Measure

Confronted with a recalcitrant reality we all want to measure.

In measuring we seek control. In the evidence of the failed metrics of others who came before us we see a challenge to do better. Our method will work!

How?

The issue is in scaling, a matter we are confronting on all sides as we run into limits that have been ignored. We can’t bake a cake or make a box without measuring. At least that’s what we believe….

If there might be doubts as to the benefits of measuring – it’s an attitude before it is a technique – even at this scale – not doubts held by many… – what about on larger scales?

What happens is that when we attempt to measure things on a large scale, we run into the limits of perception and struggle with diminishing returns to maintain any sort of useful accuracy.

One of the hardest “lessons” of professional mathematics and science is that it is not only OK to approximate, but that we must do so if we are to grasp and effect anything big  – or so tiny as to be equally beyond our reach.

What if this indoctrination into reductivism is itself an immense error?

I was struck long ago when I first heard about another way of “counting.” It turns out that we have an inherent ability, shared by many other creatures, to tell if a large group, say a flock, has twenty or nineteen sheep. We will notice if one has been added or taken away. There is an accuracy here that is “uncanny.” A term reductivist’s use to dismiss what cannot be counted in the “normal” pedestrian way.

We tend to expect that in the absence of measuring there is no measure. This is a dangerous expectation.

At the heart of our misunderstandings of the nature of thought is the way thought, abstractions of all sorts, attract us and blind us to being. We are easily distracted. We are infatuated by thought and stare after abstractions while the actual world runs away from us.

Better measurements will not “solve” this.

No one can deny that there are real needs lost in the jumble of our desires and projections. These needs can be dire. They can be immediate. They do involve problem solving at some level.

But, if we mistake this specific problem solving and how to deal with specific situations and lump everything into the same framework, we have blinkered our selves and restricted our capacities for interacting with our surroundings. We’ve crippled our selves while at the same time making our selves, and what we do, so much more dangerous than many of the forces we strive to protect our selves from in the first place. We enter into the realm of unintended consequences.

We can’t have this both ways. We insist on having it both ways.

We know that better food is made under artisanal conditions than in a food laboratory. But instead of embracing artisanal practice, we strive to fake it in food laboratories.

There is nothing like actually connecting with a few people directly, some might call this love. We push to have as many people “know” us and “like” us instead. – please hit the convenient “like button” on this post!

As with so much that has been lost or broken, it was powerful, but not in ways that made it impervious to the pernicious effects of the reductivist principle. Read any account of “First Contact.”

Turning the colonization of our selves and our world backwards directly is an impossible task.

David Bohm, as proof of the Implicate Order of the universe posited an experiment. If we take a drop of sticky printers ink and run it through a rolling press – between two wheels revolving against each other under pressure onto a film of glycerine – we can create a thinner and thinner film that tears and breaks up in an apparently random way. Yet, if we run the rollers back the other way, the original ball of ink is restored.

Another of Bohm’s insights compared us to fish in a tank that have learned that we are limited by an invisible glass barrier. Remove the barrier, and the fish continue to remain bound by its previous limit on their movements.

Both of these are at work in our task. No, we can’t shove colonization back into its tube, but that does not mean it is not irreversible. Also, barriers, especially ones that are unseen, unrecognized, continue to function even when they are no longer there, until accident or serendipity led us to discover the true extent of our freedom.

Let’s consider the questions now all tangled up in competing modes of measurement and opinions about their “efficiency,” and look at them in this other light.

This means letting go of an insistence on solution. Here is where the trap captures us! This is not a sneaky new way to be “really efficient!” It does not promise anything but a release from the bounds of futility.

About these ads

4 thoughts on “Measure

  1. thanks tony, this reminds me of something dougald said about how the urge to measure leads us to think that only that which can be measured counts as real. if i remember right it goes something like ‘only those things which can be measured and can be known by human beings exist’. not sure i got that right but it’s a convenient way to write off all of those ways of knowing which don’t convert readily into a rationalist view of the world… just looked up the talk, it’s here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYolIzrU4J8 if you don’t already know it.

    just had a long walk with a friend talking about double-binds. the closest we got to some sort of intimation of how to break out of our double-binds was ‘letting go’. and there was your post!

    • Yes, I was familiar with Dougald’s take on measure, though I hadn’t seen this talk. The point here is that perhaps its not that simple. Our notion of what measure means – on either side of whether we give it too much credence – is important. It’s not to counter one sort of reductivism, “Let’s measure!” with another, “Let’s only intuit!”

      There are ways we measure that are outside the reductivist playbook, but they are hidden. “The occult” has the reputation for dramatic mystery. The word just means hidden. Isaac Newton “was not a Newtonian.” He gave Alchemy its due as much as the Calculus. This is portrayed as a costume drama of an old man in strange robes cooking up spells and looking to make gold out of lead. That’s not what studies of what-is-hidden are ever really about.

      Star Wars, The Force! Another misrepresentation of powers beyond a reductivist view. All these manifestations have been ways to push the uncomfortable – to reductivism’s perpetrators and victims – forces back under the rug.

      Bohm’s Physics and Sheldrake’s studies have received this treatment. No one is prepared to hear that science’s divorce from art is not permanent. From there the veil is drawn.

      Double-binds have been my schooling! I was once told by a therapist that I was lucky not to have fallen into schizophrenia. When there are mutually exclusive yet impossible to separate binds in force, we can either let go or split and have one “mind” follow each. Letting go, is certainly the preferable choice as I see it!

  2. “Mind is not only the result of the interaction of the organism with the environment, from the uterus until death, but also the reflection of the basic organization of the universe: holokinesis, which from the implicit order of the universe becomes explicit as matter, mind and cosmic energies.”

    Dr. Rubén Feldman González.

    Iniciador de la Psicología Holokinética.
    Candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize 2007 through 2011

    http://www.percepcionunitaria.org/en

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s