10/18/2025
โจ On the tension between data and the unseen.โจ
๐ฑ New post:
Full text below.
๐
๐ฏ๏ธThe Anxiety Behind โWoo-Wooโ: A History of Detachment๐ฏ๏ธ
๐ฟ I. The Reflex of Embarrassment
In contemporary language, "woo" functions as a small act of defence. It allows the speaker to approach what is unmeasurable without appearing credulous, to refer to intuition or correspondence while disavowing belief. The tone is half-joking, half-protective. Behind it lies a cultural reflex four centuries in the making: the conviction that the interior world must justify itself before the court of quantification. To feel relation is permissible only if recast as regulation; to recognise pattern, only if rendered as probability.
Across disciplines, the same translation occurs. A clinician calls sensory awareness โbody scanning,โ a physicist renames synchronicity โstatistical correlation,โ a therapist speaks of โmirror-neuron resonance.โ The vocabulary shifts; the gesture endures. These are modern disguises for an older intelligence that assumed continuity between perception and world, between consciousness and field. What has changed is not the act itself but the permission to acknowledge it.
The unease surrounding such experiences is neither accidental nor empirical. It is the residue of a metaphysical settlement that equated distance with knowledge and participation with error. From the seventeenth century onward, educated people were trained to regard the felt as unreliable, the relational as subjective, the unseen as unreal. The result is an inherited discipline of scepticism: an internal censor that converts direct perception into embarrassment before the fact. The modern subject doubts not the phenomenon, but the right to speak of it.
Yet the foundations of that doubt have eroded. Biology now describes systems of coherence that no mechanical model can explain; neuroscience finds perception distributed beyond the boundaries of the named senses; physics records indeterminacy where certainty was once assumed. The same institutions that built their authority on material closure now reveal its limits. What is dismissed as woo often marks the return of phenomena too continuous, too relational, to survive within the mechanistic frame.
Still the reflex persists. The professional continues to translate intuition into the neutral grammar of method, to present conjecture as competence, to hide experience behind the language of protocol. The ridicule of woo performs a ritual of reassurance, reaffirming allegiance to a worldview that no longer holds. It defends not reason but the habit of detachment through which reason was once defined.
The persistence of that defence demands explanation. How did participation, once considered the essence of understanding, come to signify immaturity? How did the living correspondences that shaped medicine, philosophy, and cosmology become objects of irony? To trace this transformation is to return to the origin of distance itself, the moment in which Western thought exchanged a world of relation for a world of control and began to mistake detachment for knowledge.
๐ฟ II. The Invention of Distance
The modern habit of treating experience as secondary to measurement began with a change in how the world itself was conceived. In late medieval Europe, knowledge implied participation. To know an object was to enter into correspondence with it, to recognise the continuity between oneโs own perception and the order of things. Nature was not inert matter but a field of meaning in which the human mind was embedded. When theology withdrew divinity from the material world, this continuity fractured. Creation became property rather than presence. What could once be approached only through relationship could now be handled, classified, and eventually owned.
The separation of subject from object did not emerge from discovery but from policy. The new sciences required an observer who would not interfere with what he described. To be objective was to cultivate detachment, to strip knowledge of sympathy. The world was to be known by the mind but never altered by its regard. The old cosmologies, which had depended on resonance between the seen and the unseen, were replaced by a geometry of control. Observation became a moral act: the renunciation of participation in the name of purity.
In this reorganisation, the modern intellect learned to trust distance over relation. Truth came to mean what could be recorded without implication. The word โempirical,โ which once referred to knowledge gained through direct experience, was narrowed to denote knowledge detached from context. A field of perception that had once included reverence, intuition, and reciprocity was reduced to technique. Knowing ceased to be a form of involvement and became an act of surveillance.
This shift reshaped every domain it touched. The physician who once treated within the social and spiritual fabric of the community became a custodian of the body as mechanism. The natural philosopher, who had sought coherence within living order, became an engineer of causes. Disciplines that had joined contemplation with practice were divided: theology claimed the soul, science claimed the world, and philosophy was left to mediate a gap of its own making. What had been a single act of understanding was split into two competing jurisdictions, faith and fact, each denying the intelligence of the other.
The invention of distance brought with it a new hierarchy of credibility. What could be separated from its environment could be studied; what could not was dismissed as subjective. Practices grounded in relation, including healing, divination, intuition, and presence, were reclassified as superstition. Knowledge was to proceed from isolation outward, as if meaning were an external property of things waiting to be extracted. The world that once spoke fell silent, and the silence itself became proof of neutrality.
