What saturates formal democracy?

Contrary to general impression it is not so difficult to explain the emergence and the function of god in human history. We can easily disregard god as a kind of pre-scientific concept, but we cannot but to accept the role that god features in almost any society. Even if you are ateist you relate yourself to something that is supposed to be a god.

But there is even more! I will prove that there is less need for a god in pre-scientific societies that in a modern, formal democracy based cultures. We could name this paradox as “Dawkins paradox“: with his vigorous attacks on any instance of god and with his plea for atheistic society, Dawkins in fact positioned religious realm more precisely than almost any other religious discourse. Why it is that atheism can only be positioned as antithesis to theism while theism can survive regardless any opposition?

Simple rules and complex life

Although human brains are complex entities, their emergent property, consciousness, is fairly simple and linear. As such, simple and linear, this consciousness could not and cannot directly correspond to complex, non-linear processes that brains are structured upon. Brains – consciousness relation is only one of many that underpin unique human identity. In fact, each and every simple human (emergent) property depends on (comes out of) complex structure.

One example can be a legislation in relation to life. We do intuitively know, that cause and effect in life is not linear. We thus “know” that life is much too complex to be reflected through legislation that tries to reposition life in linear law structures and linear legislative processes. In ancient, non-democratic days, it was a word of tribe leader, that was himself a part of a complex structure, that ruled over the community. There was an oral taboo system that represented a social cohesion system, but the tribe leader did not refer to taboo system in a way that contemporary judge is referring to law in a contemporary society. In those days, the truth was equal to formal ruling while today we say that the realm of truth has nothing to do with rulings within legal system. What we want to say with this is that truth is a part of a complex system that our legal apparatus (emergent property of human society) is not capable to be in touch with. What is ruled as against the law can be at the same time true or not true, and vice versa. Legal act as a part of linear, simple legal structure does not want to govern in the domain of life, complexity, while older, oral, tribal societies still perceived tribal leader ruling as not only formally correct but also true.

Formalization paradox

The surprising paradox lies in the fact, that more than human civilization developed emergent properties like law, written books, procedures… more the gap between complex nature and linear properties are seen and felt. More than we rely on consciousness, more than we know about it, more than evolution developed it, more we feel disconnected from the complex realm that this consciousness is based upon. More than we develop (formalize) legal system, more we feel that it is detached from the questions of truth. More than we understand the nature of complex systems, so beautifully explained by Peer Bak sand pile and avalanches explanation, more we see that trying to find one sand that could be blamed for an avalanche (law, linear mind, …  is pushing us to find one and only culprit) is not only against human nature, but obviously also against physical nature.

And since simple, linear properties like consciousness, law… cannot develop complex solutions (common belief), another simple property, which aim was to fill the gap between two realms, emerged: god. God is simple emergent property of human civilization that aim was to link unsatisfying solutions of linear world with what humans felt but could not understand as complexities of life. Consequently, the need for a god expands with the development of properties like consciousness and law! The highest paradox lies in a fact that more than one another emergent property is developed, science, more humans need a god to connect them (their consciousness, their science…) with complexity of life. That is why Higgs particle is in fact “god particle”, but not because it would unlock doors towards complexity, but because it will double the need for a god as an intermediator between Keep It Stupid Simple (KISS) realm of human mind (legislation and even physics) and life. That is why more than humans formalize democracy, more we need a god to saturate it.

Homonism

There is of course another answer to this separation that proved to be wider and wider with each KISS step of human society. God as himself a part of KISS strategy is apparently false (but explicable) answer. The alternative answer is found on many parts of this blog. As I am more and more convinced that the solution lies in de-formalization, in disrupting KISS strategy, in personal experience of complexity and personal allowance that complexity enters into everyday practice, I should not make it simple and repeat here, what was already written somewhere else, only for the reason of accepting your commodity, my dear reader. But perhaps a hint only: individual as a cornerstone of wisdom, power and beauty. Openess to quantum like entanglement. From a point of social, political and philosophical sciences, this is called: Homonism.

Appendix 1:

When we say that a formal judicial ruling can declare truth and lie at the same time, we in fact follow one of core quantum laws: uncertainty on one side and entanglement on the other side. In analogue, Einstein world, the locality principle rules. Two bodies cannot be on one place in the same time. One judicial ruling is local, linear; it should be such because there is not a person that would in our eyes represent both formal (linear) and life (complex) world, but the law, that is objective (repeatable). So, we have a formal ruling coming from analogue world on one side and quantum like position of truth, that can never be localized in relation to analogue formal ruling, on another.

Appendix 2:

If we apply these finding to public procurement system, we see clearly the gloomy future of the system if it is going to develop towards higher formalization. More than you develop rules to rule out the god’s presence in procurement system, more you call for its intervention in the end.

Andrej Drapal