This new paradigm, which took its first literate breadth in antiquity, has been anticipated in the work of every true idealist since. Understanding the dynamics that govern the interactions of subject and object, mind and world, the complementarity of perspectives, and the choices we make regarding how much or how little to look at, has been at the heart of most intellectual enterprises in human history. We see its prophets in Einstein's relativity and Bohr's quantum physics,[i] in Freud's psychoanalysis, Mead's interactionism,[ii] Sartre's existentialism, and Foucault's phemonenology--not to mention numerous threads of holism in every discipline, including applied fields such as medicine[iii] and sustainable agriculture. These butterflies, of sorts, have set into motion a complex psychosocial process the likes of which is infrequently, but fairly regularly, seen on this planet. It promises to make a difference in our future understanding of everything from brain function to social ethics.
The pioneers of each of these were courageous idealists in their own right. They had to be. And, without the idealism of people like John Kennedy, Socrates, and Mr. Frye as role models, I for one would have long ago forgotten what Anderson calls "the point." Without them, and others like them whose names routinely escape us, their would be no hope for the future.
It is important to remember that integration in this sense amounts to conflict resolution. The ancient vision about which Kennedy spoke on the day he died was that of peace on earth. We are, like Athens in her time, caught in this war, not because we love war, but because we love peace, and freedom, and truth, and justice, and goodness--ideals that constitute the human dignity and goodness that gave rise to the much maligned humanism of antiquity, ideals which are worthy of all the respect humans in nearly all times and places have paid them. The cultural center at Delphi sees its task, "improbably" we are told, "as the bringing together of the world 'in a spirit of amphictyony'."[iv]
Despite the prevalence of war in our history and, sadly, our modern world, it is a mistake to take this condition to be 'natural' in any meaningful sense, such as 'inevitable' or 'ultimate,' as conflict is simply a part of the process of making peace. It is the exercise of the love of order, clarity, and reason over pride.[v]
For all the conflict we can easily see by looking in any direction, we can see just as much good if we look in the right places. What we see when we look at human beings, individually or collectively, really is a question of what we're looking for, what we expect to find. Whether we find reason to believe that people can indeed be trusted to do their own part toward the good, or not, really depends on which people we take account of. The humble are easy to overlook precisely because they are humble,[vi] and, given what it takes to maintain both humility and idealism in the world, such as it is, we can conclude that, if they are idealistic, then they are courageous as well.
We must remember and correct for the condition which brought Beagle to his imperative--that "We are raised to honor all the wrong explorers and discoverers--thieves planting flags, murderers carrying crosses. Let us at last praise the colonizers of dreams."[vii] The dangerous power of confidence without wisdom that comes from unjust ends, such as 'thieves planting flags and murders carrying crosses,' is a trap that idealists struggle to avoid, for not just anything one might call a 'good' is actually an 'ideal.' We can and often do follow false goods, false gods--if these are even different things.
The power of words themselves is just such a trap. Powell notes that "Modern science...rejects the notion that we can manipulate the outside world by means of rituals and spells, but every ancient and some modern people were sure that magic was effective...magical theory assumes that spells are effective because words embody creative and effective power."[viii] While probably none of the courageous idealist whom we've cited here would call their method 'magic,' it does stand to reason that, along with ancient peoples, they do believe that words have power. Words and the myths that ancient peoples composed of them, function very much as ideals, perhaps by self-fulfilling prophesy. Whether as food for moral thought, as Socrates would hold, or as patterns for behavior, as the gods of pure myth or the wise and clever folk heros who are able to overcome all antagonists in order that goodness be rewarded and evil be punished.[ix] They provide continuity through time, and may have many variants, even while keeping their identity. And what's more, both myths and ideals are especially concerned with causes, i.e. etiology, which some take to be "the very essence of all mythology."[x]
What mythology has that ideals lack, for better or for worse, is the anthropomorphic tendency to represent abstractions of natural forces and processes as humans.[xi] Chaos, Nyx (Night), Erebus (Dark), Aether (Brightness), and Hemera (Day) are conceived more as personified abstractions than as gods.[xii] This tendency in mythology once led to some rather serious underestimations of nature, especially human nature, and Plato did not spare his breath trying to teach his contemporaries of the mistake of setting up such role models for the young. Despite his efforts however, "the ascription of human qualities to natural forces...was present in virtually all ancient societies, and still has wide appeal," despite its rejection by modern science.[xiii] All the same, the stories of many early cultures had powerful influence on those that came after.
