Tag Archives: meaning

Beyond Gun Control

          To open, I have no problem with rational controls on the purchase, possession and carrying of firearms. I will stipulate to the fact that some gun violence is no doubt due to the ready availability of guns. However, to be clear, a gun is nothing more or less than a mechanism. A mechanism designed to threaten, injure or kill, but a mechanism nonetheless. It is an inert metal artifact devoid of meaning except that which one imposes on it. Thus, many meanings, both good and bad, attach to guns.

I think that gun control efforts are, for the most part, confusing means with causes. It is, in my view, analogous to thinking that the obesity epidemic can be solved by taxing certain foods or that drug abuse can be stopped by criminalizing drugs. From my experience, gun controls, food taxes and drug laws will not and have not stopped violence, obesity or drug abuse.

So, why do we pursue such strategies? Because they are easy targets. It is like the proverbial drunk who has lost his keys and is searching for them under a street light because he can see better there. The real solution is much more complex and therefore more difficult and expensive to accomplish. The most important question to ask in all these cases is why? Why is someone violent? Why is someone obese? Why does someone abuse a drug? The answer is never simple and seldom the same across cases.

I accept that there very well may be some commonalities among perpetrators of gun violence, and easy access to guns might be one of them. A commonality that I think that has just as much if not considerably more influence on gun violence is being socialized in a culture that is grounded in violence. At least in my lifetime, which is inclusive of the majority of living Americans, this country has been poised on the edge of violent confrontation or actually at war. Our history is replete with violence, beginning with the genocide perpetrated against indigenous people for our own advantage and the enslavement of millions of people to exploit the land and resources that we took from and are still taking from indigenous people. Our country has the largest military in the world. We spend more on arms than any other country in the world. We sell more arms to other countries than any other country in the world, including to some countries that we know do not want them purely for defensive purposes. We also have the highest rates of personal violence of any other developed country. We have the highest proportion of our population incarcerated than any other developed country. Our entertainment media are saturated with glorified violence. Granted, some of this has elicited moral outrage and produced improved behavior at times, but one should not be in the position of having “good” behavior motivated by a guilty conscience. Further, I don’t doubt that this country has done some positive things in the world, but they are far out numbered by our less than righteous behavior. We are masters at antagonizing other peoples and then blaming them for resisting our goals.

Let’s return to the more immediate issue of gun violence, Several years ago some statisticians looked at the probabilities for various outcomes in the U.S. One question they asked was where is an adolescent or young adult most likely to be murdered, which often means shot to death? The expected answer was in an inner city ghetto of a major city. The actual answer was in rural areas in the western U.S. While they listed a number of factors that were associated with this unexpected outcome, an important factor was the cultural expectation that to be a “man” one must handle one’s own problems. In most cases, “handle” meant to seek and achieve retribution or revenge for a perceived wrong.

The above example illustrates the complexity of dealing with gun violence. Many factors appeared to contribute to the use of violence to “handle” wrongs. Availability of firearms was one factor but so too were cultural expectations that endorse violent solutions. In addition, these two factors were accompanied by other setting factors such as lack of community cohesion, economic stress, little or no law enforcement presence and alcohol abuse. What happens if you leave all these factors in place and make guns more difficult to obtain? Probably there is some reduction in gun violence, but violence can be perpetrated by far too many means to ever control by trying to eliminate the means. If not with guns, violence can be accomplished with fists, clubs, knives, poisons, explosives, fire bombs and even automobiles. The list is not inclusive by any means. I can recall examples of individual and multiple deaths affected through all of these means in this country during my lifetime.

In the case of school shootings that seem to spark the most fervor about gun control, I would suggest that school culture as a setting factors is just as important, if not more important, than the availability of guns. A school culture that permits or ignores threat, intimidation, humiliation, coercion and physical violence won’t be solved by gun control. A school curriculum that fails to motivate and engage every student in learning perceived as meaningful to the student won’t be solved by gun control. A school that fails to provide access to adequate services for students with difficulties, whether related to learning or behavior, won’t be solved by gun control. Gun control is merely one small component in the larger task at hand.

In conclusion, I would suggest that the issue will not be an easy one to resolve. It will not be easy because in the final analysis both sides are largely driven by fear. Gun control advocates, at root, feel threatened by civilians with guns. Gun rights advocates feel threatened by a range of phenomena and seek security through guns. When fear motivates both sides in an argument, rational discussion is unlikely to prevail. Thus, the debate becomes a power struggle to see who can impose its will on whom. Not a recipe for a congenial social order.

