Subjectivism

The problem seems to be one of entropy. As the entropy in a system increases, we become progressively less able to pass categorical judgement. It appears to be an intuitive, analogue process akin to the rhetorical “when do grains of sand become a heap?” We all know a heap when we see one. Similarly, we seem to know intuitively when other humans will agree that something is right or wrong.

A sane man murdering his young wife in cold blood is clearly a bad thing. We can all agree on that.

But an organisation that killed one-hundred-and-thirty civilians in Paris wins the sympathy of a significant minority.

And two technological superpowers invading a weaker nation, killing one hundred and twenty-three thousand civilians over ten years? Fifty-fifty support.

Such is human nature.

To “get away with murder”, therefore, is straightforward: increase the entropy of the system. It sounds crude, but if you want to kill someone and get away with it, your best bet will be to introduce as many confounding and interrelated factors as possible.

You took a gun and shot someone. You are probably going to jail.

You killed someone in a possibly foreseeable “accident” at the hands of another person indirectly in your employ? You might just get away with it.

I suppose this is why rich people buy into the media. With newsprint you can ramp up the entropy of a situation without actually having to actually do anything. Iraq is not a threat? But my newspaper tells me it has weapons of mass destruction ready to launch in forty-five minutes.

It is trite, but our perception really is our reality.

There are implications for interpersonal communication too. If we accept that there is no objective reality (one that matters anyway), every utterance must be calibrated, not according to your own perception of a situation, but to the aggregate perception of the audience.

Every statement is evaluated in the context of the ontology that is the listener brain.

This is why parents find it so maddeningly difficult to communicate with teenagers. Or managers, subordinates. Or Israelis, Palestinians. The ontologies on each side differ so wildly, that the same words bear different, sometimes opposite, interpretations. The literal words used in communication are merely a canvas upon which listeners impose meaning.

The more significant forms of communication, such as ingratiation or persuasion occur on a more abstract plane. This meta-communication requires a shift in (perceived, at any rate) ontological position, closer to that of the listener.

I submit this is what Bill Clinton’s campaign team (and later Tony Blair’s) meant by the term “triangulation”. It is no coincidence that two leaders with a rather fluid interpretation of facts found use in this technique. There is a fine line between shifting perception independent of a reality and dishonesty.

If you remove the need for meta-communication, of course, then you avoid the lie. “Big movies are real money-spinners aren’t they?” is a statement of observable fact. To disagree with this statement either shows a particularly contrarian personality or a suspension of observed reality. But this kind of conversation is uninteresting and leads to a straightforward exchange of facts. It’s the reason small talk is so boring.

Conversely, friends are, I think, the optimal people to communicate with. A friend is by definition someone who has a semantic graph between their ears in harmony with yours. They “get it”.

So if we accept subjectivism as a viable school of thought, does this really mean that right and wrong are up for interpretation? Actually, yes — although it does not protect us from the consequences of our actions.

In some sense this is the source of our human agency and freedom. Each mind is free to model reality in its own way. And it is the interface of this model with those of other people that defines how we move through the human world.

When viewed directly, this can be seen as a frighteningly large burden for the individual. In practise, the human mind has evolved to push this model-building into the subconscious for most of the time. Furthermore, individuals may delegate decision making to social constructs such as community leaders, organised religion and the rule of law.

And fortunately there is a rather positive corollary.

Having no objective reality is the very thing that makes life bearable. It enables every married man to say to their wife without deceit “you are the most beautiful woman in the world”. And for every wife to believe it. It means there will always be someone (somewhere) who loves your work.

Solace and optimism are to be found in this idea.

It means that life is there for you to define.