Much is written in great literature about the power of words and stories to make evil sound good. For Joseph Conrad's hero, Marlowe, the test was--as it has been for philosophers since Socrates gave his life for its sake - to prove themselves true to their words; to find out, by self trial, if one is real, or something less than that; to discover about himself whether his high ideals and his gift of being able to express them express them in words is the “pulsating stream of light, or the deceitful flow from the heart of an impenetrable darkness.”[xiv] Like Marlowe's antagonist, Kurtz, there will always be many who abuse this power, in ignorance, having convinced themselves with their own words. But words, by themsleves, do not constitute truth.
People are always learning, Socrates would remind us, and thus, always subject to making mistakes about what is good for them and what is not. This is why the stories we tell children are so important – since they can have such powerful and long lasting effects. In either case, we are responsible for the power our words and stories, especially as they effect the dreams of the young. For this reason:
"[A] high value must be set upon truthfulness (Plato's Republic, 78)... To be deceived about the truth of things and so to be in ignorance and error and to harbour untruth in the soul is a thing no one would consent to. Falsehood in that quarter is abhorred above everything...this ignorance in the soul which entertains untruth is what really deserves to be called the true falsehood; for the spoken falsehood is only the embodiment or image of a previous condition of the soul."(Plato's Republic, 74)
"[W]hen truth takes the lead, we may look to find in its train, not a whole company of defects, but a sound character, in which temperance attends on justice."(Plato's Republic, 197)
"From every point of view, then...one who praises justice speaks the truth; he who disparages it does not know what it is that he idly condemns."(Plato's Republic, 317)
So we can understand why Plato was so worried about the self-fulfilling effect that an amoral mythology could have on the souls of its young audience, perhaps for generation. The Delphic shrine was dedicated to Apollo, after all, a religions that was thought then to be unique in the history of Greece for its ethical content.[xv]
Plato learned from Socrates that this could prove a serious detriment to the future. He had the foresight to see that his age had the potential to give birth to a great civilization. He saw his age to be the childhood of our own. And for our part, to have had this idylic youth has given western culture a standard to live up to, in the same way that it benefits one to have had happy childhood. We have always had these memories of human excellence that give form to both our dreams and, in some cases, our worst nightmares.
"Mythology is a collection of stories from our species childhood," Powell says, "and we, like the Greeks themselves, have both to identity and to distinguish ourselves from them."[xvi]
While Plato could not know the content of what would emerge, he knew the form of the influence these stories would have, which, in combination with tales of evil gods with unjust intentions, was enough to make him worry. He knew that the images and parables on which future generations were nourished would give shape to the ideals and principles that would either inspire humankind's highest potentials, or float out of sight over our heads and out of our reach while we busily follow lesser ends. As modern parents worry about the effect of television on their young, he fretted the influence that mythological heroes and stories would have on the self-image of generations to come. He knew how vulnerable the child in each of us is to the power of words and the appeal of some especially corrupting values. He knew that it would be these values, our ideals, which would give rise to our behavior and from which our real lives would thus emerge, for better or worse. He worried that we would be led astray...in just the way we seem to have actually been.
