Plague Journal, This Is This
Praying the Covid away ! It isn’t working. Sure, we have the freedom to wear or not wear a mask, to infect or not infect your family members or neighbors,…. The virus roars on, not unlike an out of control forest fire, driven by the Santa Ana wind of American “freedom.”
How are we doing in this land-of-the-free? We are dying at a rate of more than 3,000 a day. According to Mitch Smith a New York Times reporter:
“deaths have already hit a record this week — more than 3,000 a day, on average — and the recent explosion of cases suggests they may be heading to above 3,500 and perhaps to 4,000.”
This is taken with a shrug.
A friend observed several weeks ago that we live in a post-truth age. A scientist, he mused whether the mathematical formulas of physics such as Special Relativity, General Relativity, Newton’s Laws, etc. are the closest we can come to objective truths? A worthwhile question indeed.
I pondered the question for days. I think that objectivity depends entirely upon what human beings decide is relevant, upon what we desire. Any aspect or element which does not figure into what one desires, is deemed — through lack of attention, by disregard, as nonexistent. Anything outside of the circle of desire has no objectivity, is mere opinion, or media manipulation. Disregarding the judgment of epidemiologists, the judgment of public health officials comes to mind.
Perhaps you remember the epic 1978 war drama film, The Deer Hunter. The story was about three friends who came home after fighting in the Vietnam War. The setting is a blue collar Pennsylvania town on the Monongahela River, south of Pittsburgh.
I never forgot this scene from the movie. Early on a frigid winter morning, the friends are in preparation for a day of hunting. Here is a scene of verbal conflict between Michael, played by Robert De Nero, and “Stosh” played by John Cazale.
Here is the scene:
2 thoughts on “Plague Journal, This Is This”
I know I didn’t participate in the Socrates Cafe regarding scientific laws as “universal truth” — partly because I think the concept of universal truth is so problematic.
I question the universality of scientific laws in regards to the human condition. For must of human history, while these laws may have been constant, ignorance of them did not dramatically alter the trajectory of human history. Simply put, people lived and died without these truths having a direct impact on them. To me, the same is largely true today. I fail to see the application when it comes to the material conditions that govern human affairs. Thus, are they universal.
To me the first precept of Buddhism (all of life is suffering) is universal. A human being cannot exist without some form of suffering. I human being can life a full, complete life without knowing the speed of life, however.
While a solid, mechanical understanding of the world can be a useful tool, absent the consideration of humanism — I fail to see them as being truly universal. If I were to make contact with a remote tribe in the Amazon, what would be the point of trying to share a scientific understanding of how the universe operates?
Actually the topic was proposed, but we did not get around to discussing it. Our response to and feelings about the assault on the Capitol took precedence. However it seems to me that the issue gets at a major fracture in our social fabric. That we live in at least two disparate worlds could not be more evident when a sizable number of Americans feel “free” to deny settled scientific fact.
I agree with you that universal “truth,” facts that have been and are affirmed in many cultures and in many past times of human habitation are extremely hard to find. The conditions for human life on earth may have remained essentially the same for hundreds of years, but what has been considered to be “the truth” has varied tremendously. You point out that settled scientific laws of our time did not figure in at all for most of our ancestors. They did well enough without that knowledge.
I see your point that the universality of suffering may be as close as we can come to a universal fact. This should have consequences for ethical development. Given the horrors of life for many in the last century it is hard to argue that this has made any difference at all. Modern humans have treated and continue to treat one another little different than was the case in earlier “uncivilized” times.
If you were to share new scientific knowledge with an Amazon tribe, they would put that to advantage in conflict with a neighboring tribe, if that were possible.