Here we have an unspecified number of persons who have been blind since birth who agree they would like to know something about elephants. So they find one (or more accutately one has been found for them), and each goes about exploring it, recording the incoming sense impressions of it, from whatever part of the elephant is most accessible to him. One man has the trunk, another, the tail, another a leg, and so forth. Each is supposed to digest his experience, and report back to the group. In this way, a “composite picture” of the elephant can be formed. At least that is the expectation: For each blind man “testifies” to what he has “seen,” and the group duly records his report.
But does any of this really tell us anything about the elephant? For first of all, the elephant has been “reduced” to a part to be investigated by men whose sensory apparatus is hampered. Then they make their reports. The presupposition is that all the blind men speak a common language, and so the several reports are completely intelligible to the group as well as to their respective speakers. But I haven’t seen the elephant yet….
Is this what we mean by illusion — the expectation that wholes can be known by their parts, by men who are blind; and then their work product will be communicated to the rest of us as a comprehensive account of “elephant?” In other words, can an elephant be understood in terms of a process like this?
I think the problem with the “blind man approach” is that it takes the stance of the observer supposedly being “apart” from what he observes, and not “a part” of the system he observes. But both relativity theory and quantum field theory, it seems to me, strongly imply that the observer is a part of and participant in the system he observes. And so, what would the “elephant analogy” look like to someone who is consciously a part and participant of the system he observes?
Here’s a “horse analogy,” from Dr. Grandpierre. I like it a lot because it understands the universe as an “organic unit,” which is what field theory seems to suggest (for fields are spatially and temporally universal).
“If the Universe is an organic unit, it must be more than just the sum of its parts. That given, to what extent can the Universe be understood by examining its elements? The Universe cannot be imagined after the fashion of an imaginary creature who, for instance, living inside a horse, and knowing just a few molecules of the horse, tries to imagine, on this basis, what the horse itself could look like. If this hypothetical observer gets to know, let us say, three or four protein molecules, it might say that the horse must be an enormous protein molecule. For an elementary creature sitting inside and getting acquainted with a couple of horse molecules, it is not easy to find out the essence of a horse: what “being a horse” means, what it is like, what it looks like, what it does, what it feels and thinks, how its life goes, what kinds of pleasures and experiences it has. It is uncertain that this creature could imagine what a fiery steed this horse is; and when a man is riding it at full gallop, what kind of experiences are lived by the horse. Then again, can we hope at all to somehow understand the universe as a whole? At least this example shows that we can see the structure only by recognizing the relationships, by understanding, for example, why a horse is a horse, what its structure and construction are like, what kinds of relationships and existential qualities it has. Therefore, in order to understand the real nature of the horse — and by the same token, the real nature of the Universe — we must examine the relationships that give its substance.”Our imaginary observer here seems to have the same problem as the passel of blind men. And its reports about its intended object are just as suspect. Or so it seems to me.
But if these sorts of experiences are what define “illusion,” then every observer who thinks, speaks, or writes about his observations is in the illusion business. I just prefer to recognize this phenomenon as an example of human limitation, which is cognitive (or epistemological) in these cases. For every observer has only a very partial view of the whole; and his understanding of it is further complicated by his utter dependency on it, as part and participant. The accounts of different observers will differ accordingly.
And so it seems the best course is to “examine the relationships that give its substance.” Now we are in the realm of non-phenomenal reality. Again. But hopefully this time we can say that truth is not a human construct; it is a human discovery, and yet again a quest. Truth is the exclusive province of God. He reveals it to us freely; we can reliably be guided by His Truth in our search for the truth of reality, by the light and grace of the Holy Spirit.
The alternative is to put man in charge of “the truth business.” Which I think is a thoroughly contemptible idea. If you disagree, just look around you — at the poisonous and poisoning “climate of opinion” that is regnant today. There are just too many people in public life today who are either outright liars, or adepts in “telling the truth skillfully”; meaning they shave the truth wherever possible, and very carefully; but still use it as “the front” for their operations.
May the Lord save us from this horrific, hideous Kultursmog -- which is a prime example of how the collective illusions of second-reality dwellers seeking dominance in our culture and political society have become actually effective in our everyday world.
To sum up: This “blind person” who “swims” in universal fields (that would be me) concludes that the Light (that casts the “shadows” in Plato’s Cave) is the Truth, the Logos of the Beginning that is “beyond” the human world; and speaking as a Christian, it is the Word of God in and by which human souls participate in the divine Life bought for us by the Sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ; which is communicated to human souls by virtue of the Grace of God which is the Holy Spirit.
One is, of course, always completely free to try to make a life and a world in and by means of the Kultursmog. To such I heartily say: Good Luck and buona fortuna.
Thank you so much, Alamo-Girl, for your outstanding essay/posts today!
Lady, that was just crystal singing.. Thanks..
Truly we are all observer/participants in this universe with a finite view on our own worldline. And we see through a glass darkly. Our own abilities, imaginations and limitations may distort our view much like the observer in the horse or the ten blind men describing the elephant.
And so it seems the best course is to “examine the relationships that give its substance.” Now we are in the realm of non-phenomenal reality. Again. But hopefully this time we can say that truth is not a human construct; it is a human discovery, and yet again a quest. Truth is the exclusive province of God. He reveals it to us freely; we can reliably be guided by His Truth in our search for the truth of reality, by the light and grace of the Holy Spirit…
To sum up: This “blind person” who “swims” in universal fields (that would be me) concludes that the Light (that casts the “shadows” in Plato’s Cave) is the Truth, the Logos of the Beginning that is “beyond” the human world; and speaking as a Christian, it is the Word of God in and by which human souls participate in the divine Life bought for us by the Sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ; which is communicated to human souls by virtue of the Grace of God which is the Holy Spirit.