In short, he knew how serious and long lasting would be the butterfly effects of bad role models, such as the gods of Homer and Hessiod were likely to be, if only because:
"A child cannot distinguish the allegorical sense from the literal, and the ideas he takes in at that age are likely to become indelibly fixed; hence the great importance of seeing that the first stories he hears shall be designed to produce the best possible effect on his character... A poet, whether he is writing epic, lyric, or drama, surely ought always to represent the divine nature as it really is. And the truth is that that nature is good and must be described as such. ... [this is] the worst of all faults, especially if the story is ugly and immoral as well as false--misrepresenting the nature of gods and heroes, like an artist whose picture is utterly unlike the object he sets out to draw."[xvii]
Plato’s worry was that we would come to see 'human-nature' as far less than that it is capable of becoming, and in the process, bring out by self-fulfilling prophesy what we expect in our young, rather than help them achieve their higher potentials.
"[T]o understand her real nature, we must look at her, not as we see her now, marred by association with the body and other evils, but when she has regained that pure condition which the eye of reason can discern; you will then find her to be a far lovelier thing and will distinguish more clearly justice and injustice and all the qualities we have discussed. Our description of the soul is true of her present appearance; but we have seen her afflicted by countless evils, like the [statue of the] sea-god Glaucus, whose original form can hardly be discerned, because parts of his body have been broken off or crushed and altogether marred by the waves [in which he is submerged], and the clinging overgrowth of weed and rock and shell has made him more like some monster than his natural self. But we must rather fix our eyes, Glaucon, on her love of wisdom and note how she seeks to apprehend and hold converse with the divine, immortal, and everlasting world to which she is akin, and what she would become if her affections were entirely set on following the impulse that would lift her out of the sea in which she is now sunken, and disencumber her of all that wild profusion of rock and shell, whose earthly substance has encrusted her, because she seeks what men call happiness by making earth her food. Then one might see her true nature, whatever it may be..."[xviii]
Plato knew that children are born fresh every generation, indeed, every lifetime, and they begin “disencumbered...of all that wild profusion of rock and shell, whose earthly substance has encrusted” the rest of us. Here is wherein he placed his hope, and wherein hope still lies. [repeat*]
Most of those who are able to recover our idealism and faith in humanity do so by association with children. Few relationships are more genuine, more honest, and more conducive to our better selves. However, we cannot always be sure that our children benefit as much from our associations as we do. Children are as close to truth as anyone ever gets, and the sages of the ages knew that we should be very careful what we teach them, careful who we teach them to respect, to become. And always keep in mind how much we have to learn from them.
[i]What the New Physics shows us essentially is that, when we stretch our perspective beyond the middle dimensions in which we humans play out our daily experience, such as was necessary for the founders of these new theories to do in order to transcend the old, we find that what is actually "real" is not nearly as obvious as had been thought. Relativity deals with the very large and fast, and quantum mechanics deals with the very small and fast, but both deal with phenomenon that lie outside the realm of ordinary experience. Out there, it is not all substance and it is not all clear and distinct. But it is important to note that this is not to say that objective reality is not "out there" at all, as some have interpreted the evidence of the new physics to imply, but only that it is not out there absolutely. It is, rather, out there contingently --contingent that is upon what is "in here". In the case of Relativity, reality admits to being contingent upon the point of view of the observer, and in the case of Quantum Mechanics, upon the point of focus. What this tells us is that space and time both seem to and actually do stretch and shrink, both in effect and in fact, symmetrically, and always in relation to the point of view and focus by which they are observed. In this, the existence of the objective is actually being affirmed, in that such events go on whether we notice them or not; they merely deny that it exists in any particular organization or order before that determination is made by the focus of consciousness. In both cases, the experience of "reality" takes place as an event at that point where the subjective meets the objective world. Reality therefore is quite dependent upon the action of the human mind.
Reality is not just physical, just as it is not just psychological, but is interactive. If particles do not possess well-defined qualities in the absence of observation, then perhaps it is too late for naive realism whereby bonafide reality exists whether we observe them or not. But this does not call upon us to discontinue our inquiry, but only to expand the "real world" into which we are inquiring. The New Physics has led us to the conclusion that if man is ever to understand all of reality, it will only be by discovering the secrets of his own mind, as that mind is integral to the reality which he sees; he not only sees what he wants to see by his choice of point of view, but often determines the very existence of that thing to begin with by the power of his focus.
