When Descartes said "I think, therefore I am," he attached this to a theory that everything that exists outside of the mind is perceived through a perceptive sensory organ that renders the individual incapable of directly interacting with the object outside of the mind. Without being directly in contact with an object, our minds are susceptible to misinterpret or misunderstand the object. The support for this is that when we look at an object from a certain position it appears to be a square, but as we move we are enlightened to the idea that the object is in three-dimensions and is actually a rectangle. In essence, our perception of the object through our sensory organs of our eyes caused our mind to pervert the actual nature of the outside object. Even our sense of touch can be deceived as in cases that have been reported of amputees feeling pain in the limb that has been removed through operation. In any event, what we understand through the words of Descartes is that everything that exists outside of our minds - including our bodies - are unreliable in their truths, and so are open to subjective interpretation.
Through our interaction with the world over time the number of levels that we are removed from outside reality has continuously grown. This phenomenon can be understood by reading the post-modern philosophy of Jean Baudrillard perhaps most notably in Simulacra and Simulations. According to Baudrillard, technology and philosophical and intellectual elitism has constructed a world of hyper-reality in which simulations for reality have been created ideologically, metaphorically, and realistically in order to take the place of actual reality. Our every interaction with reality is actually an interaction with a created reality - a simulation of reality. The things we see, read, hear, and learn are filtered through a measured and exact narrative that is intended to perpetuate a particular message, image, or idea.
Former reality television show characters (and indeed characters is the correct term) wage their biggest indictment against the shows themselves by claiming that the producers will edit video in order to convey a certain perception of reality. This is one thing with which I agree with Amaya from The Real World Hawaii house. It is called reality-tv, but we all know it's not and that's why we like it. We see two cast members meet on move-in day and hear "Bleeding in Love" by Leona Lewis and I know that during the season one of the characters will express an unrequited love for the other, maybe like Melissa excessive crush on Jaime from The Real World New Orleans.
It is worse, though. Even our news is filtered and constructed around a particular narrative. The narrative arc spans further than just republican and democrat, right and left, conservative and liberal. The arc follows a certain pattern of attention grabbing imagery and language in addition to a subtle selection, by producers and executives, about what constitutes as news. During the democratic primaries, The media made a disproportionate amount of news fodder from the fact that Barack Obama did not wear the American flag pin on his lapel; meanwhile, there was nearly zero discussion regarding the beginning of the economic decline (or depression). Even when we watch shows like "Planet Earth" on the discovery channel or live footage of animals in their natural environments, what we are seeing is distributed through so many different levels - the presence of the film technician, the transition of the film to the studio, the editing of the film at the studio, the transmission of the film through the television, the narrative tone that is displayed from the opening credits of the show until the moment that I am viewing the moment in question, the music in the background, the juxtaposition of frames and angles, the script of the narrator or on-air personality, the time of day the show appears, the show's targeted audience, and even the actual audience that tunes in to watch. Of course, there is also our perception of what we see and our processing of all the relative information in our minds, which we know is often deceived by the things that exist outside of it, not to mention its ability to be deceived when people are influencing a thing in a manner that is different than how that thing might be without interaction or interpretation.
One of the most often levied criticisms of left-wing documentaries is that they are so prejudiced in the content they elect to provide that it negates the content itself. This is a method of arguing called poisoning-the-well. In essence, instead of addressing the content given to me directly, I refute the argument based on either the manner it is presented or on the individual or group presenting it to me. For example, if a convicted murderer said that they believed that free market economy was the best way to guarantee free trade principles, it would be improper argumentation to say that the person must be wrong because he is a jailed murderer. This is what happens to Michael Moore. He makes a documentary and it appears so radical to some people that it is refuted without giving consideration to its merits. On the other hand, at times it is indoctrinated based on its having been made by Michael Moore. Neither approaches are logically sound arguments. You don't like Michael Moore because of "Fahrenheit 9/11" that's okay because it deals with a very difficult subject matter. Have you ever needed a surgery that you didn't get because your insurance didn't cover it, or because you didn't have insurance? Watch "Sicko" and perhaps your opinion may change.
I used to think that their was good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, light and dark, love and hate, night and day. Even the most basic investigation yields that these are but two extremes of extensive spectra. Life and the individual are not made to contain either one or the other; rather, they are suited to - even created for - exemplifying some combination of the opposites. There is lightness and darkness within us all, but it comes down to deciding which we choose to follow in a given moment. Night and day appear separated, but there are the moments as the sun begins to go down and the sky is painted orange, red, and magenta where the night comes to join the day, the light comes to join the dark, and the two hold hands above our heads. And we can see all the gradient in-between of light and dark. It is living ideology. It is philosophy personified and we see this every night. Since the classical times of Greece and Rome, the greatest thinkers of the world have tried to find a universal code of ethics and none has developed one that has not been refuted on firm grounds. Logically, your moral codes would be determined by the subjective ethics you choose to follow.
And so I return to the thought that I can only be sure that I exist because I am sure that I am thinking. Reality is contained in the mind. It is not contained in the body or in the bank or in society. It does not seem reasonable to surrender our minds to those who wish to uphold the convictions of their own. Let us be inquisitive, but let us be resolute. Power lives in the mind, and the subjective reality lives in power. Be not afraid of the world, nor anything that comes in your way. No obstacle, no force, no situation is too much for you. Descartes' dilemma works in both directions. If you cannot really interact with the things outside of your mind, then likewise those things cannot really interact with you. If they can't do that, then they can't affect you. So, I say again: color the duck your way.
No comments:
Post a Comment