Luca,

If I understand this, I love it, and is one angle my essay lacked:

"Our past and our future is only about the events that happened and will happen. It is also also about its meaning we give. "

In some ways, the meaning of the past is constantly changing in light of the outcomes expressed in the present. Reaching for a utopian outcome is,in a way,

an attempt to bring the stream of the past to its best possible outcome, though, we never quite get there and it is always outside our reach- there is more future in front of us.

Rick

Rick,

A "not" has been lost in the passage. Actually I should have writen: "Our past and our future is not only about the events that happened and will happen. It is also also about its meaning we give."

It was very late at night.

Luca

Rick,

Because I am huge fan of Karl Popper, I'd like to first suggest that what he left out of The Open Society and its Enemies you might find rehabilitated in The Povery of Historicism.

Popper's view of science is unwavering in its dedication to the correspondence theory of truth (Tarski), so you might find that your idea of reconstructing the past, with the advantage of new knowledge in the present, quite compatible with Popper's criteria for a scientifically sound and falsifiable theory. Though the correspondence is not causal, as in Marxist dialectical materialism, it is entirely objective, i.e., metaphysically real.

That being said, though I have sought to be true to critical rationalism (Popper's name for his philosophy), I am much more the rational idealist, which puts me closer to your philosophy than his, even in spite of myself. In fact, I am pleasantly suprised to see a number of idealistic proposals in this year's essay contest (Bee Hossenfelder comes quickly to mind), because academics in general tend to eschew idealism, as you noted.

There's so much worthwhile in your piece that it may well be the most important essay this year.

Best,

Tom

    Tom,

    Thank you for your kind words, but the competition here is pretty steep, especially including your excellent essay. And thanks for turning my attention to

    The Povery of Historicism- it's now on my reading list.

    Best of luck,

    Rick

    Rick

    There are so many essays I have not read this year it was the happy thoughts of your namesake Ronald Searle, that made me choose your essay! He was a brilliant cartoonist and illustrator most famous for his hilarious distopian vision of a post-war English girl's school gone haywire. He taught himself drawing at a Japanese prisoner of war camp, and his drawings in Punch influenced my early decision to become an artist myself. In your essay you take us, children of the war- torn 20th. c. on a smooth intellectual ride to a glimmering mirage of a Peaceful Kingdom, of a New Jerusalem or a Shangri-La obscured by the range of scary problems threatening our future on this Earth. You have not mentioned the Heaven of Christian and Muslim teaching as a sort of Utopia giving humanity hope. I once heard the late Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish speak of a clean white space within each person untouched by conflict or hate. Perhaps finding that individually and (here we go again!) collectively, should be the first place to look for a Utopia in this amazing world of ours.

    Have a look at the faux Utopia I created for Einstein in my essay.

    With best wishes

    Vladimir

    Dear Rick,

    You have written a very helpful clarification of "utopia vs. dystopia", and of how it has changed over time. Utopia as a constant way of looking for a better future is a good idea, so long as we remain flexible for new ideas.

    My stance is on the Biblical worldview, where (one might say) Utopia is also looking for us, indeed initiates the search for us who have fallen out of relationship with God. The Biblical view puts a solid objectivity to the matter, because Utopia is already there, ready and functioning, as given by the two Great Commandments as given by Jesus (Matthew 22), to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love one another just like we love ourselves. Hard to improve on that goal, I think - because the Biblical understanding of "love" is doing good for others, not pampering them, but real objective good, as a parent might do for a child. We are thus to love ourselves in that same way.

    That being the case, the search for Utopia is the search for how to find and cooperate with God. Much simplified by God's having already reached out to us - as per Biblical history.

    Many will respond, "OK, but the Biblical worldview and God is now passe, disproven, or made irrelevant by modern science." to which I respond, "Not so, science was invented in the late Middle Ages by Christians, not by secular folks, as I indicate in my essay 'How Shall We Then Live?'" Science would never have happened if the Hebrews had not given us a world at home in time and space and particularity, and if the Christians had not then combined that worldview with the Greek talent for logical thinking.

    The best to you, Earle

    Vladimir,

    Oh, I am familiar with the work of Ronald Searle. It's difficult to live up to the last name, I have him and the philosopher John Searle. I just hope I share some of the same good genes.

    Had I had more space, I certainly would have included something on both Christian and Jewish apocalyptic traditions originating as resistance literature. My orginal version had a long section on the Islamic utopian- Al Farabi- but alas I had to cut it.

    I will probably past what follows as a comment under your own very insightful and amusing essay. Ah, if only Einstein had been the first president of Israel!

    I have had a long standing interest in a group of Jewish thinkers including him,

    Judah Magnes and Hannah Arendt who wanted a Jewish homeland but also a bi-national state to be shared between both Jews and Arabs.

    On the other issue Einstein was most worried about- nuclear war- don't you think he would be pleased with how things have turned out so far? There is very little risk for the foreseeable future of a global nuclear war.No world war has been fought since and none appears on the horizon as far out as the middle of the century.

    Best of luck,

    Rick Searle

      Rick,

      Sorry to inflict Ronald on you again (I now think I have mentioned him to you in a comment in years past - old fogeism at work here).