[ii]Personalities are systems which interact with their environment in a comprehensible manner and need respect for their individuality. Every system is different, as every face and every snowflake is. And yet, individuality is understandable in itself. When the personality has become overcome by the "me" (see George Herbert Mead, Self, Mind, and Society) it has lost much of its individuality, has become controlled by external influences, while the self-driven personality, the "I", deserves our considerate understanding, our respect, and freedom from bad direction and rules. Thus the new science will need to incorporate these new values of acceptance, anonymity, dignity, and moral autonomy.
[iii]Regarding the controversy involving the World Health Organization’s definition of health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being.”(World Health Organization, "A Definition of 'Health', in Introduction to Ethics, Beauchamp & LeRoy, p. 79.) Efforts to restrict that definition of health shows the potential danger of the reductionist approach. While it is certainly true that a narrow physical definition of health, such as the American medical community has put forth, would be easier to implement than the broader ideal, which seems too vague to many, and simply undoable to others, in my view, this idealized definition is just vague and broad enough to work--that is, to be a guiding light to the institutional practices which see to the health of whole individuals on this whole planet. It is, I think, much better to keep such an ideal in mind, even knowing we can’t be perfect, in order to keep moving toward true health. Many things that cannot be done completely, no matter how hard we might try, are nonetheless worth trying for, if only accomplish partially. We cannot do anything that we don’t even try to do. We are still and always in the process of perfecting, even if there is no final and objective end. To say, as in this case, that we will only treat the physical conditions--because they are all we can be clear about, that is, that the physical is more predictable, directly observable, testable, and treatable in a way that mental and social aspects of health seem not to be--is, essentially, to give up on understanding the relation of interaction between the body, the mind, and the environment, and in this, irresponsible. If we argue for a physical definition of health, we thus argue that medical research ought to maintain its field of observation to the physical, and in this, we are in effect prescribing that humans stop looking for the cause and effect between mind, body, and world. An especially hazardous assumption, since we seldom find anything we are not looking for. Questions of entitlement that arise from such a broad conception of health ought not to dictate our will to know the truth. It seems clear that it is, or at least ought to be, the highest goal of medical research to understand--not to see to the economic interests of government and economy--for only then can we responsibly exercise the power that we wield. It actually is that simple, I think, and that complex.
[iv]Greece: Insight Guide, ed. Karen Van Dyck (Singapore: APA Publications, 1991), p. 138.
[v]For more on this subject see, Juliana Hunt, Senior Thesis, Summer 1992.
[vi] "If gentleness and a high temper are contraries, where shall we find a character to combine them? Both are necessary to make a good Guardian, but it seems they are incompatible. . . . We never noticed that, after all, there are natures in which these contraries are combined. . . . a fine instinct which is philosophic in the true sense. . . . the only mark by which he distinguishes a friendly and an unfriendly face is that he knows the one and does not know the other. . . . And that passion is the same thing as philosophy--the love of wisdom."(Plato, The Republic of Plato, p. 64-65)
[vii]Peter S. Beagle of J.R.R.Tolkien, "Introduction" to The Hobbit; or There and Back Again, (Ballantine Books; New York, 1937)[Watsonville, California, July 14, 1973]
[viii]Powell, p.22.
[ix]Powell, p.21.
[x]Powell, p.18.
[xi]Powell, p.174.
[xii]Powell, pp.18, 67.
[xiii]Powell, p.22.
[xiv]Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1910), p.119.
