In this chapter of my book I define culture within the context of an economic and judicial paradigm. Scientific Liberalism perceives the legal structure as the ultimate cultural architect because the culture of a people is inextricable from their legal paradigm. To say one's culture is anti slavery and to have a legal construct that accommodates slavery are two irreconcilable positions. The claimed culture must be consistent with the legal paradigm. The chapter further presents an argument that challenges the legal singularity prerequisite for Justices on the highest court in the land. A scientist is not inherently a legal scholar nor is a legal scholar inherently a scientist. An efficient scientific culture demands an scientifically efficient court.
Culture, The Supreme Court, and The United States Mission
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines cultures as:
The integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also: the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time
Cultures are created by the gravitational force of ethics. Ethics is the lifestyle procedures (conduct expectation) deemed efficient and proficient in the pursuit of economic and procreative survival of a group. Modern cultures pursue survival under a paradigm called division of labor in which individuals specialize in the production of specific goods and services while relying on the goods and services of other specializations for the satiation of economic needs - i.e. food, raiment, and shelter. These three needs address the mortal life span of the individual. Procreation is the survival modus operandi for achieving the means to satiate the need to replace ourselves and transcend our mortal limitations.
Culture is the modus operandi chosen by a group because it is deemed the most proficient and efficient way to satiate both economic and procreative needs. Charles Darwin in his work on evolution demonstrated that survival is determined by the ability or flexibility of individuals and the group to adapt to ecological changes in the pursuit of economic and procreative necessities. Adaptability is the mechanism by which a specie achieves the Darwinian Mandate – Survival of the fittest by Natural Selection.
The complexity of human culture is product of its tripartite brain structure and the bioalgorhithmic quantitative and qualitative competencies. These competencies include and transcend the basic stimulus-response survival mechanism of other life forms on this planet.
Distribution of Power and Wealth
The sociological impact of culture can be defined as the acquisition and distribution of power and wealth within a group. Each specie has a common process for acquisition and distribution of power and wealth, irrespective of the number of distinct groups (pride, herd, etc.). Within other animals and creatures, distance and separation longevity does not change to any significant degree, the mechanism for distribution of power and wealth. You do not have Republican and Democratic lions, or Muslim and Christian Tigers. These distributive mechanism are only parsing permutations manifested in terms philosophical identity and they are uniquely and distinctly human. They are only a testament to our intellectual rationalization competence and reflective of our intelligence, or lack thereof.
Although cultural diversity demonstrates intellectual competence it does not answer questions regarding the identity of an "ultimate human moral and ethical code that is complimentary to civil and progressive actualization. If there is such a code the question then becomes, “How do we identify the code?” Throughout history, theological models (the will of god or gods) determined the process for the distribution of power and wealth. The multiplicity of gods and the diverse theologies of each god, became the source data that established diverse cultural identities. This evidence suggests that cultural diversity is a product of theological diversity and the results of that diversity determine the distribution of power and wealth within a select culture.
Cultural Evolution Process (CEP)
The essence of a culture is its source data (sd). The source data is a body of axioms (ideology) that are known to, or believed to, ensure the survival of a group. Humanity has diverse intellectual parameters that begins with the very simplistic and expands to the more complex. Therefore the narrative of the source data must be simple while relying on a profound and complex foundation.
There are two data sources from which are capable of producing a culture
- theological data and
- scientific data. Source data is information that provides answers to three philosophical questions:
- Where did we come from? Cosmology
- Why are we here? Purpose
- Where are we going? Destiny
The answer to the cosmological question identifies the source of the group’s knowledge.
The Answer to the purpose question identifies the source of the group’s morality and ethical. And, the answer to the destiny question is the source of the group’s aspiration. Together, these answers establish the group’s ideological identity. If the source data is theological the evolved culture will be theocratic and if the source data is scientific the evolved culture will scientific, i.e. survival modality of the group is either defined as a theocratic culture or a scientific culture. Culture can also exist in a transitional state. When in transition a culture is either moving from a theocratic culture towards a scientific culture or it is moving from a scientific culture towards a theocratic culture.
