Structure and Mechanism
STRUCTURE AND MECHANISM
Mathematics is patterns. Physics is constrained patterns.
But psychology is also a study of patterns.
Some of the most fundamental concepts in physics are "structure" and "mechanism".
But these concepts, structure and mechanism, are also fundamental in the fields of psychology and sociology. In fact, there are at least 3 ways to use the concepts of mechanism and structure: Physically, psychologically and logically.
Therefore, not surprisingly, the core concepts of mechanism and structure are central in relation to the events of 9-11-01. But it is not just the obvious lack of knowledge of the structure of the buildings and the mechanisms of collapse that are to blame for all the confusion witnessed. I think it is more about an understanding of the mechanisms of mind in the form of human perception, knowledge and deep seated beliefs that surround this issue.
For example, in my case I began by studying the physical structures and collapse mechanisms of the WTC buildings, but I conclude my studies by examining the psychological and logical structures and mechanisms of those who observe the collapses. This is more about human vulnerability, which is a psychological issue. It is more about how beliefs color perception, or about the inability to directly perceive at all.
Often "science" is just thin veneer people use to legitimize their beliefs. Perhaps they subconsciously need some form of authority to confirm their own beliefs, but admitting so openly, or even to oneself, may be too uncomfortable for those not ready for such an admission. Perhaps many people are not comfortable admitting they, too, have beliefs and need some mechanism through which to call their beliefs "objective truth". In this case it hardly matters whether the authority is correct or incorrect, since the person never intended to check the results anyway. The act of fact-checking itself runs contrary to the belief system, and once authority has spoken, and spoken in a way that confirms ones world view, double checking the results would be an unnecessary act (and potential threat) within ones sense of affirmation (and why rock that boat?)
Concerning the reexamination of the events of 9-11-01, one of the facets that stands out the most is how the very act of fact-checking is treated as highly taboo. The mere act of fact-checking claims is often met with extreme hostility by those who see their own subjective viewpoints as true beyond doubt. The act of fact-checking and efforts toward technical accuracy in itself evokes hatred among a certain percentage of the general population.
Why is this taboo clung to with such passion? My guess is that one would have to admit that people are quite vulnerable to incorrect information and mistakes have been made. It is not just that mistakes have been made, but that large groups of individuals can be vulnerable to embracing those mistakes and rallying behind them without checking claims.
Many see themselves as effective critical thinkers communicating with other effective critical thinkers. This belief constitutes an overall world view of self and other, and admission of rather bone-headed mistakes at this late date destroys this world view based on a false or inflated sense of certainty.
For this reason, it seems easier for many to subconsciously fabricate information to justify the process of clinging than to just admit that one is quite human and vulnerable to false beliefs.
Another reason why the act of fact-checking is treated as highly taboo is because it directly challenges is what David Bohm calls the "western world view", in which one sees our societies as a whole as scientific and civilized. These 2 concepts :
mutually reinforce one another within the western world view. It is commonly believed that our cultures are scientific because we are civilized. Our cultures are civilized because we are scientific.
Many of the psychological attributes observed within discussions and debates over the subject of 9-11-01 would be expected within a religious setting. But, in this case, one observes them connected with the study of physical objects with much of the movement and behavior of those objects captured and preserved in video and images.
Within the physical sciences there is observation and measurement. Yet, even when studying physical objects captured on video, years of "debate' pass without either of the polarized sides using or showing much interest in discussions that center around observation and measurement. Instead, something akin to religious views form within a "Milgramesque" environment in which the hypnotism of prostrating before authority and the blind defending of authoritative views and claims reigns supreme.
One observes this environment clearly on both sides of the false dichotomy. Those few participants that base arguments on observation and measurement are seen as "odd balls" from both polarized "sides". Those who point out the multiple gross mistakes within the NIST reports are seen as committing acts of blasphemy. Of one reads "between the lines" of these discussions, entire world views emerge in which anything can be twisted into anything else in order to preserve the illusory coherence of an authoritatian world view.
Created on 08/13/2012 01:03 AM by admin
Updated on 01/13/2013 06:04 PM by admin