[xv]"Under Apollo's guidance the Greeks began to consider the notion that not just the deed, but the intent behind the deed mattered."(Powell, p.162)
[xvi]Powell, p.168. "A good deal of folktale derives its psychological appeal from memories of family life, particularly the experiences of a young child, who spends his days as an underdog in life's hierarchy."(Powell, p.21) Note also that the Greeks who so loved these myths, were also the first to reduce the role played by magic and divine whims in nature's changes and to recognize that nature is governed by discoverable and comprehensive laws.(Powell, p.168)
[xvii]Plato, The Republic of Plato, pp. 68-70.
[xviii]Plato, The Republic of Plato, pp.345-346. [C10.611]
The pioneers of each of these were courageous idealists in their own right. They had to be. And, without the idealism of people like John Kennedy, Socrates, and Mr. Frye as role models, I for one would have long ago forgotten what Anderson calls "the point." Without them, and others like them whose names routinely escape us, their would be no hope for the future.
It is important to remember that integration in this sense amounts to conflict resolution. The ancient vision about which Kennedy spoke on the day he died was that of peace on earth. We are, like Athens in her time, caught in this war, not because we love war, but because we love peace, and freedom, and truth, and justice, and goodness--ideals that constitute the human dignity and goodness that gave rise to the much maligned humanism of antiquity, ideals which are worthy of all the respect humans in nearly all times and places have paid them. The cultural center at Delphi sees its task, "improbably" we are told, "as the bringing together of the world 'in a spirit of amphictyony'."[iv]
Despite the prevalence of war in our history and, sadly, our modern world, it is a mistake to take this condition to be 'natural' in any meaningful sense, such as 'inevitable' or 'ultimate,' as conflict is simply a part of the process of making peace. It is the exercise of the love of order, clarity, and reason over pride.[v]
For all the conflict we can easily see by looking in any direction, we can see just as much good if we look in the right places. What we see when we look at human beings, individually or collectively, really is a question of what we're looking for, what we expect to find. Whether we find reason to believe that people can indeed be trusted to do their own part toward the good, or not, really depends on which people we take account of. The humble are easy to overlook precisely because they are humble,[vi] and, given what it takes to maintain both humility and idealism in the world, such as it is, we can conclude that, if they are idealistic, then they are courageous as well.
We must remember and correct for the condition which brought Beagle to his imperative--that "We are raised to honor all the wrong explorers and discoverers--thieves planting flags, murderers carrying crosses. Let us at last praise the colonizers of dreams."[vii] The dangerous power of confidence without wisdom that comes from unjust ends, such as 'thieves planting flags and murders carrying crosses,' is a trap that idealists struggle to avoid, for not just anything one might call a 'good' is actually an 'ideal.' We can and often do follow false goods, false gods--if these are even different things.
The power of words themselves is just such a trap. Powell notes that "Modern science...rejects the notion that we can manipulate the outside world by means of rituals and spells, but every ancient and some modern people were sure that magic was effective...magical theory assumes that spells are effective because words embody creative and effective power."[viii] While probably none of the courageous idealist whom we've cited here would call their method 'magic,' it does stand to reason that, along with ancient peoples, they do believe that words have power. Words and the myths that ancient peoples composed of them, function very much as ideals, perhaps by self-fulfilling prophesy. Whether as food for moral thought, as Socrates would hold, or as patterns for behavior, as the gods of pure myth or the wise and clever folk heros who are able to overcome all antagonists in order that goodness be rewarded and evil be punished.[ix] They provide continuity through time, and may have many variants, even while keeping their identity. And what's more, both myths and ideals are especially concerned with causes, i.e. etiology, which some take to be "the very essence of all mythology."[x]
What mythology has that ideals lack, for better or for worse, is the anthropomorphic tendency to represent abstractions of natural forces and processes as humans.[xi] Chaos, Nyx (Night), Erebus (Dark), Aether (Brightness), and Hemera (Day) are conceived more as personified abstractions than as gods.[xii] This tendency in mythology once led to some rather serious underestimations of nature, especially human nature, and Plato did not spare his breath trying to teach his contemporaries of the mistake of setting up such role models for the young. Despite his efforts however, "the ascription of human qualities to natural forces...was present in virtually all ancient societies, and still has wide appeal," despite its rejection by modern science.[xiii] All the same, the stories of many early cultures had powerful influence on those that came after.