A culture in a transition is extremely unstable and stability can only be achieved when either science or theology establishes a dominant gravitational center. There is a third option. A culture in transition can also be pulled apart by the polarization of moral and ethical gravitational centers. The history of the United States is prime examples of a culture in transition from a poly theocracy to a scientific culture (E Pluribus Unum) i.e. out of many theocratic cultures come one scientific culture. The diversity of the United States forged in the fiery demands of its Constitution is the strength of the Union. The diverse and competitive nature of the many theologies proscribes any one theology from becoming dominant and it is this balkanization that has become the incubator for scientific advancement and technological achievement. The diversity of the United States is the umbrella of her uniqueness. Monolithic societies have never and can never evolve a scientific culture.
When one analyzes the historical panorama of American culture it becomes evident that science and technology is the unifying gravitational force. We may all disagree on ideological issues but we find a common ground in our technology – medicine, transportation, food production, etc. There is one constitutional clause that is responsible for the uniqueness of the United States of America – The separation clause of the first amendment.
The Phimatic expression shows the process that result in the evolution of a culture.
Sourced data (sd) establishes a moral and ethical (Me) code that becomes the Culture (C) [because it satiates the survival modality of a group.]
Under theocratic models culture begins with answers established in the evolution god narrative. The morphing of the narrative into the individual psyche creates a psyche bond between the god and all like minded believers. This is manifested in a distinct survival identity under the authority of the clergy (god psychologist, psychoanalyst, and psychiatrist). The power panoply of culture is comparable to the morphing of one’s mother tongue into the child’s psyche. The mother tongue becomes almost inextricably exclusive and it is the most comfortable communications venue. Similarly it is easier for us to communicate and solve problems with people of our cultural identity than it is for us to solve problems with someone of a different cultural identity.
The most visceral element of a cultural identity is audio-video perceptions i.e. does one speak like me; does one look like me. That is because we see and hear before we know. Visceral effects are reduced by people to people interaction and the essence of judgment becomes ideological – do they think like me (?) becomes the criterion. Today, the United States body politic is adapting to a scientific based cast system where education and wealth are becoming the key to social and political mobility. The upper middle class is bond is based more on wealth and education than on race or national origin. The upper middle class African American, Hispanic, or Caucasian has more in common with each other than they have with their ethnic counterparts in the ghettos and Appalachians.
This reality exists because the Activist Supreme Court of the United States took seriously their constitutional duties to move towards the creation of that “more perfect union”. If the Supreme Court waited on the legislative branches within the various states Jim Crow would still be the law of the land. The Supreme Court Constitutional duty is to ensure the achievement of the Founding Father’s Mandate as outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution “a more perfect union”. It is within this context that Scientific Liberalism views the role of the Supreme Court.
The authority of the Supreme Court does not come from the executive or legislative branches nor is it a junior partner within the division of powers. It is precisely for this reason that Scientific Liberalism advocates that The Court owes loyalty to neither of the other branches on the matter of either legislative or executive intent. The intent of these branches carries no greater weight than the intent of any other litigant before the court. The Supreme Court has one loyalty and that is to the Constitution and its preamble objectives. The greatness of the United States lies not in the politics of its legislative and executive branches but in the transcendent values of the constitution. Of these values there is none greater than the forging of “a more perfect union”.
Lest there be arrogance in the independence and purpose of the court as defined within the perceptions of Scientific Liberalism let it be known that the independence of the court is not without morality and ethics. Indeed the establishment of a more perfect union presupposes a more perfect moral code. Scientific Liberalism advocates the position that morality and ethic is the essence of an objective survival modality. It further advocates that there is one legitimate process by which all humanity can become moral and ethical, that process is through scientific knowledge, scientific understanding, and scientific wisdom.
The introduction of science into the court holds the potential to maximize the proficiency and efficiency of justice as evidenced by DNA in certain criminal cases. It is for this reason that Scientific Liberalism advocate that the criteria for becoming a Supreme Court Justice be expanded from the realms of legal brilliance and judicial temperament, to include the brilliance of scientific expertise. Lawyers are not the only brilliant minds in the world. An example of a scientific based Supreme Court would be as follows:
