Some follow up thoughts from yesterday’s post:
If we all thought of our simulacra as hypotheses, we would all be better off. It takes out the emotion. Our postulations of reality would become constructs open to empirical testing. We would become scientists of our own world view. We take out the zealotry. We are less devastated if we are wrong. We attain some objectivity.
Unfortunately, science is sometimes dry. Zealotry is more fun. Passion, emotion elevate us. Testing a hypothesis is academic. Nonetheless, the world would be a better place if we had some dispassionate coolness to our assumptions about reality.
Jihadis could be viewed as violent missionaries. Believe, convert or die! Per my previous post, religions are constructs about a reality that is difficult to prove. It is a simulacrum by definition. Similarly, liberals and conservatives each have their own construct of America and how it should be. They do daily battle in DC. Compromise is not on the table anymore. Annihilation of the other paradigm is the objective. Each predicts the other’s ultimate demise. The country and the people be damned, the Party must triumph. Not too far removed from jihad. Believe my system or die! Even in the universities where objectivity and hypotheses once reigned, they have been abandoned. A milder jihad, believe my system or be banished!
Again, if only we could change our simulacra into hypotheses, we would all be safer, sounder and might live in a peaceful world community that would be a laboratory for finding the hypotheses that work, that prove viable and productive. How much better than a world of false prophets that seek to sell their emotional wares at all costs.