Is gravity too emotional to understand? The theory of gravity suggests that matter is drawn toward other matter. The first major white, wealthy, British male to be widely credited in the postmodern world with realizing that objects attract one another was Isaac Newton; the theory of gravity was then adjusted to comport with a weapon designer's speculations, as the law of relativity provided that gravity results from a curvature of space in higher, un-perceivable dimensions.
The tendency of big collections of matter--say, stars--to pull smaller collections of matter--say, planets--toward themselves could be derided as emotional. "How wishful," the scientist would say. "How ridiculous, the idea that matter is trying to hug other matter, as though matter is deciding needs love!"
How ridiculous, though, would it sound if scientists were to explain gravity like this:
In the broadest sense, what we call "gravity" is merely change, and so is all-pervasive. When we see a ball rolling down a hill, we have a tendency to romanticize things; to conclude that the ball rolls down the hill because the ball wants to be closer to "Mother Earth." If a coin falls from a building, it falls to the sidewalk, and an emotional person, a non-scientific person, would conclude that the coin was trying to hug "Gaia;" that it somehow had desires of its own, or that there was a symbiotic relationship between coins and concrete sidewalks.
In fact, though, people who believe that apples fall from trees because they want to land on heads* are ignorant. Apples may appear to be always falling downward, but that is because we are viewing the event detached from its historical perspective. It has taken billions of years of gravitation for us to reach a time where, by random coincidence, apples appear to always be falling down, toward the Earth.
*Naturally, westerners like to believe that modern theories of gravity and evolution came from white, male, wealthy, British people. After all, thousands of years of agriculture and animal husbandry deserve no more than a passing reference, while the personal backgrounds of Newton and Darwin need weighty attention in any introductory reference to particle physics or molecular biology (and how man only began to be aware of, and understand, these concepts after Newton and Darwin brought them to popular attention).
That explanation of gravity--of molecules randomly moving--is abjectly ridiculous. Yet, it is the explanation offered to justify Market-Style Evolution. The evolution of colonialism and plutocracy is that of molecules randomly falling from trees, and just happening to head straight down. With far more than 360 possible degrees of movement, a similarly styled theory of gravitation would have apples falling down in 2013 only by lucky coincidence, or through the countervailing influence of the winds.
To discredit critiques of the random theory of gravitation, its proponents would--like market evolutionists--imply that a holistic gravitation was one subject to the spiritual whims of a "divine hugger." Not so, of course. Gravitation is a force that humans don't fully understand, but it does have predictable effects, which can be charted and observed on a much smaller scale of time than that of Evolution.
From our perspective, matter does tend to attract other matter, and we have named our understanding of this tendency "gravity," even though we can only theorize about what causes it to happen. Given certain formulae, though, we can predict how long falling objects will take to strike the ground from a certain distance.
If a gravitational scientist of the future were to explain that randomized particle movement causes the happenstance formation of the "ideal shapes" in any environment, we would--hopefully--recognize the theory as nonsense. Particularly if the gravitational scientist was employed by the Church Of The New Isosceles Triangle, gaining fame, fortune, careers, and research grants for justifying the triangle tax, we would have all the more reason to be suspicious the purity of his motives.
Any disagreement, though, need not be characterized as an undue affection for molecules, or for the belief that an animating "hugging spirit" causes particles of matter to desire to be closer to one another.
Similarly, the tendency of electromagnetism/light to "want" to condense into structures that create and channel more light need not be viewed sentimentally. When a river reaches a waterfall, the water rushes over the edge and splashes to the bottom of the falls--to observe as much is not to be advocating the existence of Poseidon. To study lightforms, and to chart electromagnetism's inexorable course into more electromagnetism, is not to advocate Yahweh, Gaia, right, wrong, progress, or any other totems or idols. It is merely, in the most banal, unemotional sense of scientific observation, to conclude that the probability of matter to arrange itself as increasingly more potent energy conduits is undeniable.
At different points in time, when Lightform Evolution is considered a standard model, it will be easy for plutocrats to base moral conclusions on it, which will still justify a world of emptiness and sadness. There has been no shortage of powerful people willing to use notions of collectivism and interdependence to justify tyrannical rule or resource theft. Accepting light's tendency to light up light is by no means the end of any struggles over happiness or despair. Beyond that, we may approach what might be called spirituality.
Even without agreeing about anything spiritual, however, we should be able to, coldly and dispassionately, analyze the probabilities of systematic matter-organization development, as opposed to Rugged Individualist Masculine Entrepreneur matter-organization development--and the colonial imperialists, racial and cultural privateers, corporate kingpins, and oligarchical politicians who currently rely on Market-Style Evolution to justify their roles at the top of all the pyramids we've come to believe in.