[NT] The Mathematization of Culture

[Provoker]

There is something deeper going on in society though still in seedling form. It's what I've often referred to as the mathematization of culture which has coincided with the communications revolution. I'm not just referring to Rubik's cubes, chess, and sudokus becoming increasingly popular, but a process whereby society becomes increasingly mathematical, algorithmic, systematic, and approaches problems with the rigor used in mathematics. In this new world, emotions are subject to de-emphasis. Emotions are subject to de-evolution. Instead, what is increasingly important is dispassionate contemplation and clear thinking. Where emotions do exist, they are quantified, assigned values, and subject to the wrath of the intellect. As the culture changes and absorbs the inevitable, children will begin to absorb mathematical concepts the way they are currently genetically predisposed to absorb language. Indeed, mathematics will become increasingly vital to our survival as a species in the future. This is the case because we have put ourselves in an unsustainable situation wherein we are using the earth's resources faster than they naturally reproduce. Adapting requires that we use the earth's resources more efficiently and more sustainably. This requires that we evaluate the true costs and benefits of using a resource. Mathematics and a more rational approach can aide our calculus in determining the true costs and benefits of using a resource, and is thus a critical tool for adaptation. One may submit the counterthesis that this will have a dehumanizing effect, but this is not necessarily the case. For instance, humans have an inherent drive to create and in the work of some of the great artists is mathematics. Picasso's paintings use Euclidian geometry while Da Vinci's realist paintings were aided by superior judgment in proportions and so forth. Thus, a greater orientation around mathematics can enhance the quality of aesthetics.

Is this inevitable? Is this desirable? Thoughts?

 

[Sniffles]

Hey welcome to the world of Hyper-Modernity.

Is this inevitable? Is this desirable?

No and no.

 

[entropie]

Humans are always most likely to find out what is good for them after they have gone through a lot of things, which sucked bigtime

 

[Sniffles]

we still need someone to write a book about business clerks overtaking the world

There already is such a book, James Burnham's The Managerial Revolution.

 

[avolkiteshvara]

Mmmm.....yeah you are right to a certain degree. With the whole "Green" movement, conservation and thus math will play a greater role. Also as technology evolves, we are forced to become more mathematical. Society is getting smarter with every decade.

But you have to also remember that we are human. Too much structured thinking will provoke a backlash similar to the 1960s. Too much Gattica might produce small retreats out in the woods where one isn't as exposed to math. Where you can hunt for your own food and live in log cabins and shit.

I think the keyword is "Evolve" in every sense, including math.

 

[Splittet]

Math is just a tool used by science. What you describe, is just the accumulation of scientific knowledge. That's a good thing.

 

[Sniffles]

Actually it'd be the misuse of math and science. Math and science are indeed tools, which need to be put to proper use. Math and science need to be subordinated to human needs and the dictates of morality, not vice versa.

 

[Cady]

From the opposite perspective, there are many who would argue that emotions and more specifically emotional intellect are gaining more value in group situations often seen in the business, administrative, and political world. People want people who get along well with others, understand how to make people feel good, and can draw solutions to harmonious conclusions.

In a lot of fields, the day's where efficiency is the sole core value are changing. Companies want to appear as more than corporate machines to the general public because that's actually what it takes to bring in the most profits. To me it's not so much that they've replaced efficiency rather they understand the importance "feeling" has to a lot of their customers.

I guess it would be similar to a well rounded NT using logical thinking to deduce that they need to be able to utilize F in order to get the best results with some people.

Basically my contribution to this is that while the mathematization of culture may be happening, I don't think it's initial result will be to decrease the value of emotions. Rather, emotions will first be mathematized (new word?), basically we'll attempt to calculate the type and necessary amount of emotion needed to achieve a desirable result and then utilize the necessary feeler types to make it happen.

 

[Sniffles]

Excessive rationality and execessive emotionality are the paradoxical aspects of Hyper-Modernity. On the surface they may seem opposites, but they are deeply connected. This goes back to the contest between the Enlightenment and Romanticism. The latter was both a continuation and a rejection the former.

 

[Cady]

Excessive rationality and execessive emotionality are the paradoxical aspects of Hyper-Modernity. On the surface they may seem opposites, but they are deeply connected. This goes back to the contest between the Enlightenment and Romanticism. The latter was both a continuation and a rejection the former.

But does the increasing presence of both extremes mean we'll have more polarization to each extreme in individual personalities or that there will be high expectations for individuals to master both rationality and emotionality?

Imagine an individual able to wield both intensive thinking and intensive feeling on demand to process particular information. I'm just not sure the human brain is at a point where we could compartmentalize the extremes of two often conflicting interpreting processes in a single being.

 

[Sniffles]

But does the increasing presence of both extremes mean we'll have more polarization to each extreme in individual personalities or that there will be high expectations for individuals to master both rationality and emotionality?

Polarization most likely, since that has been the major element of Modernity to begin with. Modern(and especially Hyper-modern) thinking seeks to categorize everything and thus leaves everything fragmented. This leads to the "Barbarism of Specialisation" as José Ortega y Gasset termed it. The result is that one cannot begin to grasp the big picture anymore.

A more balanced, cosmic, perspective on rationality and emotionality is needed - which was the view of many aspects of Classical-Medieval thought. They gave considerable prominence to intellectual generalists, as opposed to specialists like our era.

I wish to add a statement made by Major General J.F.C. Fuller which is of relevance to this topic:
"The more mechanical become the weapons with which we fight, the less mechanical must be the spirit which controls them."

Although speaking from a military perspective, it still rings true in social matters as a whole.