David Bohm’s Reformulation of Quantum Physics

David Bohm was an eminent quantum physicist. Early in his career he worked with Albert Einstein at Princeton University. With Yakir Aharonov he discovered the Aharonov-Bohm effect. He was professor of theoretical physics at Birkbeck College, University of London and author of several books on quantum physics. He died in 1992. The David Bohm Society.

I.            Holomovement:

The holomovement is a quantum field (QF) outside of space-time in which everything exists simultaneously as a unified whole creating a seamless, multidimensional field that is imbued with consciousness, intelligence and meaning. The QF is a vast sea of light energy in a state of constant flux and is the ground for all that is. The fundamental reality thus created is a unity that is causal but nonlocal. This means that events arising from the holomovement are determined but are independent of space and time (see two Figures, at end).

A.            Super Implicate Order:

Creativity has its roots in the super implicate order, which is governed by the super quantum potential where possibilities are infinite. The super quantum potential is the source of the processes, laws or principles that give rise to the forms that are taken on by quantum potential (Q), which gives rise to implicate orders. Creativity is expressed through the QF as it generates implicate orders in a manner that could be compared to the way in which a fractal algorithm generates ordered forms in a seemingly random process.

B.             Generative Order:

The QF is permeated by and is in correspondence with Q from which both waves and particles arise. Q acts on the entire QF and relates every particle to every other particle. Q does not carry energy but rather information. The effect that Q has on a particle is determined by Q’s form and the information carried by Q determines its form. Form is the structure, pattern, shape or organization conferred on a particle by Q. It is distinct from the particle itself and is analogous to the way the rules of syntax are independent of a sequence of words forming a sentence but guide its formation. Thus, Q can be thought of as the formative cause that guides the activity of a particle.

Order is dynamic and controlled by the information available in a specific context. What appears random in one context will be seen to be part of an ordered pattern in a broader context where more information is available. For example, evolutionary theory attempts to create an orderly description from apparently random events. Bohm’s model, however, suggests that what appear to be random events are actually embedded in a higher order that provides a broader context in which the random events become part of an orderly pattern. Order exists along a spectrum of orders that represents an open and potentially infinite system. For example, when a mystic perceives the reality of an implicate order, the mystic’s context has been enlarged or broadened. However, the level of detail or content available will be less than that perceived by a physicist from the context existing in the corresponding explicate order.

  C.            Implicate Orders:

               1.            Formative Order:

             Bohm’s second implicate order. The subtle level of formative, organizing and creative activity. The “blueprint” for the material order.

               2.            Material Order:

             Bohm’s first implicate order (first in the sense of being the first level above the explicate  order). At this level particles (the basic building block for matter) undergo rapid creation  and annihilation causing matter to appear to be blinking on an off. Particles are created by  the convergence of waves in the QF causing an interference pattern or ripple referred to  as a wave packet. The process described as “blinking” is also referred to as enfolding and  unfolding and as projection and injection. A particle is explicated, unfolded or projected  into the explicate order and then implicated, enfolded or injected back into the implicate  order. One complete cycle is called a moment. The more rapid this process the greater the  appearance of seamless continuity as perceived from the explicate order. It is the unfolding of the implicate order to produce the explicate order that creates the perception of time. The more separation between unfolding and enfolding the less apparent is continuity and the more events appear to be random. For example, when an electron  appears to “jump” unpredictably from one position to another, the amount of separation in the electron’s moment causes it to display what appears to be random, discontinuous activity. One way that this can be thought of is as a series of photos. When presented  slowly, one merely has a set of individual pictures, which may appear random. When presented rapidly, one has a movie.

  D.            Explicate Order or Three Dimensional Reality:

Three dimensional reality is a derivative of multidimensional reality. The appearance of direct causal connections in the explicate order are actually representations of relationships in the implicate order. Bohm’s model indicates that space-time was enfolded into the implicate order and was explicated in a pulse of light energy (comprised of all waves that move at the velocity of light). This pulse is now described as the big bang, which brought our expanding universe into existence. In some ways, matter can be thought of as condensed or “frozen” light. Since the QF is infinite and eternal, there is no reason to doubt that there are other universes created in the same manner.

Physical (soma) and mental (significance) are reciprocals of one another and there is a two-way flow of energy and information between them. Each significance has a corresponding soma structure. The relationship between soma and significance is meaning. Meaning is roughly equivalent to consciousness and spreads out over a spectrum. Consciousness thus is implicit in all matter in 3D reality but consciousness is not equivalent to self-awareness. The deeper meaning is enfolded into the implicate order the more subtle it is. The perception of shades of subtle meaning requires insight and cannot be attained through analysis alone. A change in meaning changes soma and a change in soma changes meaning. Content is meaning extracted from a given context.

