Conversation between two or more person can treated in many ways. It can be treated as mere talk or chat, can be treated a serious dialogue and sometime objectified as deep conversation. Depth of any conversation depends on to the subject and its speaker’s ability to make the subject subjective for meaningful conversation. A mere talk or chat be turned into meaningful conversation if speakers follows the subject matter according care, reversely serious conversation could conclude its end as mere talk or gossip. It’s very uncertain to guess which conversation will meaningful to other people and which will be not. In that context we could say conversation is fragile, where borderline always shaded by subjective complexities.
Yes, a conversation between persons always conveyed fragility, where meaning could enfold by conflict and could subjective for controversy. People like to converse on many topics. They prefer talk rather to be silent. Sometime silent talk can speak lot rather than verbal, albeit it also happened for the sake of conversation itself. However, fact is that people like converse to other, they provoked them to share their thoughts with other and tried to objectify their thoughts as subjective conversation. Human civilization is a précis of conversation where people’s mind idealized the reality as understandable and meaningful.
Why people converse? Why they talk and chat with other? What be the necessity of dialogue? What do we mean by conversation? Question is many but answer could be one and that is, people converse to understand each other. Conversation is essential for staying connected with society and nature too. When people converse they make new word, establish new meaning and convert or replace old meaning by new. Conversation is the designer of new meaning, where meaning played a source-role for new ideas. The world would not have a world if conversation failed to idealize it. Life is not life at all if conversation abortive to create new idea and meaning, if it is failed to idealize the meaning by new dialogue. Reality appears as reality when people converse with the reality, so that they can understand their relation and collision with everything existed here.
… that is the quandary that when you manipulate nature for your own sake nature manipulates you reversely for its own sake, and when you not manipulate anything nature will continue its manipulation to you…
Existence of “Being” is a perceptive realization that “I am existed here” to relate with the existent, to converse and idealized the existent according my thoughts and wording. Body is the reflection of existence and mind is the medium to create the polyphonic enchants of life, where people persistently idealized their living by making new dialogue and be the monologue indeed.
This body is the reason for action and event, where mind is the traveler to signify yonder action. Human Being is a MindWalker, walks to idealize its living as a human. This was perhaps the key objectification to me when I switched the play button for watching Bernt Capra‘s conversation movie “MindWalk”, where three different people meet in a French monastery and make a long conversation there. They talk with each other, converse to explain their own point of views about world’s reality.
Three talkers come from different professional areas having specialty in their own field of work. Sonia Hoffman is a middle-aged divorced woman, specialized on quantum physics, living with her daughter and Norwegian origin. She is attractive in womanhood, personified in her thoughts and holistic in idealization that existence is not alien or separated thing, everything is connected to everything; we have obliged consider the connection before applying our ideas, invention or anything to operate the society for current or future progress.
As a scientist and expert on quantum field theory, Sonia’s conversation with politician Jack Edwards (a former presidential candidate of US) and his longtime friend poet Thomas Harriman open the door to examine the problem and further usability of System Theory and Systematic Thinking in today’s world.
Which system should preferable for human civilization to repair the losses and rebuild the world as coherent, harmonized and sustainable for all creatures living in this planet? What could be the shape of our systematic thinking that builds a systematized world for everybody, where human being and all other entities could coexist in harmony? Which world-view we can take and apply for better progress and peace, for equality and justice, for association and togetherness? Is it still follows René Descartes “Cartesian” principle, where Nature is treated as a clock-machine? If we desirous to realize the clock function, we have to segregate every part of the clock and examine each part as individual to understand the whole.
The world would not have a world if conversation failed to idealize it. Life is not life at all if conversation abortive to create new idea and meaning, if it is failed to idealize the meaning by new dialogue. Reality appears as reality when people converse with the reality, so that they can understand their relation and collision with everything existed here.
Is it the right Systematic approach realized the correlative reality of living entities in this world? Is it a problem solving equation to mitigate disparity, unjust, manipulation or monopoly existed now between everything? Is it able to repair the cleft between nature and human? Could stop human to destroy nature and ecology for the sake of harmony and coherence? Does Cartesian influenced systematic thinking minimize the political system as nature friendly so that it could adapt itself to the natural principle of evolution?
