Virtual realities are focused on almost everything that art
pursues: illusion of space, time, movement, projection of human
emotions. Interacting with such a system means that the person
becomes involved in the inside of images, sounds, and movements.
All these are simulated, using animation as the new language of
the science that the moving image embodies. In some ways,
virtual reality becomes a general purpose simulator of a
captivating variable reality, made possible by mediating
elements such as computer graphics images, animation, digital
sound, tracking devices, and quite a number of other elements.
Inside this reality, virtual objects, tools, and actions open
the possibility of practical experiences of self-constitution in
a meta- knowledge world.
Quality in virtual reality is also pursued as scientists try to
give a coherent image of the very first minutes of the universe.
Physics, genetics, biophysics, biochemistry, geology, and all
else integrated in this multi-mediated effort are turned from
science into natural history or philosophic ontology. To explain
why physicists needed an indestructible proton for explaining
matter is not an issue of numbers, precision, or equations, but
of common sense: If protons could decay, mountains, oceans,
stars, and planets would crumble and turn back into neutrons and
electrons, and a reversal of the Big Bang might occur. Is this
predictive rationality? Is validation of this type of
experimentation a subject of language? As a possible explanation,
which facilitates a new array of experiments in computer
simulation, particle accelerators, and radio- astronomic
observations, virtual reality facilitates new forms of human
praxis and is embodied in new theories of physics.
Obviously, the efficiency factor, one of the major elements in
the transition from one dominant literacy to partial literacies,
plays an important role in this endeavor. This generalized
notion of efficiency has several components in the case of
science. One is the efficiency of our attempts to make science
productive. Compared to the efficiency of the lever and the
pulley, the efficiency of the electric engine reaches a different
scale of magnitude. The same applies to our new tools, but in
more dramatic ways. So far, we have managed to make science the
most expensive human endeavor. Its current development appears
to be motivated by a self-perpetuating drive: knowledge for the
sake of knowledge. Science generated technology, which
dramatically affects the outcome of human effort.
The second component factor in the transition to the pragmatics
of the civilization of illiteracy is the efficiency of our
preparation for commanding these new tools, new forms of energy,
and new forms of human interaction. Learning how to operate
simple mechanical devices is different from learning how to
program new tools capable of commanding sophisticated technology
and of controlling tremendous amounts of energy. Although
mediation has increased in human praxis, people do not yet know
how to handle mediation, even less how to adapt education, their
own and their children's, to shorter cycles of scientific and
technological renewal.
Last among the factors at work in the change we are going through
is the efficiency of invention, discovery, and explanation.
Largely supported by society (states invest in science in order
to pursue their goals, as do businesses and various interest
groups), science is under the pressure of performance.
Markets confirm scientific results from the perspective of the
return on investment they promise to deliver. Parallel to the
most advanced and promising scientific endeavors, venture
capital underwrites the industries of the near future.
Insulation of any kind, even secrecy, no matter how stubbornly
pursued and justified, is no longer possible within the economic
dynamics of the present. No matter how hard companies try to
impose secrecy, they fail when faced with the interactivity and
integration of effort characteristic of the new dynamics. The
expectation of change, of shorter cycles of investigation, and
of shorter times for integration of results in the productive
ability of technology is unavoidable. Still, in the USA and in
Europe, there are conflicts between the new dynamics of
scientific and technological progress and the bureaucracy of
science. Driven by motivations characteristic of literate
infatuation with national pride and security, this bureaucracy
extends well beyond science and is hard at work to protect what
is already passé. For science to advance, networks of activity,
distributed tasks, and shared resources, all implying
transparency and access, are essential.
The conflict between scientific goals and morality takes on its
own characteristics in the civilization of illiteracy. Indeed,
scientific results might be right, but not necessarily always
good for humankind. They might support higher efficiency, but
sometimes to the detriment of people obsessed with maintaining
high standards of living. There are many activities-too many to
list-in which humans can be entirely replaced by machines.
Extreme effort, exposure to chemicals, radiation, and other
unfriendly elements could be avoided. However, doing away with
the living person whose identity is constituted in work
experiences makes the activity itself questionable. It is no
longer the case that we only talk about genetic control of
populations, or about mind control, about creating machines
endowed with extreme capabilities, including control of the
people who made them. These are distinct possibilities, to which
we are closer than many believe. Neither science nor technology,
even less philosophy, can afford to ignore the conflict
immanent in the situation, or the danger posed by giving in to
solutions resulting from a limited perspective, or from our
dedication to make real everything that is possible. After all,
we can already destroy the planet, but we do not, or at least not
so radically as it could be destroyed. Short of being paralyzed
by all these dangers, science has to question its own condition.
In view of this, it is far from accidental that sciences in the
civilization of illiteracy rediscover philosophy, or they
re-philosophize themselves.
Quo vadis philosophy?