Formative cause is similar to meaning and gives form to the activities of an entity as well as goals toward which the entity is moving. In a sentient being consciousness is its formative cause and thus a sentient being has the ability to self-direct its activities and the goals toward which it is moving; i.e., the being can exercise free will.

The manifest world provides a display. The 3D world then is like a computer monitor that allows the display of relationships between objects and events that are free to vary and create new relationships within limits imposed by the underlying software. Having a display allows consciousness or intelligence to become active. Recall that the pulse between the implicate and explicate order is two-way. The explicate order enfolds or injects information back into the implicate order. The implicate order then assimilates this information and incorporates it into what is unfolded or projected into the explicate order. The holomovement appears to be experimenting and thereby learning or evolving. A process that implies purpose for the 3D universe.

The above is my less than complete understanding of the presentation of Bohm’s reformulation (or interpretation, if you prefer) of quantum physics taken from the section on Bohm in: Friedman, Norman (1990). Bridging Science and Spirit: Common Elements in David Bohm’s Physics, The Perennial Philosophy and Seth.

Here is an expert opinion on Bohm’s reformulation quoted in the above book. John Bell, of Bell’s Theorem fame, upon reading Bohm’s reformulation said, “…one could see immediately that what he was saying was right.”

 

 

 

Choice

There are advocates for simple determinism who would assert that everything we do is predetermined and therefore our apparent choices are really an illusion. From that point of view, we don’t have any choices and all the outcomes that appear to follow from such imaginary choices are predetermined and beyond our ability to influence. In short, the chain of causality that began in the distant past, perhaps with the origin of the universe, set in motion a chain of cause and effects that still continues and will continue into the future. That chain of causality passes through us and determines what we think and do. I think this view takes all meaning from existence and makes life largely pointless, which doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. However, I reject it on existential grounds and advocate for a view based on complex determinism.

Before going into complex determinism, let me say something about free will. The free will counterpart to simple determinism is absolute free will (a.k.a. indeterminism), which means one can by choice affect an outcome that is not predictable from its antecedents. In short, one can do things that violate the principle of causality (a.k.a. magic). For example, I used to challenge advocates of this position to go to the roof of the building and walk across the open space over the street to the roof of the building on the other side. To do this would both violate the principle of causality and demonstrate affecting an outcome by choice that is not predictable from its antecedents. I’ve never had an advocate for absolute free will take me up on this opportunity to demonstrate the validity of their position. However, just as there is an alternate form of determinism there is an alternate conception of free will, which I’ll come to shortly.

The libertarian philosopher Richard Taylor proposed that the way out of the dilemma posed by simple determinism is to recognize human-agency as a primary factor in causation. That is human-agency can alter a chain of causality passing through one and initiate a new branch in an unfolding sequence. This brings us back to free will. In this view, free will is no longer absolute but rather is probabilistic. Complexity theory suggests that in any given situation there are usually multiple possible outcomes, none of which require magic to be effected. Each of these possible outcomes is more or less probable than another. The most common outcome is the one with the highest probability. This is what is sometimes described by the phrase “the path of least resistance.”

However, human-agency through intention and deliberate choice, based on forethought and anticipation of consequences, can influence and change the probability functions of potential outcomes. When I was a professor, I often talked about behavior in terms of what I refer to as the three-legged stool (biological causes, environmental causes and self-agency). It is this latter concept that lies at the root of the notion of the “cooperative alliance” in behavioral intervention that I discuss in a paper on behavior and quantum physics. In short, it is unlikely that one will affect a significant and lasting change in behavior without the active cooperation and collaboration of the subject with the change agent.

As a side bar, I would add that most, if not all, human religions presuppose that the underlying nature of reality is indeterminate and magical (e.g., witness the use of prayer in an effort to produce and outcome that cannot be predicted from the antecedents, i.e., appeals for divine intervention are in effect based on a belief in indeterminism or magic). Herein lies the source of my skepticism about religious claims. As for the existence of God, I can only say that depends on how one defines the nature of God. I see absolutely no basis for an anthropomorphic God and view such depictions as the artifact of a paucity of imagination. If one wants to define God as the ground state from which our universe arose then I can accept that as a possibility whether called God, Quantum Field or by some other name. What the characteristics of such a ground state might be is an open question and might include some of the claims of mystics and other spiritual explorers.

In my view, we do have the ability to make real choices. We can make choices, at least, from among those potential outcomes that are possible given the antecedents. Our choices, reflected in our intention and actions, influence (but do not control) the probable outcomes available in situations in which we are actors. I also think that most of us, most of the time fail to exercise self-agency and simply follow the path of least resistance.