Sonia Hoffman raised lot question in her conversation with the politician and poet, where a big clock near the monastery, wavy seashore and Gothic facades portrays the talker’s conversation in cine-screen. They converse to denote each other point of view about the relation of nature and human, oppose each other to realize that the nature evolved clock ticks the correct time or not. The talkers measure in which extent a society-manipulated-clock could distort the nature-evolved-clock, and if it is true then is it the signage of chaos and destruction or not? Three talkers talked about ecological change and manipulation, medicine and medication, machine influenced life and moral drudgery, political distortion and system loss… they travel in cosmic reality, talk each other about atomic fractions and quantum uncertainty, examine philosophical objective of life, where Descartes, Newton, William Black and Pablo Neruda be escort them to the last.
Do we treat “MindWalk” a problem solving equation for reality? The conversation, where Sonia Hoffman criticize a lot, Jack Edwards rotates in confession and self-defense a lot and where Thomas Harriman seeing him letdown to the system many time… do they find a solution to articulate the problem of celebrate the life in this nature evolved planet? Answer perhaps negative here. Sonia advocates a lot for holistic system, imposed her persona to narrate the cleft between perception and reality. According her monologue we sum up the whole that, everything is connected here. Yeah, every livable being is the part of nature, we are living in a giant wood, if anybody tries to understand an individual existence he has to understand the whole wood as well; where tiny micros and giant macros are identical in nature-machine and we have to realize this if we wished to survive in harmony and accord.
MindWalk talks in monologue rather than dialogue. Three characters make their own speech when converse or encounter each other. Sonia blamed politics as evil barrier to regain the holistic harmony for all creatures. Jack tried to clarify his moral position in manipulated system and Thomas denies the whole by his poetic naturalism. Three talkers finished their conversation without highlighting the fact that nature itself a silent manipulator of everything. We can idealize nature by Cartesian or Holistic principle, could apply any of this two for progress and harmony with everything, but it doesn’t affect nature to act according our imposed principle.
Does Cartesian influenced systematic thinking minimize the political system as nature friendly so that it could adapt itself to the natural principle of evolution?
Nature is sovereign in its state. It was sovereign at remote past when giant Dinosaur was extinct due to the ecological change. They don’t tried manipulates nature as human does today, but cannot prevent their extinction. Adaptation with change is uncertain. It depends on lot of complicated factors, playing their role in micro organic cell or tiny atomic level. Human be the first creature who tried to manipulate nature for survive and that is the quandary that when you manipulate nature for your own sake nature manipulates you reversely for its own sake, and when you not manipulate anything nature will continue its manipulation to you.
Invention and survival technique is a curse in that sense. The more you invent even more you exploits nature by breaking nature’s law, and the less you invent as less the certainty that you could survive. When you invent anything, it increases your comfort to carry life and reversely thrown you in danger for manipulate the system, where science manipulates nature, society manipulates science and politics manipulate the society as a whole. Everybody played their rule as manipulator, not only the politicians as Sonia tried to mark in her monologue. The world is autonomous in its action where we can idealize it according our self-interest, tried to reduce the manipulation as much as we could, but no idealization could stop or turned the nature-cycle-destruction according our philosophy of life.
Nature is God itself, where creations are being here for survive, they are connected here to exploit each other for their own self-survival and depends on the technique of manipulation they invented or adapted by living in nature. We human could try to adjust best, influenced us to coexist with every creature, motivate us for showing healthy morality by agreeing with the MindWalk that nature is uncertain as uncertain life is.
Footnote: Readers, I include sort of monologue of the movie here from the subtitle track of the MindWalk for your participating conversation to the monologue.
Politics confuses everybody.
Including its practitioners.
But I know what
“No saint stands alone” means.
It’s the essence of my profession.
Because between every politician
and his own point of view…
there’s always three fat cats, two
Pac lobbyists, half-dozen of microphones.
(00:14:45,895 –> 00:15:10,024)
The individual in the human body was
supposed to feel small…
dwarfed, denied all independent existence.
We lost some of the sense of being
all one, but we got our freedom.
That’s not a bad trade-off.
I don’t know. I still don’t know if we
haven’t lost more than we’ve gained.
(00:15:41,769 –> 00:16:04,478)
This is… mechanical time.
You bet, you bet it is.
I sometimes think that this clock,
this machine is what…
…constitutes humanity’s first real
break from the world of nature.
The clock did much more than that.
It became the model of the cosmos.
And then they mistook the
model for the real thing.
People got the idea that
nature was just a giant clock.
Not a living organism, but a machine.
(00:17:50,977 –> 00:18:20,666)
Descartes was the primary architect of
the view that sees the world as a clock.
