A Shifting Paradigm

OUR BRAVE NEW WORLD IS NOW

Rev. Dr. Harvey Daiho Hilbert Roshi

 

 

Introduction

 

As many of you know, I have been making a study of "time" for some years now. I think any Zen practitioner is likely doing the same, if not from a physics point of view, certainly from an experiential one. There is a series we are watching through Hulu called "Genius" and the first set of episodes is on Albert Einstein. The last episode my wife and I watched finally showed how Einstein came to have that truly remarkable insight into the relativity of time. The question he faced was a logical one: if we can adjust clocks to run simultaneously across distance then time must not be constant, why? The wisdom at the time was that time was, like light, a constant. How could that be, though, if the clocks being adjusted to run simultaneously were being adjusted at the speed of light, one clock, say in England, another in the United States, and still another in Germany, the speed of light would have to increase across the distances to make all the clocks become simultaneous, and since that is not possible, time itself would have to change from a "constant" to a "relative" (time dilation). Hence “special relativity” was born.

This is an example of a paradigm shift. Thomas Kuhn wrote extensively in his “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” about such a thing basically saying that over time in a paradigm, we become aware some things are not working or making any sense in the existing paradigm. But we fail to “renounce the paradigm that has led (us) into crisis” until the old paradigm collapses and a new one is ready to take its place. (p.77 Kuhn)

 

 For example. the world was once thought of as flat, yet as decade after decade passed, evidence built suggesting otherwise. Each time the prevailing paradigm would have to find ways of making the changes "fit" their model, but eventually, the model would fail completely, collapse, and a new model would arise to replace it. This was what happened in physics regards time which then changed pretty much everything we thought we knew.

Today I believe we are living through the conclusion of a paradigm, a paradigm existing in what we might call a "person present" model of society.  This paradigm suggests that within an encounter, certain social graces are utilized, and a correct etiquette required to be socially or professionally appropriate.  How we dressed for a job interview, whether we spoke with the correct deference and manners, were important in seeking gainful employment.  We preferred person to person contact, and our presence on social media was more about connecting than creating virtual relationships. Our acceptance of social rules was considered essential and often divided people into class groupings relative to various levels of compliance.  Gender roles were rather specific and rooted in the mores of a geographical area. Holding to specific religious doctrines and rules was considered important, but more than that, they were expected. Over the last several decades these core beliefs and social norms were being challenged.

 

Up until recently, the evolution of these changes have been relatively slow, and unless looking for them, the changes would seem normal, and thus, nearly imperceptible. I believe our pandemic is putting a rush on it and it is now in ASAP mode. Because this is so, we are not prepared and it would seem, few, if any, rules are in place.

 

 

1Where do we live?

 

“Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that…has become acute.” (p. 23 Kuhn)

 

In the before time, cracks in the “person present” paradigm were beginning to appear. Young people preferred texting to calling or visiting; the virtual world was evolving to nearly becoming an alternate reality, much like the “holodecks” in Star Trek’s “Next Generation.” Some worked at home via Internet connections with workmates. Changes in civility were occurring, breaking down certain hierarchical and social barriers. We were clearly living in a dynamically changing world and evolving at an exponential rate. People made appointments, took and made video calls, and organized their lives virtually through their “smart watches” and other electronic devices. Yes, our world was, indeed, changing and as it did, older ways of dealing with or solving problems were changing as well.  People often worked in “teams” worked in open spaces, and often communicated without personal contact. Gone were private offices, or even “cubicles.” Rolodexes’, personal paper calendars, pen and paper, all were being replaced with more and more powerful devices. We were no longer “Mr.” or “Dr.” but rather we’re Joe and Mary as we entered brand new interactions. 

 

Life with the advent of the corona virus has enhanced and super charged these changes, not the least of which is where we live.  It can be said that we have lived in our homes, worked in the world around us, and returned to our homes to engage in family life. That was then. Today much of the world’s people no longer travel to work; they reside, work and play, full time at home. For some of us this is a minor inconvenience, after all we can meet with people virtually at any time and across the globe.  For others it is a major obstacle for being human beings living together as a society.