Much is written in great literature about the power of words and stories to make evil sound good. For Joseph Conrad's hero, Marlowe, the test was--as it has been for philosophers since Socrates gave his life for its sake - to prove themselves true to their words; to find out, by self trial, if one is real, or something less than that; to discover about himself whether his high ideals and his gift of being able to express them express them in words is the “pulsating stream of light, or the deceitful flow from the heart of an impenetrable darkness.”[xiv] Like Marlowe's antagonist, Kurtz, there will always be many who abuse this power, in ignorance, having convinced themselves with their own words. But words, by themsleves, do not constitute truth.
People are always learning, Socrates would remind us, and thus, always subject to making mistakes about what is good for them and what is not. This is why the stories we tell children are so important – since they can have such powerful and long lasting effects. In either case, we are responsible for the power our words and stories, especially as they effect the dreams of the young. For this reason:
"[A] high value must be set upon truthfulness (Plato's Republic, 78)... To be deceived about the truth of things and so to be in ignorance and error and to harbour untruth in the soul is a thing no one would consent to. Falsehood in that quarter is abhorred above everything...this ignorance in the soul which entertains untruth is what really deserves to be called the true falsehood; for the spoken falsehood is only the embodiment or image of a previous condition of the soul."(Plato's Republic, 74)
"[W]hen truth takes the lead, we may look to find in its train, not a whole company of defects, but a sound character, in which temperance attends on justice."(Plato's Republic, 197)
"From every point of view, then...one who praises justice speaks the truth; he who disparages it does not know what it is that he idly condemns."(Plato's Republic, 317)
So we can understand why Plato was so worried about the self-fulfilling effect that an amoral mythology could have on the souls of its young audience, perhaps for generation. The Delphic shrine was dedicated to Apollo, after all, a religions that was thought then to be unique in the history of Greece for its ethical content.[xv]
Plato learned from Socrates that this could prove a serious detriment to the future. He had the foresight to see that his age had the potential to give birth to a great civilization. He saw his age to be the childhood of our own. And for our part, to have had this idylic youth has given western culture a standard to live up to, in the same way that it benefits one to have had happy childhood. We have always had these memories of human excellence that give form to both our dreams and, in some cases, our worst nightmares.
"Mythology is a collection of stories from our species childhood," Powell says, "and we, like the Greeks themselves, have both to identity and to distinguish ourselves from them."[xvi]
While Plato could not know the content of what would emerge, he knew the form of the influence these stories would have, which, in combination with tales of evil gods with unjust intentions, was enough to make him worry. He knew that the images and parables on which future generations were nourished would give shape to the ideals and principles that would either inspire humankind's highest potentials, or float out of sight over our heads and out of our reach while we busily follow lesser ends. As modern parents worry about the effect of television on their young, he fretted the influence that mythological heroes and stories would have on the self-image of generations to come. He knew how vulnerable the child in each of us is to the power of words and the appeal of some especially corrupting values. He knew that it would be these values, our ideals, which would give rise to our behavior and from which our real lives would thus emerge, for better or worse. He worried that we would be led astray...in just the way we seem to have actually been.
In short, he knew how serious and long lasting would be the butterfly effects of bad role models, such as the gods of Homer and Hessiod were likely to be, if only because:
"A child cannot distinguish the allegorical sense from the literal, and the ideas he takes in at that age are likely to become indelibly fixed; hence the great importance of seeing that the first stories he hears shall be designed to produce the best possible effect on his character... A poet, whether he is writing epic, lyric, or drama, surely ought always to represent the divine nature as it really is. And the truth is that that nature is good and must be described as such. ... [this is] the worst of all faults, especially if the story is ugly and immoral as well as false--misrepresenting the nature of gods and heroes, like an artist whose picture is utterly unlike the object he sets out to draw."[xvii]
Plato’s worry was that we would come to see 'human-nature' as far less than that it is capable of becoming, and in the process, bring out by self-fulfilling prophesy what we expect in our young, rather than help them achieve their higher potentials.