Those who stay in His Light, ever aware of that structure, can be on the same page – listening with an open mind and contributing what they can – and maybe, just maybe, get a better idea of what that horse or elephant or reality “is”.
But those who hide from the Light or reject the Great Hierarchy of Being – have begun with a closed mind. Like in the original Buddhist parable and Christian poem based on it, they blindly determine their own “truth” and argue it bitterly.
A number of disciples went to the Buddha and said, "Sir, there are living here in Savatthi many wandering hermits and scholars who indulge in constant dispute, some saying that the world is infinite and eternal and others that it is finite and not eternal, some saying that the soul dies with the body and others that it lives on forever, and so forth. What, Sir, would you say concerning them?"
The Buddha answered, "Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called to his servant and said, 'Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind... and show them an elephant.' 'Very good, sire,' replied the servant, and he did as he was told. He said to the blind men assembled there, 'Here is an elephant,' and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant.
"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'
"Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, 'Sire, an elephant is like a pot.' And the men who had observed the ear replied, 'An elephant is like a winnowing basket.' Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a plough; others said the body was a grainery; the foot, a pillar; the back, a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush.
"Then they began to quarrel, shouting, 'Yes it is!' 'No, it is not!' 'An elephant is not that!' 'Yes, it's like that!' and so on, till they came to blows over the matter.
"Brethren, the raja was delighted with the scene.
"Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus."
Then the Exalted One rendered this meaning by uttering this verse of uplift,
The Blind Men and the Elephant - John Godfrey Saxe
It was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant, And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp? To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal, And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong!
Moral:
So oft in theologic wars, The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen!
A highly interesting post, as always.
I'm not sure you're entirely correct on this point, however, in the sense that I don't think it's an entirely a "non-phenomenal" matter. Or, at least, one can point to specific phenomena that seem to be closely related to the issues you've raised.
Your discussion of "organic units" touches upon a seldom-discussed facet of this whole "ID vs. Evolution" debate (even though it does inform Behe's ideas of irreducible complexity). Namely, there is a "system-level" aspect to the problem that is hard to address by appealing to individual mutations that may or may not be advantageous.
Consider the human endocrine system. For many functions there are highly specialized cells in one part of the body that produce a hormone in response to signals sent by other highly specialized cells elsewhere in the body, which enables the body to begin some other process that enables yet another process. For example, my son is diabetic, which has forced me to learn at least a little bit about insulin, and how it fits in with metabolism. It's part of an amazingly complex, precise, and delicately balanced system that enables glucose to be properly processed by the body.
It's tempting in these "ID vs. Evolution" threads to focus on individual bits of DNA and the changes therein; however, this is again quite suggestive of the elephant analogy. The real question, of course, is to explain the development of highly specialized, multi-component systems -- whether it be by hypothesizing the actions of a designer, or by proposing that it came as a result of individual undirected changes in small bits of DNA.
The latter is, of course, the predominant view, but (at least on these threads) there is a strong tendency to leave out the other side of the equation, which is that the "undirected DNA change" has to be accompanied by a mechanism that can reliably translate the mutation into something useful, such as the pancreatic beta cell for the production of insulin, plus the various pieces of the metabolic process that rely on insulin.
It's difficult (for me, anyway) to construct scenario by which an enormously complex system like this comes about by a series of random individual changes -- especially in a system that contains other enormously complex systems with which it must be compatible. The dangers of incompatibility are highlighted by the fact that my son's diabetes came from the immune system selectively objecting to the existence of those pesky beta cells.
The "evolution side" of the debate is constrained to treat this "system-level" aspect as an explicit example of "phenomenal reality." It is not necessary to agree with Behe's conclusions to acknowledge that he's brought up the very important point that evolutionary theory often does not provide rigorous answers to these system-level questions.
Hi betty,
Been a while -
Was reading a little of your stuff and was compelled to reply. Forgive me if I am taking your discussion backwards.
Regarding your 620, the horse analogy and the statement along the lines that 'Truth is God's ...and He freely reveals that Truth', hopefully paraphrased effectively.
It seems the analogy is in opposition to the statement.
I think God does reveal His works through the 'laws' of science and nature. (I put laws in quotes because a true scientist knows that there are no 'laws', only currently operating theories - which will be modified by future scientists.)
That said, I believe God has shown His method of creation, and science currently calls it the theory of evolution.
I see no real opposition between Intelligent Design and Evolution.
Science is never going to explain all the truth of life. Thereby developing a Law of Evolution. Science has never fully explained anything, or stated the last word through *any* experiment or paper. Science is solely in the business of providing a working understanding of a controlled portion of observed physical reality.
Conversely, there is no way "God did it, and that is that" is going to be a sufficient answer for the inquisitive minds in today's society.
Good science advances understanding of the physical world, but never arrives at "The Truth." Intelligent Design is likely "The Truth," but it does not advance understanding of the physical world. They can and should coexist peacefully.
Regards,
PS - on my scintific scale; Gravity is a theory, and evolution is an hypothesis that is supported through observation, but has yet to rigorously tested.