Systematic domains of human practical experiences are changing
fast. The science of the ever shorter and more intense phenomena
in which the human being of this age is constituted consists of
a body of expressive means in which language either plays a
secondary function or is substituted with forms of expression
other than language. Procedures to capture the coherence of the
phenomena researched now need to be adapted to this reality. The
coherence embodied in language reflects past experiences, but
does not properly explain experiences characterized by new kinds
of coherence. In recent years, a question has come up time and
again: Is there some common element in language, in the possible
messages exchanged in our universe by civilizations different
from ours, in the messages exchanged at the genetic level of our
existence or in the biochemical trails which we associate with
the behavior of ant colonies or beehives? It would be premature
to attempt an answer. As already mentioned, David Hirsch
ascertains that 97% of human activity is concept free. Control
mechanisms in charge of this form of activity are common not only
to humans, but also to lower level biological entities (insects,
for instance). Exploration of cosmic civilizations, genetics,
biochemistry, not to mention memetics, is not necessarily helped
by this answer. Having to explain abstract mathematical concepts
or the behavior of complex systems (such as the human nervous
system), some displaying learning capabilities or
self-organization tendencies, raises the stakes quite high: Do we
explain ourselves away in the effort to emulate the human being?
Replication of ideas (scientific, philosophic, or of any other
type) based on the genetic model inspired by evolutionary
theory, contributes new angles to the subject. But even if we
manage to establish methods for successful replication, have we
captured the characteristics of human self-identification?
In the same vein, another question needs to be addressed: the
mystique of science comes from the realization that the law of
gravity applies everywhere, that electricity does not depend on
the geographic coordinates of the place where people live, that
computation is a universal calculus. Still, science is not value
neutral; one model dominates others; one rationality wins over
others. The truth of a scientific theory and its empirical
adequacy are only loosely related. To accept one science over
another is to the scientist an issue of rationality, while for
those integrating it in their practical experiences, it becomes
an issue of adequacy. This aspect constitutes more than a
cultural or memetic issue. At stake is the fact that the natural
condition of the human being is quite often rationalized away,
regardless of the reason.