Harry wrote:My point is that in the last 100 years we have discovered that Inner Space is just as important, and our ignorance of it just as vast, as our knowledge of the material world was in 1500.
Interbane wrote:How do you know what magnitude of ignorance we have of ourselves is?
Well, I don't, of course. Harnessing the potential represented by our ignorance has always been about launching out into the unknown to see what's there. The persistence of self-defeating behavior is a good indication that something complex is going on, but our institutions tend to reinforce the out-dated reasons for the self-defeating behavior rather than boldly mapping out an exploration of how to fix it.
Consider schools, in which one bold experiment, Charter Schools, has mainly been taken over by people who want their children indoctrinated in their worldview rather than better educated. This was widely foreseen - it surprised no one. But the reasons supposedly justifying the experiment were discarded quickly, no accountability built in, and the result has been a deterioration rather than an improvement in education. If an engineer had done such a bad job of mapping out a strategy of investigation, the lab would be turned over to someone else.
Interbane wrote: I think we know quite a bit about human psychology and motivation. I also think that any knowledge or wisdom we acquire is only bequeathed to a small percentage, mostly due to personal capacity.
That's an example of how little we understand about human psychology. If you compare the knowledge and wisdom of a typical American today to that of 100 years ago, we are miles ahead. That wasn't because we bred better personal capacity. Our institutions have, partly by vision and design, evolved in a way that teaches people wisdom. Our higher standard of living has freed people from many of the fears that kept them in bondage then, but we see many of those fears creeping back in due to human weaknesses not addressed.
Much of this failure has to do with the different natures of the knowledge involved. Knowledge of material nature can be exploited easily by the one who gets there first, and in fact our largest and richest corporations are built on a patent system which reinforces that tendency, turning it into a vast coordinated enterprise. Yet at the same time these corporations employ as many workers seeking ways to avoid supporting the public hand that gives them their security. All-against-all works well for material exploitation and incorporation of physical method. Not so well for coordinating the efforts of people on behalf of overall system needs.
Knowledge of human nature must include understanding how to show people the goals we hold in common, and how to persuade them to do their part in pursuing those goals. Yet our approaches to such problems have barely improved from 100 years ago. We still rely mainly on the method of legal restraint - the use of force - command and control - even though our capacity for positive influence is enormously greater than when that approach evolved.
We have begun to apply lessons like Win-Win bargaining, the creation of buy-in, opt-out approaches rather than opt-in, and the like, but at the same time corporations are pursuing systematic strategies of exploiting consumer laziness and credulity while buying political power to avoid accountability. The fundamental problem that no one is accountable for a system of supporting public priorities has turned the unclear zone, in which different priorities are competing (for example, the cost of accountability vs. the benefit to a smoothly-running economy of accountability) into a battleground where perceptions are wielded as weapons to serve the interests of those who don't care about public priorities. We know nothing, Jon Snow.
Interbane wrote:Define Inner Space. In exquisite detail please. It's borderline Deepak Chopra.
What I had in mind was the contrast between "psychology and wisdom" and the material world symbolized by outer space. But since you have challenged me to think about it further, it seems to me that what is in question is the whole realm of meaning - the process of attaching facts and understanding to emotions and motivation. The part represented by understanding of how nature works is very well developed. The part that interprets that knowledge in terms of how to make use of nature's ways to improve human life is still in chaos and darkness.
In fact one view, representing a thick slice of the population in terms of what they see when they peer into the mists of public choice problems, holds that chaos is the best approach. Markets will coordinate efforts naturally. As a first step in finding good motivations, that approach is far better than the domination systems and tribalism that gave us mercantilism. The Sears catalog was a huge blow to Jim Crow, just as Adam Smith unleashed the Industrial Revolution. But is that the best we can do? We have barely scratched the surface of investigating the question.
The old methods of exploiting nature are hard at work, mining our mountains of social media data to eke out small improvements in targeting of advertising, and all the while also finding ways to further divide us so that the public good will be seen as a subversive effort to take control of our lives. But there is no strategy, and no search for strategy, to find methods of aligning our interests and moving toward the huge potential for win-win living. A few spots in our map of meaning are visible because they are near the lampposts of the exploitation regime, but most of it remains in darkness because nobody sees personal gain to be had by mapping out the meaning landscape for pursuing the public good. And of course it should not be those who seek personal gain who explore it. But where is the alternative approach?
