(This post was originally written by a commenter named CatoFromFark on Reddit, and I liked it – so I’m posting it here.)
So, I have no idea what for real your blog is going to be about or what position you are coming from or anything. It looks interesting. And it sparked some thoughts that probably have nothing to do with what you are wanting to talk about. But as I’m bored I’ll type them out anyway.
I remember reading in a book about J.R.R. Tolkien’s philosophical basis for LOTR (though I can’t remember if this exact formulation was put forward by Tolkien himself or by the author), a question that I think gets at the root of a lot that’s wrong with the approach our current culture has to the universe. The question is: how big do you think the universe is, in reference to our knowledge and imagination? There are only three real answers: the universe is bigger than what we imagine, the universe is the same as what we imagine, or the universe is small than what we imagine.
The first answer was universally the approach of all people’s before the last century or two (“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” – Hamlet (1.5.167-8)). But since then we have universally changed perspectives to the third choice. Many think this is because science came and smashed all those “superstitions” people used to have, but I fundamentally disagree. I think this dynamic is related to science but not caused by it. And our life is all the poorer because of it.
So, before, the current world, people saw the world around them as a BIG place, full of meaning. Full of poetry. Full of mystery. The more we’ve learned the more we’ve discovered that we don’t know. We ought to have an even bigger perception of the mystery of the universe. But, instead, the opposite has happened. We’ve emptied the universe of its mystery and its meaning, until all we see are the dry materialist facts. This is made of that; this happened and then that happened. OK, but who cares? What does it mean? Why did we do this? Not because we learned stuff, but because of how we learned stuff and by whom.
As an example: Before the mid-17th century everyone believed the universe was geocentric. The Ptolemaic model was triumphant for over a millennia as the standard everyone believed. Not because they were stupid – the Heliocentric model had been proposed as early as Pythagorus, and by Aristotle, the merits of each option – the scientific merits – were well known and discussed. The geocentric model was believed because it was the best fit to the empirical data that they could discover. Ptolemy’s model was accepted because it was fantastically accurate for what it was needed for – creating calendars and predicting astronomical events (even today, mechanical (not digital) planetariums use a setup based on Ptolemy’s model to drive things).
But if that is all it was about, then nobody would have cared much. Predicting where Mars will be may be cool and all, but why would you care? If it was just math, then there’s no meaning. But it was more than that. Because we couldn’t detect much more than position for anything astronomical, astronomy was considered not a part of physics, but an extension of mathematics…and so was music. The medieval mind naturally associated these things together. They saw the movements of the heavens as the music of God – everything moving in perfect harmony and precision. When they composed music, they attempted, as best they could, to harmonize with this “music of the spheres.” In other words, what they saw in the physical world was charged with symbolic, spiritual, mystical, poetic meaning. It was emotionally compelling. And that stance doesn’t really depend on whether you are using Ptolemy’s model or Tycho’s or Copernicus’s or Kepler’s or Newton’s or Einstein’s. It isn’t about what is believed or why, but more how. It is about meaning. As evidence, you can look at Newton himself, who while the king of math and science was also very much a mystic. He studied the universe to find God. And he believed he did – in the universe itself and not just in the “this is beautiful and perfect” sense but in the mystery he found. If anything, as science progressed through these we ought to have seen this poetry more and more, not less and less. Not just reduced things down to just the material facts.
The interesting thing is the materialist stance is a very unscientific one. The earlier world KNEW there existed in reality things they could not see or hear or taste or touch. Which is just kinda’ common sense. And if you ask, in a formal scientific sense, whether or not it is possible that things exist that we cannot, as of yet, detect in any way, the logical answer must be yes. But this materialist sciencism mindset our world has isn’t a logical thing. It is an emotional thing. And it’s answer is an unequivocal NO. No, there cannot exist anything other than matter and energy – than what we can detect and sense. Believing there are such things is just like believing in an imaginary friend – and is probably a sign of mental illness. It’s not a statement of logic and reason, but of faith. Instead of God we believe in an all-knowing (in that it can discover everything that can truly be known) SCIENCE that teaches us all we know and gives us everything that is good in our lives. But science is a very empty God. Because it cannot give what we truly need: meaning.
Which is why our world is so dry and sterile. We’ve taken the meaning and emotion and symbolism and poetry out of the world and left a vacuum in its place. We’ve said that the universe is much, much smaller than the worlds we can imagine. That there is much more in our philosophy than exist in heaven and earth. Which is probably one reason (not to imply cause-and-effect because this is a chicken-and-egg thing) that all art and drama and entertainment (not to mention sports, politics, religion, etc.) has degraded into mere spectacle. Big explosions and fancy computer graphics or shocking things just for shock value. But no substance.