2000 David F. AustinScientific Creationists misuse purpose-directed explanation in the pursuit of their religiously inspired aims. But New Agers dilute purpose-directed explanation to the point of disappearance. When it was first suggested that I discuss New Age beliefs in this book (thanks very much, Professor Kitcher), I despaired of finding sufficient intellectual content in them to warrant their examination. They are such a varied lot that it was not at all clear to me that they had more than the label in common; nor was I hopeful that I could find interesting 'family resemblances' among them. Further investigation did, however, yield a bold, somewhat cynical, two-part hypothesis, which I'll now present.
It seems typical of New Age beliefs to focus on resonances between disparate entities, for example, you and a crystal, or you now and you in a past life. At least, the term "resonance" appears fairly often and looks to be used in roughly similar ways in the New Age literature. What is it a term for? It is not mere similarity that is connoted; rather, it is similarity conceived of and explained in a particular way. That way is given voice in
The Fundamental Principle of the New Age: Every similarity has a purpose-directed explanation.
Or, equivalently, every similarity is a pattern that is in turn a purpose-indicator.
Whatever the failings of Scientific Creationists, they do not lose sight of the fact that purpose-directed explanation derives its power from a conceptual distinction between purpose-indicators and relations (among parts or stages) that are not purpose-indicators. The Fundamental Principle, by linking of the concepts of similarity, purpose-indicator and explanation, imposes such great stress on them that they lose structural integrity. The effect is to wash out distinctions and to dilute the notion of purpose-directedness so much that it loses its identity. After all, any two things will be similar in some, perhaps very simple and obvious, way.
Why then do New Age leaders often speak in ways that are inconsistent with their Fundamental Principle? Here we need to augment a standard, tripartite distinction familiar to all who study the workings of language. Rudolf Carnap, the logician and philosopher, suggested that a language has three aspects: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Very few know that he had a half-brother, Rolf, who for many years ran Chicago's largest sausage factory. Rolf was often heard exhorting his employees, "Never mind what's inside! Marketing's the thing!" In making sense of the speech acts of New Age leaders, I suggest that we pay close attention to syntax, semantics, pragmatics and marketing. And I offer this bold, falsifiable, empirical hypothesis: to the extent required by marketing considerations, they will depart from the Fundamental Principle. If a potential follower becomes skeptical to the point of financial reticence over the Fundamental Principle's absurdly watered-down 'use' of purpose-directed explanation, they will postulate the minimum restriction on purpose indicators that will reopen the wallet.
If these bold hypotheses about the New Agers are correct - and I look forward to lots of grant money to support the urgently needed research - then the main challenge will be to explain the enormous diversity of New Age systems. But the outlines are now clear. After all, there is bound to be disagreement among New Age leaders about how to restrict the application of the Fundamental Principle in a way that optimizes unidirectional cash flow.
I'm inclined to leave it at that, but I've found that some attempts at mild humor need to be highlighted as such, lest they be mistaken for serious proposals.
When confronted with the task of disentangling a bowl of multicolored spaghetti (add sauce to taste, for marketing), it is tempting to impose order on the material. My bold hypotheses, while not entirely frivolous - I meant what I said about the contrast with Scientific Creationism - do very little to explain or even neaten the chaotic mess of New Age beliefs. The sources of those beliefs are so varied and so often re-mixed that what they have in common is really nothing more than being labeled "New Age." And the reasons for the labeling are so varied and so often remixed, not to say mixed-up, that there's no longer any "there" there (apologies to Gertrude Stein). The strategy that I used to impose a false order to the subject, is, however, a disturbingly common one that you ought to watch out for. I began with respectable, fairly well-understood concepts and distinctions and then put them together in such bizarre ways that it became difficult to retain any sense of the originals, although the puzzlement at seeing them so linked may have temporarily upset your sense-detectors. The distinction among syntax, semantics, and pragmatics is an important and moderately well-defined one in the serious study of natural and formal languages, but the adjoined category of marketing is nothing better than a dump - a repository for the messy stuff that we haven't taken the trouble to sort out. No problems are solved by slapping a label on the unsolved ones. So, be on the alert for pseudoscientific accounts of pseudoreligion. Caveat emptor!
2000 David F. AustinGo to next section on Chinese Acupuncture