The consequences of this transformation reached far beyond philosophy. The new ideal of detached reason demanded a new social order to embody it. Authority passed to those who could claim exemption from involvement, and the first to be excluded were those whose knowledge depended on relation. The next chapter of this history would unfold not in the laboratory but in the village, where medicine itself would be purified of the hands that had sustained it.
๐ฟ III. The Purge of Custodians
What history remembers as witchcraft persecution was, in truth, a gendered genocide: the systematic destruction of women whose knowledge made relation visible.
When knowledge was reorganised around detachment, medicine became its proving ground. For centuries, healing in Europe had existed as a distributed practice. Midwives, herbalists, and folk practitioners treated within networks of kinship and observation, drawing on repertoires of plant, diet, and ritual whose authority rested in continuity rather than decree. Their expertise was practical and relational, sustained by apprenticeship and memory. But as the universities consolidated power under clerical supervision, the language of medicine was redefined. Competence now required Latin, licence, and allegiance to the Church. What could not be examined in that idiom ceased to count as knowledge.
This redefinition altered the landscape of health. The healer who relied on perception, intuition, or local tradition became suspect, not because her results were ineffective but because her method could not be separated from participation. The new model demanded observation without implication, treatment without relation. Womenโs work, bound to birth and the rhythms of the body, could not meet this criterion. When plague, infertility, or misfortune called for explanation, the same logic that sanctified detachment turned against those who embodied connection. The witch trials that followed were less the expression of superstition than its inversion: an organised attempt to extinguish the last visible form of participatory medicine.
The outcome was a reallocation of authority. Healing migrated from home to institution, from vernacular to Latin, from relation to regulation. Anatomy replaced listening; dissection replaced discernment. The body became a specimen rather than a participant in its environment. To understand it required separation; to master it required control. The physicianโs virtue lay in distance. What had once been shared labour became professional domain.
This purge completed the theological shift that had begun in theory. The world could now be treated as matter without spirit, and the human body as mechanism without moral weight. The continuity between care and cosmology was severed. Medicine emerged โpurifiedโ of what it called superstition, though what had been removed was not ignorance but the grammar of relation. The discipline that replaced it would shape the modern imagination far beyond medicine, establishing the model through which all subsequent knowledge would be organised.
๐ฟ IV. The Mechanisation of the World
The separation of body and spirit that medicine enacted became the template for modern thought. By the seventeenth century, nature itself had been redrawn according to the same logic. Descartes declared that matter possessed no interior life; Bacon proclaimed that nature must be subdued to yield her secrets; Newton described a cosmos governed by law but devoid of intention. The world, once read as a living text, was rewritten as a machine.
This mechanisation was not an inevitable discovery but a strategic narrowing. It defined the real as that which could be measured and predicted, excluding from consideration all that could not. The success of this narrowing was immediate and immense. Its mathematics could launch ships, chart planets, and power empires. The price was paid in meaning. The very qualities that could not be measured, such as consciousness, purpose, and sympathy, were expelled from the account of reality. Matter was granted existence; mind was relegated to mystery. Between them, relation disappeared.
Within this framework, observation acquired moral prestige. To know was to dominate without touch. The experimental method promised purity through control, producing knowledge stripped of context and consequence. The object of study no longer answered back. The more the world yielded to analysis, the less it resembled the world of experience. Mechanism explained everything but life.
The same logic that produced technological mastery also produced metaphysical amnesia. The modern subject, certain of his capacity to measure, lost the sense of participation that had once anchored perception. Knowledge was redefined as prediction, and experience as error. The cosmos became an array of neutral processes awaiting exploitation. To speak of meaning or correspondence was to risk the charge of regression.
This was the moment in which modern authority found its tone. The language of certainty replaced the language of understanding. What could be calculated displaced what could be known through relation. The success of the method obscured its premise: that to control is to comprehend. In the centuries that followed, this premise would travel outward through empire and inward through the sciences of mind, shaping not only how the world was governed but how it was imagined.
๐ฟ V. Empire as Experiment
The mechanistic worldview did not remain confined to the laboratory. It became the organising principle of empire. The same habits of separation that governed the observation of matter governed the administration of people. Colonisation transformed distance from a method of knowing into a method of rule. The world was divided into regions of analysis and regions of extraction, each serving to verify the other. What the observer could measure, he could own.
In the territories claimed by Europe, knowledge and possession became indistinguishable. Local medicines, minerals, and botanical systems were collected, classified, and removed from the contexts that had sustained their meaning. The language of discovery concealed the structure of appropriation. To name a plant in Latin was to sever it from the lineage that had cultivated it. To translate a healing system into chemistry was to dismantle its cosmology while preserving its utility. Extraction posed as study; domination as enlightenment.