 

[Sniffles]

A more balanced, cosmic, perspective on rationality and emotionality is needed - which was the view of many aspects of Classical-Medieval thought. They gave considerable prominence to intellectual generalists, as opposed to specialists like our era.

This issue was addressed in a thread I posted here:

"It seems foreign to us to take seriously anyone who has an opinion about everything, no matter how well-founded each opinion might be. It used to be, but is no more, that generalists were called philosophers. Aristotle, for instance, wrote about science, politics, logic, ethics, and poetics. Moderns conceive of philosophy in terms of metaphysics, ethics, epistemology — yet forget that the root of the word is philosophia: “love of wisdom.” Philosophy departments usually present the history of thought in a smorgasbord instead of providing a unified backbone for a general outlook on reality.

Belloc and Chesterton challenge the atomization of study into disciplines which are then divided into substrata. In a world where a person can only speak out on a subject in which he holds a PhD, Chesterton and Belloc had the seeming nerve to speak out on nearly everything. And as other writers in this issue argue, they had a knack for being downright prophetic on nearly every topic they tackled.

The secret to their successful generalism is not unlike Aristotle’s own. Chesterton and Belloc took the world at face value, rather than trying to codify it into something weird. They were not above common sense. One wonders whether Kant’s sociopolitical commentary would have been quite so arresting and relevant."

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...4-chesterton-belloc-vs-modern-university.html

 

[Cady]

I wish to add a statement made by Major General J.F.C. Fuller which is of relevance to this topic:
"The more mechanical become the weapons with which we fight, the less mechanical must be the spirit which controls them."

Although speaking from a military perspective, it still rings true in social matters as a whole.

I was wondering if the roles wouldn't perhaps be reversed with the rational controlling the emotional? Rational thinkers realizing the importance of emotion when interacting with others and recruiting the necessary people to serve that role? It seems like it could occur both ways. I might be biased though because I generally comprehend reason as being in control of emotion.

 

[Sniffles]

I was wondering if the roles wouldn't perhaps be reversed with the rational controlling the emotional? Rational thinkers realizing the importance of emotion when interacting with others and recruiting the necessary people to serve that role? It seems like it could occur both ways. I might be biased though because I generally comprehend reason as being in control of emotion.

The experience of the 20th century(and especially 20th century wars) certainly shows how naive such a perspective can be.

Anyways, I'll have to end it here. It's getting late.

 

[Cady]

The experience of the 20th century(and especially 20th century wars) certainly shows how naive such a perspective can be.

Anyways, I'll have to end it here. It's getting late.

I'm not entirely convinced but you seem to have pretty solid evidence and I've yet to explore this concept throughout history.

Night.

Edit:

Wouldn't it be more likely that we see emotional utilizing rational or vice versa depending on the field?

 

[Splittet]

A more balanced, cosmic, perspective on rationality and emotionality is needed - which was the view of many aspects of Classical-Medieval thought. They gave considerable prominence to intellectual generalists, as opposed to specialists like our era.

But science has changed considerably since then. Scientists have so much more knowledge now, and you need much more knowledge to be able to contribute to a field. The specialization is necessary because it's nearly impossible to make contribution to a field just based on general knowledge, you must have deep and specialized knowledge. That being said, there is some collaboration between scientists from different disciplines, and that should definitely be encouraged.

Actually it'd be the misuse of math and science. Math and science are indeed tools, which need to be put to proper use. Math and science need to be subordinated to human needs and the dictates of morality, not vice versa.

There will always be misuse, but I hardly think there can be enough science, if anything I think there has become a widespread skepticism of science, as exemplified by the creationist movement, and it's highly disturbing. These skeptics question the fundamental belief in evidence. How can one choose blind faith over evidence!?

As the culture changes and absorbs the inevitable, children will begin to absorb mathematical concepts the way they are currently genetically predisposed to absorb language. Indeed, mathematics will become increasingly vital to our survival as a species in the future.

That's simply bullshit. Learning spoken language is spontaneous (made possible by genetic predispositions), but children don't learn to read spontaneously and they will never learn math spontaneously either.

 

[avolkiteshvara]

Excessive rationality and execessive emotionality are the paradoxical aspects of Hyper-Modernity.

Not sure I'd agree with excessive emotionality. Technology seems to have more isolated society. And if you work from the premise that emotionality is derived from human contact, it would seem to be less of that.

I remember reading somewhere that Americans are psychologically maturing less quickly than they did even 50 years ago.

Maybe thats why we there are so many 30 year olds living at home. Well there is probably an econ argument there, but you know.

 

[Sniffles]

But science has changed considerably since then. Scientists have so much more knowledge now, and you need much more knowledge to be able to contribute to a field. The specialization is necessary because it's nearly impossible to make contribution to a field just based on general knowledge, you must have deep and specialized knowledge. That being said, there is some collaboration between scientists from different disciplines, and that should definitely be encouraged.

No doubt you need specialists; but you also need generalists. We've placed so much emphasis on the former, we've pretty much discarded the latter. That's a huge mistake.

There will always be misuse, but I hardly think there can be enough science, if anything I think there has become a widespread skepticism of science, as exemplified by the creationist movement, and it's highly disturbing. These skeptics question the fundamental belief in evidence.

You forget that skepticism towards scientism(not science per se) also comes from Postmodern thinking.

How can one choose blind faith over evidence!?

That's building on two false assumptions:
1)faith and science are necessarily opposites.
2)empirical evidence is the highest form of truth.

Both are mistaken.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Peguy: Who is the bloke in your avatar?

 

[Sniffles]

Same guy as always, Ernst Jünger.