The movement towards total rationality

The Movement towards Total Rationality
Phillip Layton 10/07/2009

All people recognise the colour green on observation, but why? Is it true that both a blue iris, a brown iris and a hazel iris project exactly the same colour onto their respective retinas, and can it be proven? Or is it due to training that all people recognise the colour they are seeing as “green”?

It can be argued that our interpretation of the world through our perception is completely influenced by our cultural training. The example above shows that even if sensory perception is completely different, our training allows us to label the object in the same fashion. It follows conversely that if two people perceive a phenomenon identically with their senses, they may identify it differently in accordance with their cultural training.

For example, two people may see the democratic political system in Australia and perceive it two completely different ways. One person may see the existence of elections, people making choices between candidates, and the candidates themselves trying to reflect the will of the people as an example of “freedom”. This particular person is using learned parameters which they believe constitutes the concept of freedom. Another person may look at the fact that within each respective political party, the candidates for legislative and executive government positions are themselves nominated by their parties, and not by the public. This person may take this parameter and immediately label the system as “totalitarian” based on prior learning. In essence neither label gives a true representation of the system, and if more people decided to label the system based on their own learned parameters they would be no closer to giving an accurate representation.

Another example of the blurred line between perception and truth is in aesthetics. Take the example of music. A didjeridu player may play a piece in the Royal Albert Hall in London. Hundreds of years of European musical tradition would dismiss the work as having “no melody or rhythm” and a piece of “meaningless droning sounds”. However, from a different cultural perspective such as the Australian Aboriginal culture, they would highly value the music due to its use of variations in timbre, a recognition of the aural aesthetic of the area in which they live (through the imitation of animal noises), and various other musical techniques considered alien to the European musical tradition.

In essence rationality can never be absolute as the observer is not only bound by what interpretations they make of observed phenomenon due to training, but also they are bounded by the fact that they can only perceive a certain amount of the universe. Immanuel Kant separated the universe into two categories: Phenomenon, things that have been perceived by an individual; and Neumenon, the “thing in itself”, objects that exist outside of an individual’s perception and hence understanding. As long as these Neumenon exist, which they do for all human beings in varying degrees and in varied combinations, humans will continue to make conclusions and decisions that are based on bounded rationality, the act of making a rational decision with less than the full facts. Our entire understanding of the universe is therefore based on limited rationality that does not approximate to the full truth, which could be labelled “total rationality”.

This existence of the noumenon and the non existence of total rationality leads to inherent problems with the human mind and its relationship with others. It allows for cognitive dissonance to occur within a mind, where newly perceived phenomenon contradict the mind’s previous understanding of the universe. The human mind can deal with this in different ways, either by disregarding the phenomenon as false, or by adjusting understanding to accommodate the new phenomenon. Many human beings find it is easier to adopt the former as it allows for a more peaceful resolution within the mind, as changing the mind’s understanding of the universe can become extremely stressful. However, this leads to the subsequent problem of bigotry, where a perfectly genuine perceived object is considered “false”.

Let’s look at an example of the consequences of this – say a car driver changes lanes in front of another driver without indicating. The other driver may see this as an example of a “false” phenomenon, a phenomenon that should not exist. How will that driver react to this happening? They will either react violently in an attempt to deter the non indicating driver from doing the act again, or they can attempt to understand the driver’s situation – they may have forgot to indicate, or they may have not been taught to do it properly. None of these reasons deserves violent retribution. Hence coming to the acceptance that things beyond your understanding have a right to exist allows for a more peaceful existence for all.

Take the previous example given of the political system. It is true that without acceptance of any other perception, people will get no closer to determining an accurate representation of the political system. However, when all perceptions are considered, and all interpretations taken into account, people will no doubt achieve a better understanding of the nature of the system. If a person can accept that the political system in Australia has elements of freedom but is not completely free – they will be much closer to understanding the system’s true nature than the two people with their own singular perceptions. Hence we see the power of empathy and inquiry in increasing the bounds of rationality and the approximation of truth, as well as the increasing likelihood of a peaceful society.

There are several avenues a society can follow to increase its drive towards total rationality. In increasing empathy and inquiry among people, they can allow for the free exchange of ideas, perceptions, knowledge and aesthetics through free and uncontrolled channels of communication, which increases exposure to different ideas for all human beings. The internet is a modern day invention that is becoming very useful in bringing this concept to fruition, and is close to the most important invention of the 20th century in its ability to completely open channels of communication to all people. There are several major barriers in place that can limit the internet’s effectiveness in this respect. Firstly, in a capitalist society, people have the need to protect their ideas in the event they may be profitable. This is a result of the fact that physical security cannot be guaranteed under capitalist societies and this security must be protected with the accumulation of capital. Regardless of the validity of this system, it is nevertheless a severe barrier to the free exchange of ideas and creates a hurdle for society in the drive towards total rationality. Secondly, governments attempt to restrict the free exchange of ideas through censorship, due to an ideological or moral difference with the subject matter. If a human life is compromised or exploited in the pursuit of that idea censorship is understandable, as that life has just as much to contribute to the pursuit of total rationality as the human life exploiting it. However, under any other circumstances, censorship of an idea is contrary to the pursuit of societal peace and rationality.