"[T]o understand her real nature, we must look at her, not as we see her now, marred by association with the body and other evils, but when she has regained that pure condition which the eye of reason can discern; you will then find her to be a far lovelier thing and will distinguish more clearly justice and injustice and all the qualities we have discussed. Our description of the soul is true of her present appearance; but we have seen her afflicted by countless evils, like the [statue of the] sea-god Glaucus, whose original form can hardly be discerned, because parts of his body have been broken off or crushed and altogether marred by the waves [in which he is submerged], and the clinging overgrowth of weed and rock and shell has made him more like some monster than his natural self. But we must rather fix our eyes, Glaucon, on her love of wisdom and note how she seeks to apprehend and hold converse with the divine, immortal, and everlasting world to which she is akin, and what she would become if her affections were entirely set on following the impulse that would lift her out of the sea in which she is now sunken, and disencumber her of all that wild profusion of rock and shell, whose earthly substance has encrusted her, because she seeks what men call happiness by making earth her food. Then one might see her true nature, whatever it may be..."[xviii]
Plato knew that children are born fresh every generation, indeed, every lifetime, and they begin “disencumbered...of all that wild profusion of rock and shell, whose earthly substance has encrusted” the rest of us. Here is wherein he placed his hope, and wherein hope still lies. [repeat*]
Most of those who are able to recover our idealism and faith in humanity do so by association with children. Few relationships are more genuine, more honest, and more conducive to our better selves. However, we cannot always be sure that our children benefit as much from our associations as we do. Children are as close to truth as anyone ever gets, and the sages of the ages knew that we should be very careful what we teach them, careful who we teach them to respect, to become. And always keep in mind how much we have to learn from them.
[i]What the New Physics shows us essentially is that, when we stretch our perspective beyond the middle dimensions in which we humans play out our daily experience, such as was necessary for the founders of these new theories to do in order to transcend the old, we find that what is actually "real" is not nearly as obvious as had been thought. Relativity deals with the very large and fast, and quantum mechanics deals with the very small and fast, but both deal with phenomenon that lie outside the realm of ordinary experience. Out there, it is not all substance and it is not all clear and distinct. But it is important to note that this is not to say that objective reality is not "out there" at all, as some have interpreted the evidence of the new physics to imply, but only that it is not out there absolutely. It is, rather, out there contingently --contingent that is upon what is "in here". In the case of Relativity, reality admits to being contingent upon the point of view of the observer, and in the case of Quantum Mechanics, upon the point of focus. What this tells us is that space and time both seem to and actually do stretch and shrink, both in effect and in fact, symmetrically, and always in relation to the point of view and focus by which they are observed. In this, the existence of the objective is actually being affirmed, in that such events go on whether we notice them or not; they merely deny that it exists in any particular organization or order before that determination is made by the focus of consciousness. In both cases, the experience of "reality" takes place as an event at that point where the subjective meets the objective world. Reality therefore is quite dependent upon the action of the human mind.
Reality is not just physical, just as it is not just psychological, but is interactive. If particles do not possess well-defined qualities in the absence of observation, then perhaps it is too late for naive realism whereby bonafide reality exists whether we observe them or not. But this does not call upon us to discontinue our inquiry, but only to expand the "real world" into which we are inquiring. The New Physics has led us to the conclusion that if man is ever to understand all of reality, it will only be by discovering the secrets of his own mind, as that mind is integral to the reality which he sees; he not only sees what he wants to see by his choice of point of view, but often determines the very existence of that thing to begin with by the power of his focus.