This conversion of relation into resource extended the logic already tested at home. The same intellectual machinery that had expelled women healers from Europe now expelled entire cultures from the status of authority. The custodians of Asian and Indigenous knowledge were recast as informants; their traditions, as data. The value of a practice lay in its reproducibility under European observation. What could not be reproduced was dismissed as myth. In this way, the scientific enterprise became a vehicle for the moral hierarchy of empire.
The consequence was not only territorial but conceptual. The mechanistic model, once an interpretation of nature, became a description of humanity. Civilisation was identified with control; progress with standardisation. To participate in the world through ritual or correspondence was to remain primitive. The cultures that perceived the living continuity between matter and spirit were rendered anachronistic, their metaphysics converted into folklore. Modernity defined itself against them, even as it absorbed their discoveries into its own system of profit and proof.
This process established the pattern that continues under other names. When contemporary medicine speaks of evidence-based practice, it repeats the same movement of translation that began in empire. Knowledge is admitted only after it has been rewritten in the syntax of neutrality. A remedy, a discipline, or a perception may enter the canon, but only once detached from the cosmology that produced it. The language of science preserves the function while erasing the framework. The appropriation succeeds to the extent that its origins can be forgotten.
Empire made distance concrete. The field became the plantation, the experiment became the colony, and knowledge extended itself through administration. The observerโs gaze hardened into bureaucracy. Catalogues replaced landscapes, and the moral vocabulary of civilisation legitimised the reduction of living systems to data. What had begun as a theology of transcendence matured into a global infrastructure of control. The same grammar that had redefined nature now defined humanity, and the institutions of science and governance grew indistinguishable in tone. The next phase of this history would unfold not through conquest abroad but through regulation at home, as the logic of empire returned to organise knowledge itself.
๐ฟ VI. The Bureaucracy of Proof
The authority that empire established through distance was preserved through administration. What had begun as conquest hardened into procedure. By the nineteenth century, knowledge no longer required expansion; it required management. The experiment replaced the expedition as the symbol of mastery. Discovery became replication. Truth was defined not by what could be seen but by what could be repeated under supervision.
The laboratory and the office shared a single architecture. Both transformed observation into record and record into power. The laboratory reduced the complexity of life to variables; the office reduced the diversity of experience to forms. Each converted relation into data that could circulate without its origin. The precision of this system lay in its exclusions. What could not be standardised could not exist. Verification became the measure of being.
This new order was not driven by curiosity but by control. The rise of the clinical trial, the statistical study, and the double-blind experiment replaced the older craft of discernment with the appearance of neutrality. The observerโs distance, once a moral posture, was institutionalised as law. The result was a bureaucracy of knowledge that reproduced the logic of empire within its own walls. To know was to administer.
Within this structure, medicine was reorganised around the calculus of evidence. Observation was replaced by measurement, experience by compliance. Healing became a matter of protocol: the patient a subject, the practitioner a functionary. The language of efficacy displaced that of understanding. Where earlier physicians had spoken of balance and correspondence, the new order spoke of outcomes and risk. The living field of practice was replaced by a paper trail.
The same logic extended to the study of mind. Behaviourism reduced consciousness to behaviour, and behaviour to units of time and motion. Psychology, which had once considered the interior world its subject, learned to distrust its own foundations. To survive within the hierarchy of proof, it renounced the very phenomena that had called it into being. The discipline of the psyche became the management of performance.
As universities absorbed these methods, education itself was standardised. Apprenticeship was replaced by curriculum, mentorship by certification. Knowledge was made legible to the state through accreditation and to commerce through intellectual property. The institution that once served as custodian of thought became its registrar. The modern scholar and the civil servant spoke a common language of metrics, each sustaining the otherโs claim to legitimacy.
The bureaucracy of proof achieved stability by transforming uncertainty into delay. What could not yet be proven was deferred, pending further research. The postponement of meaning became the mark of rigour. Inquiry was domesticated by the endless production of evidence. The pursuit of understanding gave way to the maintenance of process. The method became the subject.
Through this transformation, the modern intellect perfected the illusion of neutrality. Every act of observation appeared free from desire, every conclusion detached from consequence. Yet behind this surface of impartiality lay the same moral order that had animated empire: the conviction that truth must be wrested from a passive world by disciplined extraction. What differed was only the scale. The conquest of territory had become the conquest of uncertainty.
