The UnUtopian Optimist

I have chosen the title of this newsletter because focusing on a  utopian future is, I believe utter nonsense because to achieve utopia would require a stasis that cannot be achieved by any natural means.  Man is certainly capable of creating havoc within his communities as well as to his environment that is much greater than natural environmental consequences might be, both within the community of humanity and upon the natural environment.  

There are three main issues, or directions, that utopian thought channels itself—one is that humanity can create a perfectly harmonious internal community.  The second is the technological challenge to create a perfectly harmonious community, or an environment more suitable to ourselves, or some combination of both.  The third is more problematic and overlaps with the other two, but it centrally is a belief that government—some type of government–is capable of creating some kind of better, more just, more free, or more equitable society. The challenge I have set forth for myself is to challenge the principal assumptions which all have a common denominator that it is man who is capable of creating any of these types of utopian assumptions regardless of the will of nature.

What? Nature has a will?  Is this to be a religious polemic?  Well yes and no.  When I did go to college I obtained a degree in philosophy, primarily Christian philosophy, sometimes termed theology.  But despite a limited (bachelor’s degree), I have pursued higher education by attending many classes and seminars in post-graduate courses from various universities but never pursued earning a degree because I found focusing on a particular subject prevented intelligent comprehension of the interrelatedness between subjects that cannot be understood singularly.  This disconnection is somewhat (but not exclusively) a post-WWI phenomena.

And leaving out, or classifying religion as somehow non-intellectual, is frankly no more enlightening than saying religious sentiment has all the answers, no matter if it be a religious sentiment focused on a present or post utopic vision.  

At issue here though is the will of nature, which is irrelevant to whether nature is a creation that was made by some type of force outside of itself or whether it can be perfectly explained by itself without the necessity of some “god” creating it.  When I refer to the will of nature I am speaking of the how or the what of the processes of what does exist.  And what does exist are certain physical laws of macro-physical forces and micro-physical forces, or quantum physics. For many years physicists have been obsessed with the idea of a theory that make both physical theories coalesce in some type of harmony.   Of course it’s a silly notion to assume they do not act as harmoniously in the sense that existence exists because of both.  Primarily quantum activity creates the macro-activity because of the way the quantum world behaves is reflected in the way the visible macro-universe behaves.  Right there is the starting point to the sought after theory of everything.  

The micro-world is a world of constant flux, elements flying around (in common parlance, if not technically accurate), and without writing a physics tome, basically shows us two things; first, the need to constantly be in flux and that stasis can exist only momentarily, and it is debatable if at all, and the goal is always to combine and become something new, and this leads to the second, seldomly realized concept of quantum physics, and that it is in a rapid stage of continuous evolution.  These two principles therefore create the physical, or macro, or observable universe and that universe that we do live in.  Once again, if universes exist differently than the one we observe remains irrelevant to the universe we exist within.  It is therefore no more relevant than the presence or possibility of a god.   Certainly it is not impossible that there was something that created the way existence occurs nor is it impossible that non-universe replicas are somehow influencing our universe.  But our universe exists as it does and until it can be discoverably known what might be beyond our scope of understanding remains speculative.

But what is known–at least in this universe—is that stasis is an impossibility.  And while direct cause-and effect might be limited in scope, there is nevertheless a constant need for change to occur by the activity of the quantum that expands into the macro.  The macro cannot achieve stasis because the elements within it are in continuous flux and constant movement.For these elements to stop, to enter a finality of movement and achieve a stasis without any further movement,  then we would no longer live in the universe that we do live within.  It would become one of those speculative alternative universes.  It is impossible for me to say that possibility is itself impossible, but what is impossible is for our own existence to continue within the confines of the non-static quantum elements of our universe and remain the universe we now live in.

So to our three models of utopic vision, the first can be easily dismissed; that humans could somehow create a perfectly never-ending harmonious society.  That would amount  to saying we could somehow create a stasis that no human could ever possibly perpetually live in perfect harmony or that somehow our harmonious existence would never have any effect on the environment around it which would also need to become static with an unending , steady and constant environment that itself never diminishes or exceeds the needs  of the utopia.  And quite frankly all utopian concepts I have ever come across seem no different than Huxley’s Brave New World..  They also seem rather dystopian.  Granted, they base themselves on the concept that everyone will see and want a harmonious,conflict-free society, of course, who wouldn’t?  The problem is that these utopias are based on the assumption that everyone will desire exactly the same thing, have exactly the same beliefs/ideology/skills, etc.  And everyone wears robes.  (At least in utopian movies I’ve seen, they usually seem to favor wearing robes.  Right there we have a dystopian conflict in our utopia.  I absolutely despise wearing robes.  Try to dress me in a robe and I’m going to create a scene , and you’re going to have to hold me down and force the robe on me and then you’re going to have to constantly police me because  I will certainly try to take it off the very first chance I have to do so.  But you might say well in a utopia everyone could wear what they want.  But now you have to provide, in your utopia, infinite choice of style, color, texture, etc.  And conflict could occur if only one person wants a green silk shirt and no one else does.  Will the utopia be able to provide every singular need, and if it doesn’t, will not conflict arise? And if you offer any type of choice in the first place, do you not open up avarice by those who can supply more valued needs?  And how do you prevent people who like green shirts from not deciding to disparage, dislike, or possibly maim in some manner those who like red shirts?  And doesn’t the very offer of individual choice refute the utopian concept itself,  that  presented with a fair and just society that harmony comes because everyone’s desires are the same, if choice is needed, the premise is wrong and everyone’s desires are not the same.  And if everyone’s  desires are not,  the assumption is humans are merely some type of automaton and all you have to do is feed them well and treat them equally and they will all walk around with lobotomized smiles on their faces.

