The impossibility of the objective and the fear of chaos

Objects exist in nature, their presence is blatant, unavoidable. They present shapes and mass or form before our eyes. The natural sciences have tried to understand them, analyze them… yes, understand them. Language has given them a name and our imagination has given them a place in our brains, either because we’ve been taught how to go about them or because we have experienced them ourselves. We were never part of the battle of Waterloo but we have heard about it. Napoleon and his era exist in our heads.
In the case of “heat”, for instance, we have experienced it on our skins or seen it… when we feel the sun’s rays, a water-boiling pot or a fireplace. It is impossible to say that those elements are not objective, that they don’t exist out there. That rain, those cars and computers are tangible items that exist and can be approached without emotions. Yes, they do exist on their own. They can even be a product of nature: a stone; or human made: a plane. Their existence does not imply their objectivity. We make them objects in our brains, and we translate them from their original form into a virtual thought in our minds just like a video camera does on tape or disc. The image we see on the screen is not the stone or the plane, it is a representation of it. The image we have in our brains of every single object is a representation of the object, the result of a chemical processes that brought that object from its natural form to our heads through our eyes, our nerve cells… to a spot in our brains where objects of that kind can be processed. But that’s not all. If we all processed objects the same way and translated them into thoughts exactly the way they are, we could say that objects are represented inside of us the same way… we have to take into consideration that there are other created factors that affect our perception of those objects; this factors could be physical limitations: we wear glasses, we have a hearing problem, we are colour-blind. And not only that, but our particular culture, the worldview we have, the way we’ve been taught, whether we are left or right-handed, our own language would call those objects in a different way… and the images we see, yes there could be a table but is not the same table that a different person sees… the value of the table is different, there are emotions attached to them… it is a table that belonged to my ancestors, it was the only furniture left after a family crisis, I was punished by my father at that table when I was a kid, I used to make love on it with my ex partner, it is too big for my place… the measures of this table, the size we perceive in our head and even the way we remember it, if we never see it again, will change fromperson to person… and even within me as I change myself.
If we go into the core of tables, they are also not the same; tables differ in shape, size, measurements. Some people represent them as square, others are round, others rectangular but they could be amorphous. They can be used to eat, to operate patients, to play table games or to pray. Their value and their representation varies, therefore when we say the word “mesa” the Spanish word for table, people would think of million different tables; provided that they understand the Spanish word. A table is not just a table. A table is a universe of tables represented in our brains that clearly differ from the object “table” itself even if we have it in front of our eyes. An indigenous colleague told me the other day, that in his native language, names represent the actions you perform with those objects, tables for instance, are linked to the food you eat on them, therefore they have a very important value… different than the persons who eats on their desks because they don’t “have time” to take a lunch break.
Objective is defined in many different ways: not biased, or existing in the real world outside the human brain. Subjective should be the opposite. After this introduction, if we consider that every object goes through our brains to be apprehended, the object looses its unbiased value and takes a subjective form, a representational one, the interpretation of the idea of the object.
If tangible items take this form, the description of values and emotions, rules and laws, is even more difficult. How do we understand truth, responsibility or terrorism? In order to have a “common understanding” of ideas, the different sciences and humanities have approached these terms to try to define them; we have created dictionaries that enunciate definitions that we assume as valid; if we didn’t have a “common language” (by this I mean a relatively close approach to the definition of objects an ideas in the different existing languages) we could barely understand each other; not that we really do but we have created “conventions” that make us believe we do. In order to create conventions we need to have a plan, and this plan is closely linked to the ideology of cultures, religions, political and social instructions. We have created systems that allow us to form patterns of behaviour that people can follow in order to avoid chaos. If we were all abandoned at birth and we managed to grow up without anybody’s instruction we would probably create our own sense of values. Yes, we do have the ability to create all these systems, to communicate through different means, to use our brains to try to understand the environment. We have created machines to “measure” this world’s phenomena and we call those measurements objective, but are they really?
One metre is one metre, that’s objective… but metres were created, so yes, they are conventions created to measure, and we accept them; so when we say that we are one metre and 80 cms, people understand us… There is a need for order, for uniformity, mutual assimilation of behaviour in order to prevent chaos. We have created religions and these religions have created books of reference (or vice versa), we have constitutions, codes of ethics, etiquette, etc… we create definitions, like contracts do when you are to purchase property… terms that are defined by “someone” in order to agree in terms. Even if we believe that “TRUTH” is out there as an “OBJECT”, the definitions of truth we get to write down, will never be objective, therefore there is not TRUTH in its objective form, because, again, even if there is one out in the space, how do we know that we chose the right definition when we interpreted the idea?