The system was complete when the observer could no longer be located. Knowledge appeared to arise from method alone, as if the world were examining itself. The instrument became the guarantor of truth, and the human mind its accessory. Within this framework, participation ceased to be a possibility. To feel correspondence with oneโs subject was to violate the code of detachment. The final expression of distance was anonymity.
๐ฟ VII. The Hidden Continuity of Field
The mechanistic image of the world could never fully account for what it described. Even while science insisted on separation, the behaviour of nature remained continuous. Every field of study that advanced under the banner of detachment produced evidence of connection. The more precisely matter was examined, the less it behaved like an object, and the more it resembled a pattern of relation.
Physics revealed this first. By the nineteenth century, no experiment could explain how one body influenced another across empty space. The idea of the field was introduced to describe invisible regions of force that extended between objects. Light, magnetism, and gravity were found to operate through this continuous medium rather than through impact or contact. When quantum theory appeared, even solidity dissolved. Matter behaved as probabilities of interaction, not as fixed particles. Observation changed outcome. The separation between observer and observed, the principle that had defined objectivity, was no longer stable.
Biology reached the same point by another path. Organisms maintained order even when their physical components were replaced. Cells coordinated their activity through chemical signals, yet the pattern of growth remained coherent beyond what those signals could explain. A limb could regenerate in the same shape; an embryo could correct injury and still form a complete body. The information that directed these processes could not be located in any single molecule or organ. Life behaved as if guided by a field of organisation that joined all its parts. The attempt to describe living form solely in terms of mechanical causation could not account for its self-correcting design.
Neuroscience produced a similar contradiction. The brain, long treated as an isolated control centre, proved dependent on its surroundings. Perception shifted with environment and expectation. Neural activity aligned with that of other people during conversation or shared attention. Memory and emotion were influenced by social context. The mind did not exist within the skull but across the relations that sustained it. Awareness behaved not as a closed system but as a field of interaction.
Across these disciplines, the same pattern recurred. The closer science examined its objects, the more it encountered processes that could not be contained by the language of mechanism. Systems organised themselves without central control; events were determined by relation rather than by linear cause. The world revealed itself not as a collection of independent things but as a network of mutual influence. What appeared discrete in theory operated as continuous in fact.
To preserve the structure of detachment, the word field was allowed to remain technical. It described connection but not meaning. The phenomenon was acknowledged, its implication denied. Scientists could speak of gravitational, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields without admitting that the same continuity might extend to life or mind. The vocabulary of relation was permitted only when stripped of its philosophical consequence.
Yet the findings could not be undone. Physics, biology, and neuroscience all arrived at the same recognition: coherence is relational. Observation, once imagined as neutral, participates in what it records. The very success of the mechanistic method revealed its limit. The world it measured was not built of isolated parts but of correspondences held in balance. The continuity that earlier cosmologies had treated as self-evident re-emerged as empirical fact. The field had never vanished; only the belief that it could be excluded.
๐ฟ VIII. The Return in Disguise
The order that had banished relation found itself compelled to describe it again. Yet when the language of connection returned, it did so under supervision. The old intuitions of sympathy, resonance, and participation were reintroduced as feedback, regulation, and information flow. The world could be spoken of as continuous once more, provided โcontinuityโ meant control.
In physiology, the rediscovery of coherence appeared as homeostasis: the bodyโs capacity to maintain internal balance through feedback loops. What earlier traditions had understood as harmony between body and world was rewritten as an internal mechanism of correction. The organism still depended on exchange with its environment, but this dependence was now portrayed as a system of regulation rather than of relation. Life was permitted to act as if it were aware, so long as its awareness could be described as automatic.
Neuroscience repeated the gesture. The mind, once imagined as detached observer, became a network of mutual influence. Neural activity mirrored that of others in conversation; emotion synchronised across bodies; perception was shaped by context and expectation. Yet the language used to describe these findings displaced their meaning. Empathy became simulation, intuition became inference, consciousness became computation. The field of experience was mapped, but its presence denied.
Information theory extended this transformation to the world itself. Communication, whether between neurons or machines, was described as the transfer of coded messages through noise. Connection was no longer moral or perceptual but mathematical. The universe regained its interdependence only by becoming an abstract network of exchange. What had once been called participation was recast as transmission: precise, measurable, and empty.
Across these disciplines, the same pattern prevailed. Relation was restored to description but excluded from understanding. The modern intellect could now admit that systems organise themselves, that coherence spreads through contact, that observation alters outcome; yet it could not name these as acts of participation. The older language was disqualified even as its content returned.