No, such a discussion is meritless. And it never seemed to me to even offer a very dreamy future that others see. It is merely escapist, a soma for those dissatisfied with the present but no more a viable alternative than escaping in alcohol or mood altering chemicals. And the problem is they do not achieve the purpose, they might temporarily seem to cover discontent with gloss, but they accomplish no substitute to that discontent.  And utopic visions, also do not.

 The concept seems wonderful when everyone seems to be harmoniously synchronized, but if you examine any such utopias we find ourselves right back to the dystopian world of Huxley’s novel. And that book has never ceased to alarm me.

So this newsletter is projected to discuss the other two visions of utopian thought.  Can we create a technologically utopian world that fulfills human social and environmental  needs, or can we create a juster and fairer (but almost certainly never perfect or static) through any type of human organization, government or otherwise.  

Notes: The word “utopic” is not a misguided attempt at adjectification, but I use it to be a thought of enforced embetterment as an alternative to the present. In this sense, it can be presented negatively, banning books that don’t conceptualize ideas we might favor, or any kind of public policy that presents futurism as any attempt to return to a former “ideal” or strive to anyone’s concept of what the future should become to achieve satisfactory existence.

Optimism, I do not believe, comes from any presentation of idealistic futurism, and literal philosophical  idealism may or may not be presented futuristically. Optimism can only come by constant striving in the present moment to achieve the most positive outcome for that moment with the recognition that for optimism to perpetuate, there is never an end result that cannot or should not be constantly capable of continual  redress to meet the consequences of what we do today.  When we seek optimistic solutions as permanent solutions, they create failures that lead to pessimism and defeat their own goals.  When we present alternatives as a futurism we can never deal with a positive present that requires vigilant and constant revision.

To this end I am going to begin these newsletters by altering between concepts of common law justice that both seek a present justice and the use of justice to negate present realities, and seeking to comprehend the consequences of how distortions of justice (in its broadest sense) create distortions in emotional-thought.  By emotional-thought I mean that most thought is rationalized by emotional reactions to present circumstances that correlate to differing human temperaments and their response to circumstance.  I title these two sections “A Few Thoughts on Common Law” and “A Few Thoughts on Life and Learning.” . By attempting to alternate the two, I am hoping to show how common law justice succeeds only when it can recognize that justice can prevail only with recognition of the emotional-thought impacts of consequential effects of circumstance.  In this sense, I view common law justice as “progressing” (not as progressions of liberality)  but not as permutations of permanence, but as continuing to develop and adapt to the momentary situations that recognize constant revision through established precedents that recognizes the situationism of each moment that do not retard but enhance the needs of justice; that does not use justice as a moral tool of enforcement, but establishes the consequence for contemporary needs.  

I seek to present questions, albeit through personal biases and perspectives.  But I do not wish to establish myself as an authority with ultimate answers and/or solutions.  Answers come by continuing to question each and every answer and by never believing there is a single answer that can be tailored in (or as) a permanence that cannot be continually readjusted by continuing to see the failures of any particular answer or solution.

I do not believe I am, of necessity, right, or correct, in anything I say or write.  But I certainly don’t think I am wrong, or incorrect.  Answers and solutions come from both my rightness and my wrongness and your rightness and your wrongness and dialoguing together that grow us towards an answer that can fulfill both of us.  Otherwise dialogue is shut down and answers and solutions become adversarial conflicts that grow animosity and can never result in the ultimate success of any goals.  Only when we recognize our own liabilities and the other’s strengths can we begin to work together.  And then we must recognize we have to start all over again because tomorrow may rain or may be sunny but the circumstance will be different.  If we seek the ultimate utopic solution, we fail in the present situation. My optimism comes from the hope that we can recognize the importance of each individual within the confines of each circumstance and thus work to find a satisfactory justice for all that reflects no permanent utopic end-game but recognizes that justice must always move forward by a give-and-take process.