 

Many of us now make our homes nearly our complete and total environment. We work and play in our homes, rarely leave except to pick up essentials from drive through stations at stores.  When out we wear masks, sometimes gloves, and carry sanitizer with us.  We do not trust anyone and try to maintain a ten-foot safety space around us. Our friends and co-workers visit only through a virtual platform. There, we can see and hear them, but nothing more. Gone are touch, smell, and taste; gone are all the subtle nuances of “person present” contact. And many of us have accepted this change, thriving, as it were, within our bubbles.

 

2Are we afraid to leave home?

Let’s do a thought experiment, Suppose the COVID-19 virus doesn’t want to go away.  Let’s suppose it decides to morph into a new strain as soon as we have developed a vaccine to attack it.  This is a likely scenario, especially after having been repeatedly rebounded from what we thought of as its death knell. Viruses mutate, it’s how they stay alive through the centuries. It’s part of what our friend Darwin called “natural selection.” What then?

 

We just need to look around and we can deduce some of what that might look like. As of this writing, there have been dramatic increases in infections in those states that have “opened-up.” Governors of those states have had to re-instate masking orders to the general population to curb the contagion once again. What effect will such a measure have on residents of those states?  My personal sense is it will be either chilling or folks will double down on their resistance and adopt a cavalier attitude.

 

In the end, though, people will have a heightened sense of anxiety leaving home.  This will aggravate the already tenuous relationship we have with public spaces and increase demand for more technological advances in virtual reality having the effect of further distancing ourselves from the “person present” paradigm.

 

The “Boxies” and the “Riskies”

 

Perhaps people will, as they already are, divide themselves into groups.  I see two major groups evolving, what I am calling the “Boxies” and the “Riskies.”  Boxies are comfortable, if not anxiety prone, householders.  They are isolation acceptance folk. On the other hand, “Riskies” are isolation aversive and just can’t see themselves being effectively quarantined, destined to live out their lives as Boxies. Our perceptions of ourselves are critical in understanding our behavior, the choices we make, and what means we use to carry them out. We are not beings isolated in time. Past and present interact with our understanding of our future. Those with challenging pasts, depending on the challenge, will self-select into our two groups. Others may have the selection made for them by outside forces such as parents, spouses, or friends. Whatever the case, we will find ourselves in one group or another.

 

There arises the possibility of a third, quite small group, a group similar to the “divergents” in the film by the same title.  These would be people uncomfortable in any group.  They would be free thinking, non-conforming, and quite radical thinkers.  Like “Riskies” they eschew compliance, but unlike them, that abhor grouping themselves to the extent they would argue with anyone claiming they belong to a group, even if it’s a group of Riskies.

 

All three have found themselves understanding the Person Present paradigm in different ways.  For the Boxies, no problem in the immediate future, for the latter two, staying at home is more deadly than venturing out.

 

To better understand my thinking, we might explore what “home” means to the members of each group.  Or rather what “staying at home” means. Home is likely understood differently between groups, as would “staying at home.”  One informing the other.

 

My sense is each of us when asked about “home” will tell us much as to our differences. Is home a war zone?  Is it a place of refuge?  Is home “safe,” productive?  Or is it a place of stagnation and boredom?   We must also examine what the outside world means to us.  It is a place to work?  Is it safe? Is it a place for release, for becoming re-charged, creative, or excited?  Over the last few months, the corona virus has made our outside world somewhat a stranger. I suspect members of each will have definite opinions about these issues. Such opinions will help us determine our choices as the paradigm indeed shifts and we move headfirst into a much more virtually dominant world.

 

3Fear: The Drive to a New Paradigm

 

Most of us are familiar with the “fight or flight” response to a perceived threat. When posed with a threat our reptilian minds go into overdrive and we either run from the threat or fight it; simple, natural, and ancient.

Yet, over the millennia, the desire to fight has diminished being replaced by either running away or calling on a third party to save us. But more, a third option is to freeze, like a deer in a headlight. We see this running away as civilized, and perhaps it is, but the police cannot save us from intruders, car jackers, or other threats, and they certainly can’t save us from the virus, nor can science heretofore. So, what to do with the viral threat? 

 

We are painfully aware when we feel powerless, a great breeding ground for unadulterated fear.  If the police or science can’t protect us, home as a sanctuary seems reasonable. None of us like to be afraid.  We tend to avoid it every way possible. In this case, and in this situation, fear exists in every group, in fact it resides in all of us and is an underlying driving force. The thing about fear is that it takes us out of our reasoning mind. When afraid all we can think about is safety.

