Today’s Theory
The world changes based on physical laws and dynamics; people change based on physiological and psychological processes.
How people perceive these changes and react to them is the stuff of, if not legend, certainly story.
A recent David Brooks Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08brooks.html) on “The New Humanism” (which doesn’t look like the old or even current New Humanism stuff I’ve encountered) sparked some thinking about people and stories I hope is interesting.
The notion I cling to from the article is that the disasters we visit on ourselves are caused, at least in part, by the “distorted” and simplistic view that reason and emotion are separate spheres. We trust in and use the (so-called) rational self to suppress our untrustworthy emotional selves.
It’s the “Western way,” I suppose. And there’s certainly good cause to fear the emotional aspects of ourselves and others. Lynch mobs would be one. However, there is also good cause to be afraid of ignoring emotional realities. Loss of empathy might fall into that category, leading to the ever-popular genocidal binge.
Suppressing emotional aspects of culture and reinforcing the rational has certainly lead to great leaps in science, technology, philosophy. But, of course, that suppression has certainly led to some interesting choices in the use of said tech.
As usual, my reaction is probably tangential. Basically, we’re creatures of perception, and all conflict and miracles stem from this reality, the only reality any of us really care about. If we perceive ourselves to be rational, the world and our own actions make a certain kind of sense. If we perceive ourselves grounded in an emotional world, we understand ourselves and the mechanics of our surroundings in a different way. In genre terms, it’s science vs magic. One door opens, the other closes.
At least, that’s my theory, my understanding of things as I see them today, through the lens of the article, which, by the way, calls for a more balanced and integrated view, a “new humanism,” to save us from ourselves.
Anyway, I’m struck by the power of perception, and the importance of how the individual and group perceives themselves and the world.
Yes, it is true that when someone pushes a button and nukes everyone, or the asteroid we failed to track crashes into earth, or even when the aliens show up promising harmony and technological wonders and then exterminate us from the safety of somewhere beyond the orbit of Mars, a larger reality will engulf our many-splendored individual realities and make all those precious personal perceptions irrelevant.
And it is true we are often smart enough to evade that larger reality, because we built our earthquake-proof reactors close to the sea to make cooling more efficient, or we tested our brand new and exciting vehicles beyond industry standard to make sure they wouldn’t go off careening down highways on their own.
We built community developments on mountainsides knowing they would never slide off during a hard rain, while laughing at primitive people who built stone towns and cities in sub-tropical regions which have yet to show any inclination toward falling off. Or, we built monumental apartment buildings to house the poor because that was efficient and cost-effective.
Or, we believed certain kinds of people, like, say, bankers, are fiscally responsible and motivated to preserve capital and wouldn’t dream of lowering themselves to speculation.
A priest, after all, is a priest. A scientist, the same. From an emotional or a rational point of view, neither should have any reason to act irresponsibly or stupidly in their role.
They’ve got those emotions locked down because they went to Harvard or MIT, and they’re adults, and they’re rich and responsible. And stuff.
Indeed, until that larger reality actually manifests itself, we stumble along immersed in our stews of thought and emotion, cooking whatever the hell is going on around us into the gumbo of reality.
We reach conclusions, take actions, reap rewards and punishments based on the most tenuous beliefs: we are reasonable creatures, predictable, with motivations and intentions based on the certainties of evidence. Or, if you prefer non-rational faith, a Higher Power is on our side.
We are certain of what we know, what we think. And the best part of that is we have evidence to support our certainty. There are studies. Sometimes, experts gather and through consensus, select a “best practice” based solely on the scientific data and without any influence from manufacturers, insurance companies, or other entities with dubious motivations. Sometimes, God just talks to us.
Often, it all works out.
A disappointing percentage of the time, however, the asteroid hits.
We’re driving along merrily drinking our home-brewed or pundit-bought brew, faithfully and quite rationally following our internal GPS right off the cliff.
Back to my clinging to the notion of a “distorted” and simplistic view of separate rational and emotional selves.
What I take from this idea is that, though the percentage of “right” from the rational approach to things may be impressive, may even be much better than some of the emotional viewpoints past and present, what we consider “rational” is not all that it’s cracked up to be.
The same, of course, can be said to those who navigate principally by an emotional compass.