With constitutions and “human made” laws, it is easier to figure it out; a whole bunch of people got together to produce a document, they commit to make it as accurate as possible and out of consensus… so yes, if we agree to it, we know it is the product of a committed exercise. When it comes to religions, the arena is not as solid; we need to trust the existence of an external source that has defined all these terms for us and has dictated them to a human being, who “objectively” wrote them down centuries ago. We also need to believe that this information, that could’ve been an oral narration at some point, has been transmitted exactly the way it was “originally” inspired… it means that no translation, no interpretation, no distortion to its core has been changed throughout the years. Is that possible? Perhaps it is, that’s why we have created a term called “FAITH” defined by some as “complete confidence or trust”.
Unfortunately, all of these terms don’t mean the same for everybody. If “objects” don’t represent the same idea in every culture, neither do these more ethereal definitions. We have tried to generate international conventions to determine what a crime is, or what plurality is, etc… but all of these ideas are mediated by beliefs, faiths, doubts, fears, geographical conditions, traditions, languages, experiences… even what I am writing, makes only sense in my own mind, and there may be some people who identifies with what it is written and some others that could think I am CRAZY (Stupidly irresponsible).
In my opinion, even if processes and natural physical actions are happening objectively out there, they are interpreted through our minds and our senses, and all of them our biased. Seeing is a physical objective process, but how we see and what we see is completely individual… even if we “all agree” it is a table. We cannot generalize, we cannot assure that what it is is what it is… yes, we’ve made an effort to get there, perhaps because it is necessary for us to do so, but systems like “democracy, or deciding by consensus, or mutual agreement” are biased. We want to believe we agree, we want to believe we see the same… but we don’t.
States and institutions have managed to educate people to think one way or the other, it is not new, and it is considered for the own convenience of that system, state or institution. We create culture (very loaded term) in order to feel identified with a set of values and make it easier for “all of us” (especially the ruler in power). Those who dissent, or simply don’t cope with that set of values are considered “outsiders” and we reject them because they are not “like us”. The need of homogeneity serves the purpose of societies because it prevents chaos. Chaos is feared by most because there seems to be a need of cohesion. The problem here, is that there is no room for individuality. We often use this other created expression “Freedom” (right or privilege of unlimited access); we cannot claim FREEDOM because it is impossible. If we have limits, if we haven’t decided what was before us and we won’t be able to decide what is after us, we are not free. That’s an illusion reinforced by some systems… and like freedom, there are many others. But, why do we need to make others believe that? Why is it important that we uniform the world? It is important because some people BELIEVE that’s the way to make it work… that’s a mechanism of control… a political system like democracy, a monetary system like capitalism, a religious system like Christianity, a new order like Globalization, serve certain purposes. A set of values, have been attached to these ideas, and only a few people get to participate in the decisions made by these systems. They control behaviours because they have understood our vulnerability, our fear of chaos, the subjective form of thought and how it can be so random that it may be “dangerous”. It is necessary to punish those who oppose the mainstream thought, that’s why “terrorists” are being prosecuted… because they dissent and they express themselves by generating “chaos”… (Complete disorder or confusion). “Terrorists” may not be able to change systems, but they alter them, they destabilize them, by breaking the “organized order”.
But ORDER is also subjective; we have encouraged it as the way to function in order to “succeed”. But there is tendency to chaos within the order... and we continue to punish it because we are unable to revise these systems of values. We are spreading philosophies that benefit the systems we have created, and this is all subjective. Unless we understand the subjectivity ruling these systems, we won’t be able to “understand” each other. But these systems don’t favour free thought, free thought is dangerous, it again, may generate chaos, we have to shape peoples’ minds in order to achieve order. How do we do it? By creating or reinforcing certain values, by creating or re-shaping the definitions to those values, by making people believe certain goals are attainable like freedom, wealth, happiness. How do we do it? Through the school system, through media, through politics, through literature, through church, through institutions like police or organized institutions like courts, parliaments, boards. Our subjectivity has been repressed, and as it is malleable and subject to influence, it has been “objectivised”. We have been instructed to believe that something can be objective. Objectivity exists as a ideal in nature but it doesn’t exist as a practical term in humanity. Everything is mediated by thought and emotions, therefore a chemical, physiological process that gets distorted once it reaches our senses. The table we film exists as an object but we will never be able to say that the photograph we take of it or the film we make of it will capture the integrity of that object… it is the same with us. Not even science can claim objectivity because it is mediated by us, and we are all, ALL, biased.
Take an example: copper… it is objective in its original form in nature… but our approach to it, its name, its chemical formula, its melting point, etc, are conventions created by us… the abstraction of copper is a human process not present in nature… and its make copper subjective. We would never be completely sure about the nature of copper, and that vulnerable approach makes it subjective because we cannot approach copper as a whole. Share