As
a hypothetical, let's imagine an extraterrestrial from a distant world travels
to Earth and invisibly observes a football game. The extraterrestrial has
no knowledge or background, and is merely observing the football game, having
no idea it is even a game, or that human beings are even sentient.
In
watching the game, the extraterrestrial observes that when certain things
(offensive linemen) receive the football, they begin running toward the goal
post. If the extraterrestrial assumes that the extraterrestrial is the
only sentient organism in the universe, they will be convinced that they are
witnessing some kind of complex mechanism. Clearly, when certain parts
receive a physical signal (the football), the football causes the machine to
move up the field toward the goal. The extraterrestrial notices that as
the lineman moves up the field, the machine/offensive lineman seems to be
repelled by the presence of defensive players approaching, moving out of the
way or avoiding them. Although the motion of the machine/offensive line
man is not completely determined, the offensive lineman seems to move randomly
toward the end zone, even accounting for the repulsion caused by the presence
of the defensive line men.
Is
the extraterrestrial witnessing the behavior of sentient human beings, or is
the extraterrestrial witnessing the behavior of complex organic machines?
How could the extraterrestrial tell the two types of processes apart?
Empirically speaking, when the offensive lineman receives the football, it is
followed by movement toward the end zone. Wouldn't the extraterrestrial
postulate that possession of the football causes the machine to proceed to the
end zone? In addition, the proximity of the defensive linemen--does this
not cause the lineman to avoid the defensive lineman? How do you
distinguish a sentient process (dependent on signs and a socially created system
of meaning) from a mechanical process?
In
order to have a system based on meaning, we need at least two things: a
system of social customs and organisms with the faculty of memory. There
must be an agreed upon form for doing things, and there must be agreed upon
signs that trigger certain behaviors. We can make a distinction between
norms, which are manifest in synergized behavior by organism, and rules, which
are formal symbols. There can obviously be a game, such as an informal game
of catch, which function without explicit rules, but presuppose norms.
After all, you must know to catch the ball when it is thrown to you, and you
must know to throw it back. When a player deviates from the norms (in the
eyes of the other players), then usually a discussion and an agreement on rules
follows--for example, how hard to throw the ball, or what the agreed upon
bounds of play are. This point is important, because it goes in part to
demonstrate that normative transgression results in the production of formal
rules. If all people shared the same sense of norms, and all people
followed those norms, then there would be no rules.
We
can find this distinction between norms and rules made in Romans Chapter 2
verses 12-16, where St. Paul discusses the Law, which we can equate with rules:
All
who sinned apart from the Law will also perish apart from the Law, and all who
sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law. For it is not the hearers
of the Law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the Law who will
be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the Law, do instinctively
what the Law requires, these, though not having the Law, are a Law to
themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their
hearts, to which their own conscience also bear witness; and their conflicting
thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, accord to my
gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.
The
law written in the heart corresponds to norms, whereas the revealed Law
corresponds to rules. One of the
perplexities of Wittgenstein scholarship deals with Wittgenstein’s contention
that there can be no moral rules. The
Law does not reveal the nature of the Good to us, the Law corrects us, or
chastises us when we deviate from the true Good. If we are truly Good, we need no Law, and if
we possess a Law, mere possession or knowledge of the Law does not aid us, it
is only if we obey the Law do we gain any benefit. It is also noteworthy that the Law is only
comprehensible because we already possess the true Law in our hearts: the spoken Law only chastises us back into
conformity with the inner Law of our hearts.
Will the extraterrestrial understand
that the football match is a game, or will the extraterrestrial view the
football match as a mechanical system, with footballs causing people to run up
the field and the like? Unless the
extraterrestrial has a system of intersubjective norms similar to those held by
the human species, it is not clear that the extraterrestrial will ever be able
to comprehend that the match is a football game, and not merely a mechanical
system. But we have to ask, how do we
know a football game is a football game?
In some sense, because we possess a similar set of norms as our football
players. What distinguishes a game of
football from firing a gun?
First of all, the game depends upon
memory, the memory of the players. But
in addition, the game depends upon the players possessing sufficient intellect
to learn the game over a certain period of time. Last, the game depends upon the will of the
players, first to learn the game, second to continue to abide by the rules (and
the norms) of the game during play.
Without memory, intellect, and will, there can be no football. Thus, to understand the game is to possess a
system of intersubjective norms, and to possess intellect, memory and
will.
What are these intersubjective
norms? Well, first is bears mentioning
something that these norms are not:
describable. Because human beings
can coordinate their behavior, they can develop customs and norms. Because human beings have norms, they can
coordinate their speech, and their speech is intelligible precisely on account
of the existence of these norms. Thus,
we can have norms without speech, but no speech without norms. Accordingly, our speech presupposes norms,
and manifests our norms, but, being incapable of division from our norms, can
never describe what our norms are (their form), while being capable sometimes
of explicating the substance of a specific norm is (within a community).
Because we cannot really describe what
our norms are, only their effects, it bears noting that we cannot describe why
our norms sometimes differ. St. Paul
seems to suggest that our capacity for intellection has been impaired,
confused, and that this can sometimes accuse us (obfuscation), and sometimes
excuse us (true ignorance). The
Christian message regarding these norms is expressed in the story of the
Fall: transgression, fall, and then a
new form of life, characterized by pain and strife. It is a description of the effect of the
Fall, but not an explanation of how our norms became corruption, because it
deals in effects, not causes. The Fall
is unintelligible.
Returning to our discussion of norms
and rules, we can see the limits of the Law:
the written Law presupposes a system of norms for it to be intelligible,
and the written Law only chastises or returns us to the Law writ in our
hearts. Moreover, only on account of
transgression is there a written Law in the first place: the Law accuses us (the existence of Language
accuses us), and disciplines us, but it does not, on its own accord, make us
holy. Moreover, given the fundamental
indeterminacy of meaning, it is clear that the written Law, on its own accord,
cannot even properly chastise us, because its meaning is ultimately
unknowable. We do not need ethical rules
(because we lack the ability to interpret them consistently), we need an
ethical example to imitate. If we are to
be good, the Good must reveal itself to us, and we must recognize it as the
Good, and follow it. In this sense,
ethics is voluntary, and can never truly be compelled by another person. This is our liberty, to follow or to reject,
and we cannot be forced to follow, we can only be forced to conform.
Returning to our extraterrestrial, the
extraterrestrial must recognize the football players as rational agents,
imitating some kind of paradigm, in order for the extraterrestrial to recognize
what it is dealing with.
The question is the following: we know that human beings play games, have
communication systems, follow norms, possess a collective sense of
meaning. Is it possible that the
sub-components of the human being also follow norms and possess a collective
sense of meaning, for example, the immune system? Is it possible that life itself is really the
manifestation of a system of meaning?
No comments:
Post a Comment