After all, when the asteroid hits, it doesn’t matter if you made human sacrifices or launched nuclear bombs. Despite your deepest convictions, what you tried failed.
Just because we elected our shamans, or made them go to college for degrees and licenses and other non-shamanistic accoutrements of non-shamanistic knowledge, insight and wisdom, doesn’t mean what they know or believe is right.
Sometimes, I think we’re all just ants blundering around, putting our heads down and doing our individual thing to the best of whatever our brain circuitry and personal chemistry can do, following one another, picking up scents left by trailblazers who survived and came back with the sugar. Somehow, our combined chaotic efforts result through trial and error in what we call civilization. Culture. Flat screen TV’s filled with sports and digital effects.
I think that’s the latest in ant theory, anyway – there’s no Borg-esque Queen directing the hive, just a bunch of organic machines doing their jobs, stupidly making mistakes, and making up for those mistakes by trying again and again until, eventually, an efficient and practical solution for whatever is challenging the little buggers is found. Or they die trying.
I also like the word “distorted.” To me, I means there may well be something there in our funhouse image of what is true and real, but what we have not considered, what may be beyond our grasp or ability to perceive, is what distorts the image. We believe the image to be true. But it’s not. And we are led astray, even to our doom, thinking we are doing the right thing.
I do sympathize with the article’s point that the rational and irrational are enmeshed, inseparable, and to think otherwise may not only be foolish, but dangerous. Reminds me of the “old” humanism, like a ying yang tattoo staring you in the face.
I also appreciated the research on other measure of intelligence – lord knows we need other forms of intelligence. The research may be a bit dense, but things like the Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence might lead to some creative perspectives on how your particular demon, fairy, Elder God or alien might perceive and understand the human world. But go to a library for the thing – even the Kindle price is a heart attack.
There are other ways thinking about the rational and emotional aspects of humanity in terms of story and character.
Yes, there are the obvious and massive dramatic and comedic situations to be mined by playing the rational against the emotional, from I Love Lucy to The Big Bang Theory. Possibly, there’s art in their fusion.
And, an awareness of the varying definitions of humanity, intelligence and talents can help in establishing concrete needs and behaviors of the “new” or alternative human and the alien, and the conflicts and possible resolutions that come out of that. Could be the new X-Men, could be the transformation of Remembrances of Things Past to the Perceptions of Things Now.
How much trust, and distrust, characters have in their rational/emotional selves is a fundamental anchor for their perception of the world. And from that anchor, as I’ve been saying, all hell can break loose. From the best of intentions, horrors can come, and from the worst, miracles. Or maybe something a little less melodramatic.
Certainly at the root of genres like thriller, mystery, crime, suspense, there is tension between the rational and emotional in individuals and opposing groups. Character perceptions are skewed, “distorted,” by their perspectives, by the information they allow themselves to process and what they do not take into account.
Decisions are made based on incomplete information. The rational, or perhaps the emotional mind, blocked relevant information and observations. Perhaps something was missed in the conflict between the two. Actions are taken, horribly flawed, and if perceptions don’t change and characters don’t adapt, tragedy results.
I can’t even imagine how many papers have been written on the rational versus the emotional in Shakespeare. The heart of horror is emotion, but getting to that heart may take raging tooth and claw, or the clean, precise rationality of a surgical blade. What’s a love story without the heart and mind at war?
In fact, if you look at literature – from love stories to war stories, perhaps even post modern lit – you’d be hard-pressed not to find the conflict between the rational and the emotional at the heart of most stories.
Yes, sides may be taken, which may run counter to this “New Humanism” or its plain old Taoist philosophical roots. True love wins out, or emotional horror, or the logic of the master detective or the science of the future.
The audience, immersed in their cultural perspectives, craves the comfort of the reality it perceives.
Sometimes, however, a certain balance can be achieved. The audience may get what it needs rather than what it wants and be satisfied – a richer, more complex resolution than the triumph of the rational, the demise of the emotional, or vice versa.
I know, looking at the news, its hard to believe. Unrealistic. Certainly not mimetic.
A hard sell.
Whatever story you choose to tell, a long, hard look at the conflict between the emotional and the rational in characters, in the forces aligned against each other in the grand plot, might not be a total waste of time. At least, that’s today’s theory.
It seemed to work for Shakespeare.
