Wholeness and Big Data — East meets West

Fragmentation is a comfortable scientific remnant of inquiry and “bottom-up” categorization. Acknowledging the contribution of reductionist inquiry is beyond the scope of this book but the benefits are manifest. Pluralistic perspectives, on the other hand, open up alternative methods of viewing reality. Is this a good thing? If the perspective provided has the potential of benefiting an individual or group, I would say it’s worthy of consideration and evaluation. How do we evaluate the wholeness? The bottom-up approach of causation is valid yet, used in conjunction with Big Data, yields new insights into the completeness of information as a whole. Wholeness from a traditional standpoint is influenced by Eastern sensibilities, which often conflict with Western philosophies. The statistical analysis of Big Data provides us with rich data sets and empirical probabilities worthy of exploration. Correlations should be algorithmic and objectively interpreted through individual autonomy, widening the discussion and giving the field of philosophy instrumental truths. Instrumental is a watchword for control except in a performance. Instrumental anything implies a purpose. Purpose-driven activity is a theology, which is any goal-directed activity. Many scientists consider objectivity to be “true” science but attempts to eliminate the subjective is rare if not absolute. This search for the absolute is the tendency to provide order to complexity, subjectivity is simplicity and surfaces as a sensation in nature. Consciousness, or awareness, is the ontology of objectivity. Objectivity presupposes a theory of mind (T.O.M.) and this is subjective because of the dynamic state of the flux across time. A framework for defining objectivity is something worth exploring. This is not a red herring fallacy but we are dangerously close to making it so. Let’s cast our nets wide. {lots of opportunities to expand this discussion}