 

Fear, like any feeling, is energy and energy can be directed. It can be a driving force to protect us or even destroy us, as in the case of the deer in the headlights. So, how are we using this energy?  Some of us use it to consume great amounts of information about the threat, some use it to channel resistance to the threat, and others use it to seek alternative responses to the threat.  In any case the threat is there, as is the fear.  Someone argued it wasn’t fear they were experiencing, rather it was concern for the wellbeing of our species.  This was a more proactive use of that fear energy, I believe.

 

Some of us are capitalizing on our fears. Corporations are raking in the dough over new devices, masks, delivery systems, online sales, and so forth.  My sense is there has been a surge in online gaming and other forms of online entertainment. But I believe there is likely a huge amount of R & D in developing better, more engaging virtual reality devices.

 

Just think about it.  If you can’t or won’t leave home or gather with friends, can’t go to a film or a concert, can’t attend meetings, what does one do to remain social?  Wouldn’t it be great to create an avatar and go to a concert in a 360-degree virtual world?  And if there are attendant senses, such as smell, taste, and touch?  Well, hot dam, here we go. Let’s all get onboard with the new reality, even if it’s a virtual one.

 

 

4The Shift

Assuming there is a shift away from “Person Present” to a new, as yet unnamed paradigm (we can refer to it as the “Virtual World Model” for now. What is this model and what will it mean in our lives? I believe there are several eventual outcomes as we think through the loss of the “Person Present” paradigm. For one thing, and this thing has import across the board, the existing fabric of our reality will have been torn and discarded.  All realities, those of each socio-economic class and each racial grouping, may likely be opened to a scissoring challenge by the greater group, a meta group, that will provide an interior, but virtual, living experience.  It will become a new baseline or, perhaps, ‘ground of being.’

 

What will that ground look like? I confess I only have conjecture, but as far as I can imagine, the new baseline will be a homebased virtual world. Smart everything, beginning with personal products and encompassing not only the whole home, but the surrounding community, nation, and world as well.  Since our world will essentially be “virtual,” private property boundaries, city and state boundaries, even national boundaries will become less and less meaningful. What would it look like to finally have a world that was “one”?  There would be no need of borders, in fact borders would be impractical limitations of exchange at all levels. The question of who we are and how we relate to each other will substantially change.

 

The world I described in the last section, a world of virtual reality which would include a 360-degree environment with all of our senses involved, would mean we could be anything we want, attend whatever, in any persona, to the extent that even we might not know the extent of who or what we are.  More to the point, it wouldn’t matter. What would matter would be our continued life in that reality as opposed to, or in contradistinction to, our present virally infested world.

 

My neighbor built his house as a “smart” house. All of his appliances talked to him through digital devices.  At the store he could see inside his refrigerator and otherwise control all aspects of the house through his phone (actually, a handheld “device.”) Recently I purchased a wristband device that is a watch, but so much more.  It measures my steps, heartrate, blood pressure, O2 levels, my fatigue, my sleep, my body temperature, and even something called my “immune reference” level. And I’m honestly thinking “wouldn’t it be cool to have a microchip connected to my brain that would enhance my ability to move?” Good grief.  Not science fiction my friends, but a glimpse at a reality in the making. So, with all of this stuff and a virus to fear, why venture out to be with other people when we can stay at home and do nearly the same thing in a digital bubble?

 

 

 

 

 

LLife Evolves or Does it?

 

Our new paradigm will be sterile.  It will be egocentric. And it will be decidedly anti-social. The Boxies will have their virtual world and it will be self-contained.  Old “Person Present” friends will remain so until those possessing them die out. And within a generation or two only living dinosaurs will recall hand-held devices and human social relationships outside of the virtual world.

 

Of course, as in the Vonnegut novel, “Player Piano” some will remain outside maintain the devices, feeding people with tube fed nourishment, and some, the Riskies, will live in the mountains either oblivious to the Boxies or working to maintain vestiges of our world, e.g. books, film, artwork, and so forth. Still others may be lone rangers living as well and as free as they can until they die.

 

Values will have changed, person to person social relationships ended, and we will either be in heaven or hell: your choice.