Class 2: January 14, 2010

Plateau... I mean Plato

I pondered what to write in this entry, for two days. That, however, is not to say what I actually wrote took two days. I actually began with my own allegory. I plateaued on that one! Anyway, a shadow of what Plato stirred for me, in terms of philosophy and technology, is mirrored below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly what true philosophy is alludes me a little (see the last two words in the last statement of Socrates). I know what philosophy is. The free online dictionary gives multiple definitions (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophy), two of which are:

1. investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods;
2. the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

Nothing in those two about truth or trueness in philosophy, at least explicitly. The same dictionary, however, defines truth to be reality/actuality, or an accepted standard.

So, given those definitions and what is said at the end of the Plato piece, it is logical to conclude that the ascension from darkness to light involves asking questions and critically thinking about existence. Ya (na)?

Everyone has an understanding of truth, especially their own. Having said that, I am reminded of my first tour of university back in the mid 80's, when I came across a book written by a fellow named Harry Weinberg, Levels of Knowing and Existence. It's abook about semantics, and though I didn't read much of it, the title stuck with me. Levels of knowing and existence. Are there levels of knowing? Are there levels of existence? Plato's allegory definitely says so, and we too all know that without stretching our imaginations much. But, those questions, for me, lead to these: "Does there exist a level of truth unknowable to humans?" and "Do we exist in a reality with N plateaus and once we have come to level N, that's it; that is, the good defined in The Allegory of the Cave?" It's fun to fiddle with such questions.

We know that growth from childhood to adulthood occurs through stages, and as we pass from one stage to the next, we find ourselves on loosely (or more firmly) defined plateaus (consider Piaget). No revelation there either. But, our encounters with the realities in our lives undoubtedly shape us. Learning is a consequence of experience, and once we learn something, we can not go back to a previous level of knowledge; it is impossible. Having said that, though, a level of knowledge may change, but we can still remain on the same plateau. So when do we actually move from one plateau of knowledge to another? I'll stop here. Need to go back a bit.

We may, over time, consciously forget a detail of experience here and there, but our encounters do mark us on the inside in such a way that we will always know where we've been. If we encounter the same thing again, though it may be years later, it's like a deja-vous; automatically, our being senses a previous encounter. I've not heard of anyone ever forgetting how to ride a bike. And, though the enlightened one in Plato's cave goes back, the knowledge gained, at some level (conscious or not), will remain.

Ok, so now what? What's my point? I backed up from plateaus of knowledge to discuss marking. Let me return to knowledge plateaus. Consider that information and communication technology does shape our character and the essence of who we are. A paper by Albert Borgman titled The Marlboro Man (which I read a couple of years ago) made a play on the rugged, earthy smoker who was in touch with the range: horses, cattle, the land, and at that time, tobacco! Borgman suggested that the Marlboro Man knew his world in a way that a GPS system or a Google map just doesn't do justice. Marlboro's technology was the rope, the spur, the branding iron, and maybe the rifle. But, paints Borgman, Marlboro's way of life, once pretty normal, has become an artefact, a lost art. It has been replaced by a society of softies whose way of life involves sitting on couches channel surfing after a day in the systematized world of technology. We watch Survivor Man instead of living it.

Our info and communication technology has become a lens, a filter, a middle man - an interpretter of reality - for us. We now process the world through technology. Does this mean we live now at a different level or plateau of reality? The raw experience that directly connects a person to the entitly/reality is removed. The character of our experience, and hence our personal character, has also changed; we expect more. But, has technology really enlightened us? It has enhanced our way of life, that is certain. But, do we know reality any better? Maybe, maybe not.

When considering education and the role of technology in it, I think the raw experience of doing a science lab can never be replaced by an on-line virtual lab, nor can a virtual visit to Egypt compare to actually walking in the Valley of the Kings. Enabling timely access to data is one of info and communication technology's biggest pluses, but in other ways, all it does is cast shadows on a wall. Has technology put us on a different plateau of knowing reality? Or, has technology given us another level of knowing on the same plateau? I think technology can put us on a different plateau of knowing, but not necessarily a better one. It can also give us a new level of knowing on the same plateau, such as how to access and create data faster.