* * *
And on that note, what about the popular, materialistic take on private property? I can’t help but comment on the subject, as an adjunct to addressing the actual, social issue of property.
The materialistic “property” controversy is, I believe, valid in its own right, if mislabeled. However, I find issue with it, as well, for I contend that, while materialism does indeed exist (and can be as poisonous and destructive as some of its opponents insist), it is not innate to having possessions, just as private ownership does not automatically imply inequality and abuse. Once again, we face a confusion of concepts, for materialism is primarily psychological in origin, not political or ideological. As it were, the nature of a possession is highly subjective, being dependent on such factors as perception, intention, purpose, and one’s personal semantics and ideals regarding possessions. For this reason, two people could have the exact same possessions but with such different personal meaning as to be different objects entirely. After all, most of life is how you see it.
A possession’s nature is in the eye of the beholder, it would seem.
The subjectivity of possession is an important point, for when this added dimension is taken into consideration, the issue broadens considerably. Namely, it becomes possible to have things without being attached to those things—to possess without possessiveness, as it were. Make no mistake: your possessions do not have to define you, or entangle you, or entrench you in their perceived value. It’s the same way you can eat without being a glutton, or take off your clothes without being a nudist. Here lies a common misconception of those who eschew possessions out of a dislike of liability or attachment—an understandable aversion, but one that operates on the assumption that attachment is an inevitable byproduct of possession. It’s the difference between having a car to get from Point A to Point B, without emotional investment in that car or its value, and having one as a show of wealth and status.
These are possibilities which many have overlooked, due to narrow logic, and they are, thus, my injunction against the typical, materialistic take on “property issues.”
For example, take property lines. When someone posts a “No Trespassing” sign on their property, it could mean any number of different things, rather than being restricted to outright possessiveness, as suggested by certain doctrines. One person could post such a sign to assert grandiosity or exert power over others, while someone else could do so simply to communicate a practical boundary, perhaps a not-unfriendly one, to convey mutually beneficial information. Perhaps the sign is posted because you might be dangerous; then again, perhaps it’s because something nearby is dangerous to you. Or, alternately, raising a fence: one could pitch such a boundary not in an offensive manner, but as a defensive one, perhaps to keep the deer out of one’s garden—reasons which, in any case, have little to do with possession, materialism, or manmade conventions of property lines. It’s the same way one has a right to decline a sexual advance.
So no, property is not theft—at least, not unless one’s intentions and actions amount to as much. As easily, property can mean healthy cooperation and communication, all depending on how that property is regarded by society and the individual.
Which brings us full circle, back to the social qualities that constitute private property’s true nature.
Perhaps I was premature in saying that this essay provides no answer to the question of private property, for is conscientious use of property and ownership not the beginnings of a solution? In a nut, I believe that property can be a responsible and supportable social institution—so long as the society in question is itself responsible and supportable. Reduced to its root, the practice of private property boils down to such social matters, not tangible or ideological ones such as materialism. All else is incidental to the underlying issue, which, in and of itself, has little to do with possessions, political concerns, and emergent social problems such as class struggle, these being at most only distant corollaries.
And on that note, I rest my case.
XIV. THE NEW SCIENCE
Science is no longer science, in the proper sense of the word.
Today’s “science” has abandoned its heritage, as to be undeserving of its namesake. In true science’s place, we have a sort of devolved, mongrelized version, similar in form and appearance but a very different animal indeed. This change could be viewed as Science versus, just, science. The first fits the dictionary definition: as the classical Scientific Method, that used for objective classification, measurement, and interpretation of observed events. On the other hand, the latter, lesser “science” is a subjective and questionable knockoff, marred with bias and potential inaccuracy.
To be sure, we have all but abandoned real Science for its dysfunctional counterpart.
Please don’t misunderstand: this essay is not anti-science. Science is a marvelous tool, capable of elevating mankind to an apex of knowledge and ability. However, only true science fits this bill—that competent, proper-noun Science referenced above. Unfortunately, the lackluster “science,” so often practiced today, falls short of its big brother. No, today’s science, being so hamstrung by selective perception and wishful thinking, rarely grants real knowledge or utility; instead, anything gleaned from modern science is, usually, provisional and restricted, limited to whatever fallacies and assumptions it operates under.
An insidious thing, the logical assumption—yet so easily missed (or ignored). Found a scientific doctrine on the assumption that the world is flat, and that doctrine won’t go too far on a practical level, however well-researched, well-intentioned, or otherwise ingenious. As it stands, such flat-earth thinking has systematically infiltrated our sciences, yet appearances are just enough to the contrary, with just enough bias and permissiveness thrown in the mix, that an illusion of round-earth legitimacy can be sustained. Thus we see the progressive devolvement of our Science into “science,” entrapping many of our institutions in a modern-day version of the flat-earth paradigm, now just in new, valid-sounding wrappings. Except, the flat earth’s modern incarnation is worse, for our fallacies are even harder to detect than those of our Elizabethan and Victorian forefathers, thanks to our consensuses and their veil of quasi-legitimacy. Now, our fallacies deny their own existence, rendering them rather resilient.
In a bitter irony, we’ve come full circle to the same flawed, self-defeating mentality that rationalism and scientific thought were originally meant to dispel.
Unfortunately, this disconcerting reality is not so obvious, due to a great overlap between Science and science. This is, of course, why science has managed to subvert Science in the first place. As mentioned, true, legitimate Science is an open-ended, broad-thinking tool used for objectively describing reality. Here, Science is especially handy when confronting the unknown, and for creating an integrated, universal terminology used for exploring that unknown—which, once again, does not characterize “science.” Today, our sciences are, more often than not, confined to a limited set of parameters and assumptions, these usually defined by the scientist’s desires and prejudices (or those of the source of funding).
Naturally, this restrictive institutional landscape results in the age-old conflict: the universe’s stubborn refusal to bow to man’s wants and insistences. Because objective reality does not observe whatever restrictions humanity places upon it, a delimited “science” is, thus, fundamentally flawed. For this reason, modern science is left at an inherent disadvantage, unable to describe actual, objective reality, whatever that may be—that is, unable to perform sole, original task of scientific thought, from which there can be no deviation or compromise. Use science to pursue anything less than absolute reality, and its practice becomes irreversibly corrupted, so that all resultant data is likewise fouled.
However, that’s not to say that “science” is useless. While inept at describing reality, a corrupted science is quite suited to less-scrupulous purposes, such as stroking egos, pursuing status, furthering agendas,
and profiting financially or emotionally. I find this fact rather interesting, as well as very telling.
Though, don’t think I’m out to smear and vilify the archetypal scientist. Yes, I do believe the castration of Science into science does, ultimately, fall on the shoulders of the individual scientist, that whom has chosen, knowingly or unknowingly, to sacrifice objectivity in favor of convenience or outright personal gain. After all, without the participation of the lone, in-the-trenches scientists of the world, how else could Science be demeaned into today’s “science”? At the same time, however, I will not scapegoat, for I am far too in touch with the complex reality of the situation to simplify things to that point. As it were, the individual scientist is responsible for the situation facing us today, but not solely responsible.
There is the factor of imperfect education, for instance.
The modern educational establishment is as much to blame for our unscientific science as our unscientific scientists. It is, of course, the schools which are producing these individuals, shaping their thinking into “science’s” neo-flat-earth mold. I think most of us would agree that many of our grade- and high schools are