival of the human species overall, as a biological fenomenon. Society will and always had sacrificed individual humans for the sake of the whole species' survival. This total principal counterbalances egoistic agenda of each social stratum. This fact also supports creating values and ethics that help us make proper decisions with regards to who is right-wrong at the end of the day.
There is a paradoxically sounding maxim about this: what is more important than a Human's life?
The answer is: lives of two people is more important than life of A human. In other words: it is morally justified to kill a person if that saves lives of other people.
All that was an introduction to viewing the next step: we have to keep in mind the major power structures of our current society in order to analyze social events. One of the societal feature is that it is always transparent and visible to all the humans who are part of the system. Basically every single part of society sees the whole structure; this is a major feature of this fenomenon, otherwise it cannot exist. The problem steps when we try to word out, to describe in words what we see. Remember: every speech instance is also an attempt to influence other people. At this point (an attempt to communicate) one's individual psyche, values dictated by one's societal functionality, and one's access to language and reasoning capacities come together.
As a result, any description, any worded instance changes the overall Mind landscape.
We can discuss this point later.
Let me give you my (well, borrowed from wise people) view on power in our current society.
To act within power structure means to affect, to govern, to manipulate people.
There are structured and non-structured means to govern.
There are several levels of the latter, such as:
-- the most general type of knowledge accessible to people related to worldviews, understanding how the world is organized, e.g.: religions, scientific (materialistic) ontology and their variations-combinations;
-- types of various information related to history and current news, and specifically the way this information is formatted within value-assessing (judgemental) aspects;
-- some aspects of our civilization that affect our life and ability to reason, such as drugs, life styles.
Among structured aspects we find:
-- economics and related venues;
-- sheer power per se (governments, wars).
It looks like non-structured aspects might be more effective than conventional direct governmental violence.
Anyway, when asked an opinion on any change in our social landscape we have to consider the following:
-- links to non-structured aspects of the event;
-- beneficiaries among the structured aspects;
-- the spot within the power structure of both the speaker (the analyst) and the addressee.
Now i feel like i am ready to voice my analysis of the facts in your article.
(to be continued)