Nexus State Theory

I will consider a few possible concerns about this work.

1. Someone might ask whether the work can be valid, given the ambiguous nature of words like “Default Human Range” and the hypothetical nature of the work.
2. Someone might grant that hypothetical works can be important, yet want to know whether this particular hypothesis is true.
3. Someone might think that, far from questioning whether it is true, the theory is in fact all obvious; it is just a restatement of ideas that are well known. This is the polar opposite of points (1) and (2), but it is also a possible concern that some readers might have.

Not all of these concerns can be valid at the same time; but they should all be addressed. Regarding the first point, this theory is interesting in two ways:

• It’s ambiguous. You get to decide what some of the words means. What is the precise meaning of the phrase “Default Human Range”?
• It’s a hypothesis. No one knows for sure whether it’s true.

Many of the best theories start out as hypotheses. And many of them contain ambiguities. For example, to take some examples from physics (just to be clear that this issue is not limited to squishy social theories), Copernicus’ heliocentric theory was a hypothesis for well over a century before it was confirmed by Newton. Quantum mechanics has contained an ambiguity, since its invention, about how measurement works. From this perspective, hypothetical and ambiguous theories are the norm rather than being unusual.

On the second point, the reader may agree that ambiguity and hypotheses do not disqualify a theory, and even that nearly all new theories contain these features. And yet – you may wonder how to go about ascertaining whether Nexus State Theory is true! After all, if it is not known for certain to be true (by anyone) and if we cannot even tell what the words of the theory mean, then how are we to know if the theory is valid? It can be rational to support the general idea of novel theories, which are good for society, yet to be cautious about believing novel theories oneself.

I have two answers to this question. First, the answer could be that one doesn’t know it’s valid, but one learns it anyway – adding it to one’s library of ideas. That is how I typically proceed with any theory. Even when I read the work of a famous sociologist like Robert Putnam, I do not totally believe it. I typically believe it provisionally in order to explore its consequences. Sometimes, I try to explain everything I know in terms of what I have just read – just to try it out and feel its implications. Then, I typically back off and believe it a bit less, integrating it into my library of other ideas.

This library of ideas is an interconnected set of insights – some useful, some useless – which is gradually refined as one reads many books and essays. From that perspective, the question should not be “is this definitely true” but rather: have you read anything quite like this? Does this add new ideas to your library? Is this interesting to think about?

I have a great deal of faith in human reason. I think that by expanding one’s library, it is possible to reason about the things in this work and to make an educated guess whether they are true.

As the Buddha said in the Kalama Sutta, it is important to be able to trust yourself:

“Don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, “This contemplative is our teacher.” When you know for yourselves that, “These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness” — then you should enter & remain in them.” [1]

A second answer is that this theory is not just about truth or falsity, but about finding the motivation to pursue truths that you already know about. You can’t personally verify that the Earth orbits the sun, that humans evolved from other animals, or that electron obeys quantum laws; but you can verify that Default Human Range practices such as friendship, walking in nature, and listening to music are good. In that case, a theory that tells a story about why friendship, walking in nature, and listening to music are good might be an interesting theory – worth reading about and thinking about.

The risk is low: if you read this theory and it turns out that you’re persuaded of the wrong reason why friendship, walking in nature, finding meaning in activities, and listening to music are good, you don’t lose very much.

Indeed, doing something good for the wrong reason may be just as good as doing it for the right reason. This means that the reward could be high: if you end up being motivated to pursue good things, you could end up with more good things.

As far as the third concern – that the theory is obvious – this to me is the closest to my way of thinking. From my perspective, the theory is not all that hypothetical; it is mostly a restatement of things that follow directly from the literature. However, for this very reason – its being obvious – the theory’s utility may be questioned. Doesn’t all theory have to present new ideas?

First of all, speech in general doesn’t have to be new – I would hope that people can discuss things that are of interest to them even if they do not represent earthshaking novel developments. In fact, I’m not sure that I’ve ever come up with an earthshaking novel development myself, yet I have spoken many words over the course of my life. For some reason, our society conditions us to interpret a proposed social theory as being equivalent to a claim that this theory is totally novel and world-changing; whereas we do not interpret observations about the weather in this way. I am not sure why this is.

I would also draw an analogy to the work of science popularizers like Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould. These people helped to promote science to the public. In the same way, this theory could promote the humanities to the public. One important difference between science and the humanities is that (if this theory is right) the humanities are about how to make the world more hospitable to the evolved human spirit. Therefore, being a contented human involves trusting one’s spirit and finding the Default Human Range amidst the LL of the world. It is not for me to tell anyone what their spirit ought to say. That said, I personally find meaning in this theory – I would’ve liked to study this when I was in college.

Hunter gatherers like to find meaning in their social activities, and for me, this theory is a doorway toward finding meaning in other philosophy. If I understand hunter gatherer socialism, I can find meaning in Plato’s Republic. If I understand hunter gatherers’ play, I can find meaning in postmodernism’s playful approach to truth. Whether these are novel observations or not, they are valuable from the popularization perspective.

[1] “Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas” (AN 3.65), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html 

Narratives