      I liked your comment above which you also put on my page, and I replied as follows:

      "Dear Rick

      Yes Einstein was a brave and independent thinker and spoke his mind frankly in quotable quotes. He was too gentle a soul to have been able to rein in the aggressive elements in the Zionist movement like Begin, responsible for the massacres and bombings that colored the conflict in the 1940's and stamped Israel's actions ever since.

      I wish I could share your optimism about nuclear war - so many of those bombs have been made, and the situation (in N and S Korea for example) can degenerate quickly, but yes I do agree with you that the Cold War passed without a nuclear incident, and that is to be thankful for.

      Best of luck to us !!"

      Vladimir

      Vladimir,

      It's hard to keep track of comments, and I will put this after my own essay as well as you have done.You're probably right that Einstein would not have been able to reign in aggressive Zionists, but sadly, we were not able to find out.

      I also agree that there continues to be a risk of nuclear conflict, but however deadly such conflict might be they do not, as the MAD of the Cold War did, threaten us with the extinction of all life on earth. Our biggest task is to make sure this risk does not reappear sometime this century- given events like that going on in Ukraine right now- the prospects do not look particularly good.

      All the best,

      Rick

      Great work, Rick. Well-written and well-argued. I completely agree--I am a Platonist at heart--that we have to consider what the ideal might be so we can aim for it. And I agree we need more social experimentation. It was just that kind of experimentation in the free cities of Europe that produced modern democracy and capitalism. Of course I also think--it sounds like you are with me on this--that Burke was right that we have to be judicious when set out to design and build society from first principles. In any case, when the GCRI needs writing I will certainly mention your name to Seth and Grant. Good luck in the contest. You deserve to do well!

      Robert

        Thanks, Robert. I really value your praise, and you managed completely (and succinctly) capture my meaning. All the best both here and especially with the GCRI- our children's future is riding on it.

        5 days later

        Rick,

        If I understood the message of your essay it is:

        - that there is no single future of humanity

        - that there are many futures i.e. utopias

        - that individual people define their individual utopias

        - that what's necessary to reach a particular utopia is in the hands of the person reaching for it

        If I got it, then we are in complete agreement on how to steer humanity's future. My essay (here) makes the case for individuals reaching their own definition of a future, through their own personal efforts. And society can help everyone by making science something each person can tinker and play with.

        Hope I got the gist of your message.

        Let me know if you and I are as much in sync as I think we are.

        - Ajay

        Hi Ajay,

        I think both individuals and communities define what the ideal society is and can strive towards it. For the individual, some notion of Utopia can serve as a moral template through which they can judge their own society and serve as a guide to their actions within it.

        Many of our priorities, however, need a society in which they can be manifest- Utopia (or an ideal future) can serve as a useful tool there as well.Lastly,I really like the idea of utopian communities as experiments where some set of social problems is resolved. They almost always fail but tend to be trailblazers and teach us valuable lessons.

        I liked your essay a lot. I am a big supporter of citizen science. I don't think you mentioned crowd sourcing efforts such as FOLDING AT HOME or even better, in that they better involve individuals crowd sourcing efforts that have individuals scan through astronomical data and the like. I feel that given mobile technology the horizon of citizen science is endless > everything from monitoring and pooling data on local ecosystems to allowing people in the developing world to tap into the scientific knowledge of more technologically developed countries. Mobile could even be used to bring highly localized knowledge in the developing world e.g. medicinal plants, new species, ecosystem health with scientist all over the world.

        All the best on your noble effort to bring science to the global public.

        Rick

          P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate essays:

          10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

          9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

          8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

          7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

          6 - slightly favorable indifference

          5 - unfavorable indifference

          4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

          3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

          2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

          1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

          After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

          The following is a general observation:

          Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

          Rick,

          Thank you for being a big supporter of science in the hands of consumers.

          I did not mention crowd sourcing as its objective is to put a challenge to a crowd and choose a solution from the many the crowd puts forward.

          My approach is very different from crowd sourcing. I believe that no sourcing is required for the goal is not for a crowd to help me with my challenge, but the goal is to get each citizen able to solve their own individual challenge.

          I concur on your assessment that mobile technology is too important to ignore and its single biggest benefit will be to get knowledge to, literally, everyone to choose and use.

          I'll post this comment on your essay also.

          - Ajay

          Rick,

          I only now got a chance to read your essay, and I am very glad I did. Very well written, and definitely thought-provoking. From a very pragmatic perspective, simply debating the different notions of Utopia is already useful for helping human societies find their bearings (even if we may never know if we reached it), so this theme fits very well into this competition. Good luck!

          Jens

            Hi Rick,

            Great essay! It is well argued, and beautifully written. I agree with you; technology has great impact on humanity's future, and through science and technology we can reach Utopia, or get close. This is in agreement with my essay: Improving Science for a Better Future , I'd be glad to take your opinion.

            Good luck in the contest, and best regards,

            Mohammed

            Hi Jens,

            Yes, it's hard to keep up with all the essays. Thank you very much for the compliment. You know how much I liked your essay which readers can find here:

            http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2061

            Best of luck in the contest, and we should definitely keep in touch.

            Rick