[ii]Personalities are systems which interact with their environment in a comprehensible manner and need respect for their individuality. Every system is different, as every face and every snowflake is. And yet, individuality is understandable in itself. When the personality has become overcome by the "me" (see George Herbert Mead, Self, Mind, and Society) it has lost much of its individuality, has become controlled by external influences, while the self-driven personality, the "I", deserves our considerate understanding, our respect, and freedom from bad direction and rules. Thus the new science will need to incorporate these new values of acceptance, anonymity, dignity, and moral autonomy.
[iii]Regarding the controversy involving the World Health Organization’s definition of health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being.”(World Health Organization, "A Definition of 'Health', in Introduction to Ethics, Beauchamp & LeRoy, p. 79.) Efforts to restrict that definition of health shows the potential danger of the reductionist approach. While it is certainly true that a narrow physical definition of health, such as the American medical community has put forth, would be easier to implement than the broader ideal, which seems too vague to many, and simply undoable to others, in my view, this idealized definition is just vague and broad enough to work--that is, to be a guiding light to the institutional practices which see to the health of whole individuals on this whole planet. It is, I think, much better to keep such an ideal in mind, even knowing we can’t be perfect, in order to keep moving toward true health. Many things that cannot be done completely, no matter how hard we might try, are nonetheless worth trying for, if only accomplish partially. We cannot do anything that we don’t even try to do. We are still and always in the process of perfecting, even if there is no final and objective end. To say, as in this case, that we will only treat the physical conditions--because they are all we can be clear about, that is, that the physical is more predictable, directly observable, testable, and treatable in a way that mental and social aspects of health seem not to be--is, essentially, to give up on understanding the relation of interaction between the body, the mind, and the environment, and in this, irresponsible. If we argue for a physical definition of health, we thus argue that medical research ought to maintain its field of observation to the physical, and in this, we are in effect prescribing that humans stop looking for the cause and effect between mind, body, and world. An especially hazardous assumption, since we seldom find anything we are not looking for. Questions of entitlement that arise from such a broad conception of health ought not to dictate our will to know the truth. It seems clear that it is, or at least ought to be, the highest goal of medical research to understand--not to see to the economic interests of government and economy--for only then can we responsibly exercise the power that we wield. It actually is that simple, I think, and that complex.
[iv]Greece: Insight Guide, ed. Karen Van Dyck (Singapore: APA Publications, 1991), p. 138.
[v]For more on this subject see, Juliana Hunt, Senior Thesis, Summer 1992.
[vi] "If gentleness and a high temper are contraries, where shall we find a character to combine them? Both are necessary to make a good Guardian, but it seems they are incompatible. . . . We never noticed that, after all, there are natures in which these contraries are combined. . . . a fine instinct which is philosophic in the true sense. . . . the only mark by which he distinguishes a friendly and an unfriendly face is that he knows the one and does not know the other. . . . And that passion is the same thing as philosophy--the love of wisdom."(Plato, The Republic of Plato, p. 64-65)
[vii]Peter S. Beagle of J.R.R.Tolkien, "Introduction" to The Hobbit; or There and Back Again, (Ballantine Books; New York, 1937)[Watsonville, California, July 14, 1973]
[viii]Powell, p.22.
[ix]Powell, p.21.
[x]Powell, p.18.
[xi]Powell, p.174.
[xii]Powell, pp.18, 67.
[xiii]Powell, p.22.
[xiv]Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1910), p.119.
[xv]"Under Apollo's guidance the Greeks began to consider the notion that not just the deed, but the intent behind the deed mattered."(Powell, p.162)
[xvi]Powell, p.168. "A good deal of folktale derives its psychological appeal from memories of family life, particularly the experiences of a young child, who spends his days as an underdog in life's hierarchy."(Powell, p.21) Note also that the Greeks who so loved these myths, were also the first to reduce the role played by magic and divine whims in nature's changes and to recognize that nature is governed by discoverable and comprehensive laws.(Powell, p.168)
[xvii]Plato, The Republic of Plato, pp. 68-70.
[xviii]Plato, The Republic of Plato, pp.345-346. [C10.611]