A mechanistic view that still
dominates most of the world today…
and it seems to me
specially you politicians.
(00:20:05,121 –> 00:20:18,713)
I can find that out for myself,
because to me the world is just a machine.”
And then he became fascinated
and made the clock into
his central metaphor.
He said “I consider the human body
as nothing but a machine…
A healthy man is like a well-made clock.
A sick man is like an ill-made clock.”
The metaphor seems a little clumsy now.
But it worked, didn’t it?
Yes, so successfully, that
scientists came to believe…
that all living things, plants
animals, us, are nothing but machines.
And that’s the fallacy. It carried
over into everything, arts, politics…
(00:21:23,626 –> 00:22:09,527)
We need a new way
of understanding life.
That pendulum for example, has long since
been replaced by a tiny quartz crystal.
And these magnificent
turned into microchip
the size of my thumbnail.
That’s how far modern science has
left mechanistic thinking behind.
But you politicians seem to have
that clockwork still ticking in your head.
(00:22:44,509 –> 00:23:18,711)
Research has proven that the
most effective form of birth control…
is not a pill, it’s economic
and social gains…
which will reduce the
desire for large families.
Did you know that in our world
every day 40,000 children die…
from malnutrition and
But the short lives of these children
cannot be seen in isolation…
they’re part of the whole system,
involving the economics…
involving the environment,
and more specifically…
– involving high levels of third-world debt.
– How’s that?
Three years ago, president
Nyerere asked the question:
“Must we starve our
children to pay our debts?”
(00:24:00,701 –> 00:25:08,374)
You cannot look at one single of our
global problems in isolation…
(00:26:05,592 –> 00:26:10,505)
That’s the real political question here.
Where do you start?
By changing the way
we’re seeing the world.
(00:27:56,615 –> 00:28:03,436)
You’re still searching for the
right piece to fix first.
You don’t see that all the problems
simply are fragments of one single crisis.
– A crisis of perception.
(00:28:03,500 –> 00:28:18,488)
It’s as simple as that.
If it works, it’s good.
Isn’t that what you said why
politics doesn’t work…
…that politics needed to become
the art of the impossible?
(00:29:45,679 –> 00:29:55,832)
“It’s foolish for a society to try to
cling to its old ideas in new times…
(00:31:24,941 –> 00:31:30,629)
If we don’t get a heart attack
one way, you’ll find another way.
(00:34:42,438 –> 00:34:45,822)
Look, the world changes faster
than people’s perception of it.
Wouldn’t be challenge for a
great political leader to bridge…
…the gap, to inform, to allow
us to feel responsibility?
Anyway, the people don’t
trust you politicians anymore.
At your last election only 50%
of them even bothered to vote.
Getting them back would really
require a politics of the impossible.
(00:35:22,650 –> 00:35:47,234)
I want to tell you that
the ocean knows this.
…that life in its jewel boxes
is endless as the sand…
(01:38:41,954 –> 01:38:50,674)
A lot of people talk about
doing things like that.
But how many people actually do it?
You could have stayed as long,
read as much, and decided…
…you have nothing to offer.
(01:36:30,522 –> 01:36:41,122)
Every living organism has
the potential for creativity…
…for surprising and
(01:30:30,226 –> 01:30:38,130)
Evolution is an ongoing dance,
an ongoing conversation.
We are systems, and
the planet is a system.
We don’t evolve on the planet,
we evolve with the planet.
Wouldn’t it be extraordinarily
powerful if you could introduce…
…just that one idea into
the political dialogue?
(01:31:08,403 –> 01:31:34,139)
A systems thinker would look at the
tree and see the life of the tree…
…only in relation to the
life of the whole forest.
(01:24:05,201 –> 01:24:16,148)
No, that’s what science was maybe,
but pure science hardly exists today.
(01:10:59,678 –> 01:11:05,589)
Today, physicists are simply proving
that what we call an object…
…an atom, a molecule, a particle,
is only an approximation, a metaphor.
we like it or not…
…we’re all part of one
inseparable web of relationships.
(01:02:17,802 –> 01:03:36,438)
But hasn’t modern science, technology,
business done exactly what…
…Francis Bacon preached:
tortured our planet?
(00:38:46,504 –> 00:38:56,285)
YouTube link of the film: MindWalk, Directed by: Bernt Capra, Based on his short story, influenced by his own brother Fritjof Capra‘s book “The Turning Point”.