In response to the titled statement:
Errors are popularly believed to be markers that indicate flights from reality when the subject had the option of choosing with better judgment. The more affective aspect of this concept is the latter half of the clause (when the subject…), because the act of labeling something as an error is predicated upon the socio-moral obligation of ought, or the cause-and-effect concept of should. The only reason we apply critiques like better judgment is because the overarching incentive (or power) structure determined that a different way of thinking would produce a more sound or accurate grouping of effects. In other words, if we drop the thoughts about why we think we make errors, we may be able to understand on a more rudimentary level what it means to produce action, because as I just stated, making errors involves two distinct conceptual steps which traipse around as simple and raw, but are in fact loaded.
What do I mean loaded? Well, conceptual loading is responsible for many miscategorizations because people unknowingly adopt premises they may not believe in--or have reflected upon--simply because those premises are tucked into a clause that is easy to agree with. This is the case with errors. Errors are loaded for many reasons, but mainly because errors only exist after they have been committed. They are ghosts. So in a raw sense, people do not make or produce errors, they get labeled as having erred because the effects they produce did not fall into alignment with the overarching incentive (or power) structure.
This does not mean relativism has a free pass. Relativism still exists. It is just that the concept of error is dependant upon hindsight. If you act on foresight, your actions are simply labeled as actions! This keeps responsibility in the matter (relinquishing relativism) because we can still produce different effects for our actions, should they be demonstrated as more optimal. We just need orient ourselves to forward-thinking, rather than backward-thinking. Just because we came to the conclusion that a different network of effects is optimal does not mean that the original set of effects we bore were in error, it simply means we made a choice.
So how does this effect objective reality? All this talk of reorienting our perspective toward causes and effects is worthless if we do not establish some kind of objective parameters, because those parameters are what help guide us through greater reality. Ironically, the parameters were always there; the network of our thoughts and actions in relation to reality became subjectified when we introduced the concept of error due to those human-specific categorical qualifiers of ought and should, and the backward-thinking process.
I watched a brief video last night of a bear cub stuck on one side of a concrete median on a freeway. It’s mother had already scaled it, and once she realized her cub could not climb it, she reached back over and grabbed it’s nape with her teeth and pulled it over. Did the mother err in not carrying the median over in the first place? No. Reality just imposed itself on her—as will happen, it is reality after all—and once she observed the immediate restriction, she solved the problem. The same goes with people, but instead of seeing limitations in how greater reality effects us, we label our actions as in error, as if we should have known better, like we are some great Gatekeeper. Hence, errors are not made, errors are labels attached to the back of our shoes as we walk through life to keep the overarching incentive (or power) structures in place.
I am not going to say that all causes produce equal effects, as if this discussion advocates conceptual communism. I will say that all causes produce effects which can be understood and further adapted (optimized). Just like the mother bear who adapted to the immediate restrictions of her situation, we can adapt to the perceived restrictions (because we have a reflective imagination) of our situations and choose differently if it suits us. But since our cause and effect network is so rich and diverse and constantly changing, it seems utter nonsense of restrict ourselves to error labels. This is where objectivity becomes pertinent; the more objective one is, the more they can acknowledge and adapt to greater reality and the panoply of causes and effects, producing more informed and adaptive actions, rather than the subjective person’s very final and definitive error label.
Click the RSS FEED button below to receive notification of new essays.