Why ignore the 'unknown or non-obvious?

[James N Rose <***>]

Why ignore the 'unknown' or non-obvious?

======

This, it seems to me, is the underscoring question
behind any thought/reaction system's seeming rejection of 
information that is outside the scope of prior acceptance.

To rant at an established worldview for its inability to readily
accept novel information .. and insights .. and potential gains
from inclusion of the new information, and any potential performance
gain that might entail as a result .. is to not appreciate the scope
of darwinian truth:  that survival of the 'fittest' carries the
embedded reality that systems rely on prior successes and will
use those as 'attractor space(es)' to re-inforce identity .. and
systemic integrity ; against any environmental attempt to alter
the systemic integrity.

Consistency and endurance of form and activity capacity takes
precedence.  Its just how things are.  Newtonian inertial
momentum rising to a presence in all levels of organization,
simply holding forth as the qualities called 'tradition' and 
'habit' and so forth.

You don't impose a beef eating life style on a culture that
reveres cattle as sacred.  You don't mix chiral road-rules
left side / right side (britain/america) together and expect
nirvana just because to went from a limited paradigm to a more
inclusive one.

Science should not be castigated because of its reluctance
to include novel patterns, thought-space, relations.

The transform of human knowledge that might be possible
with the arising of any new inventive way of thinking 
and being has to measure up first to existence's bed-rock
standard: is it utile?  is it amenable and integratable?
is something gained that indisputably takes the system
to a niche of integrity improvement .. for all the conditions
and parameters present? 


Jamie