1. Justice A – Legal brilliance [Scientific expertise – M.D.]
2. Justice B – Legal brilliance [Scientific expertise – Genetics]
3. Justice C – Legal brilliance [Scientific expertise – Economics]
4. Justice D – Legal brilliance [Scientific expertise – Sociologist]
5. Justice E – Legal brilliance [Scientific expertise – MBA]
6. Justice F – Legal brilliance [Scientific expertise – Environmental Sciences]
7. Etc.
Decisions of the Supreme Court are final and the ominous power of final imposes the criterion of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom that can only come from science. Such a court would articulate decisions commensurate with their constitutional mandate – the creation of a more perfect union. Scientific Liberalism advocates that the makeup of the highest court in the land should have three criteria…
1. Justices of the highest legal brilliance
2. Justices with diverse scientific expertise
3. Justices of sober judicial temperament
Our Founding Fathers gave us the parameters essential to our national purpose. In honor we should give them the most proficient and efficient court that will be the guiding light to that more perfect union. The decisions of such a court would exude with the cogency of legal brilliance elucidated in the light of scientific knowledge, scientific understanding, and scientific wisdom. Whether or not it is admitted The Supreme Court is more than just the chief law maker it is also the chief cultural officer.
Cultural Complexity
Scientific Liberalism is a philosophical construct that perceives humanity’s purpose within the context of our scientific origin (the Big Bang Theory) our purpose within the context of our Darwinian Mandate (Survival of the Species), and our destiny within the context of our scientific and technological potential (the efficient utilization of energy). The modality objective of Scientific Liberalism is to identify a nexus between the pertinent scientific (moral) laws so that we can come to an objective understanding of our proper interaction (ethic) within our ecology so as to maximize our survival proficiency and efficiency.
There are many models of varying cultural complexities but we will only address two cultural models at this time.
· Intra-sm Model
· Inter-sm Model
(sm is Survival Modality – i.e. the group acceptable survival ethics)
1. Intra-Sm Model
§ The difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, or
§ The difference between Catholics and Protestants,
§ The difference between Reform Orthodox Judaism
These differentials are further complicated by differences between each subgroup and other subgroups
2. Inter-Sm Model
§ Monotheistic worldview
§ Scientific worldview
These two models demonstrate the complexity of cultural interactions. Although the
Intra-Sm Model has a common essence (i.e. the same god, ancient prophets, etc.) thousands of years of theological thinking and rethinking have Balkanized the monotheistic theocratic model into hundreds if not thousands of theologies, religion, denominations, or sects. The credibility issue of the Genesis Cosmology and its balkanizing impact legitimates the quest to identify a cultural model that moves in the direction of unifying humanity.
The concept of cultural singularity is based on the specie concept. This concept states that:
There is one moral and ethical code conducive to species Survival Modality.
In Chapter 1 we defined the term scientific morality as:
Data relevant to the survival of a specie
Charles Darwin in his book Origin of the Species enlightened us to the conditionality that is essential for survival. That conditionality is “Natural Selection”. Earlier we establish a Phimatic expression that provides a clear process for identifying the truth.
+Ca and +Ef = Truth
-Ca and +Ef = Error
+Ca and -Ef = Error
-Ca and -Ef = Error
Truth is only discerned when Known Cause of a Known Effect exists. We can now integrate Darwin’s survival conditionality into the truth equation
NS is Natural Selection, +Ca is known cause, +Ef is known effect, TK is Kinetic Truth
When +Ca & +Ef = TK
When the Known Cause & Known Effect (of Survival) = Living Truth (Ethics)
Then TK à NS
Then Living Truth (Ethics) Results in Natural Selection (Morality)
The survival of a specie depends on its ability to successfully adapt to any number of a broad spectrum of environmental changes. These changes range from genetic variations, to climate changes, to predator-prey relationships, to geographical changes and eradication of diseases. In addition to the multitudinous environmental variables, there are even more ominous threats to the survival of humanity such a strike from a meteor or depletion of the ozone layer. Theology has no practical solution to any threaten our survival other than faith in the intangible and prayer to the intangible.
Science alone holds pragmatic solution to the humanity’s triple threat plateau
1. Internal Threat (germs, viruses, etc.)
2. Ecological Threat (food, raiment, shelter, and procreation)
3. Extra-planetary Threat (Radiation, meteor collision, etc.)
The United States is the melting pot where the great experiment that will determine humanity’s destiny. We cannot and must not fail.