Thus the exile ended without recognition. The metaphors of mechanism had been expanded until they enclosed the world they once opposed. Within them, the ancient intelligence of correspondence endured, translated into the grammar of neutrality. The field had been rediscovered, but the observer could no longer feel its presence.
๐ฟ IX. The Persistence of Secular Anxiety
The embarrassment endures long after the framework that required it has begun to collapse. The sciences now describe relation where they once insisted on isolation, yet the habit of disbelief remains. It persists because it no longer belongs to knowledge but to identity. To doubt the invisible is not a conclusion; it is a declaration of allegiance.
For four centuries, detachment has served as proof of intellect. To speak without sentiment, to observe without involvement, these were the marks of reliability. The observer learned to regard composure as evidence of reason and emotion as a threat to it. Even as data revealed that observation alters what it observes, the moral weight of neutrality survived. Distance became a virtue independent of its results.
This virtue now functions as defence. The professional who senses coherence beyond measure must still translate it into the vocabulary of control or risk appearing credulous.
The word woo enforces this boundary. It allows the modern speaker to acknowledge experience while keeping it at a safe remove. To call something woo is to perform purification: to wash the self of belief while handling what belief once described. The term operates as social hygiene, reaffirming the symbolic purity of distance.
What endures, therefore, is not scepticism but anxiety: the fear that relation might be real, that the world may include the observer after all. The cracks in the old order are visible, yet the tone of denial remains. It is the sound of a civilisation guarding the posture that once secured its authority, uncertain of what will follow when that posture can no longer be held.
๐ฟ โโIXa. Modern Professionalism as Performance
The discipline of detachment survives through ritual. Within contemporary institutions, professionalism performs the old theology of distance in secular form. To appear credible, the practitioner must disavow what is most intimate: intuition, resonance, the unspoken grasp of pattern acquired through years of proximity. Knowledge must arrive clothed in the language of neutrality to be recognised as knowledge at all.
Every profession cultivates its own liturgy of composure. The clinician lowers her voice; the researcher withholds speculation; the analyst reports only what can be coded. The gesture is not hypocrisy but survival. Authority depends upon the suppression of the very faculties that make authority possible. To speak from direct perception is to risk contamination by subjectivity, to appear unguarded before the tribunal of peers.
In this performance, sincerity becomes subversive. The professional who admits to sensing what cannot yet be proven threatens the collective fiction that competence is a matter of restraint. The institutions that reward caution call it ethics; the individual who feels the cost knows it as dismemberment. The price of credibility is the denial of participation.
What remains is a double life. Behind the measured tone of reports and diagnoses, practitioners continue to act from the tacit intelligence that their training forbids them to name. They feel coherence before they can justify it, sense outcome before evidence accrues, navigate uncertainty through patterns of sympathy that no protocol can describe. Yet each must translate this recognition into the language of compliance to remain employable. Professionalism thus becomes a mode of concealment: the management of oneโs own perception for the sake of belonging.
๐ฟ X. The End of Detachment
The framework that defined knowledge through separation is ending. Its discoveries have undone its own defence. The closer science measures, the less the world behaves like a machine. Observation changes what is seen. Matter communicates across distance. Life organises itself without command. Consciousness cannot be found in any part because it belongs to the whole. The structure of detachment has collapsed under the weight of its own evidence.
Nothing external caused this failure. It was written into the method itself. By reducing experience to what could be verified, the modern intellect discovered the limits of verification. The system exposed its own fiction: that the observer could stand apart from the observed. Each instrument, each trial, each chart revealed the same pattern: knowledge is born of relation.
This recognition does not return the world to superstition; it returns it to scale. The boundaries between matter and mind, inner and outer, observer and field, no longer hold. What remains is not belief but correspondence. The universe is not waiting to be explained. It is already in conversation.
For those trained to speak from distance, the recognition arrives as exhaustion before it arrives as relief. The language of mastery no longer fits the experience of practice. Every act of care, every experiment, every observation reveals exchange. The doctor senses it in the body that heals through cooperation; the scientist in the data that shifts when attention changes. The pattern is the same. The relation was never gone; only renamed.
The end of detachment is not the loss of reason but its return to the field from which it came. What once seemed opposing, the measurable and the felt, the clinical and the intuitive, are parts of one system rediscovering coherence. The embarrassment that once guarded the invisible dissolves because there is nothing left to defend. What follows is quiet, almost without language: the recognition that knowledge and presence were never separate, and that to know is to participate.
ยฉ Kim M. U-Ming, 2025. Originally published on Medium and Substack, timestamped to establish provenance. This work is part of a larger body of thought. Please do not excerpt, reframe, or republish without express written permission.
