|
On Judith's last para:
"how amazing it is" that all the animals in the path of the
tsunami managed to figure it out and save themselves, without any text-messaging
or satellite imaging or what-have-you... that's what blows my mind. The vast
scale of human surprise over such a thing is just amazing to
me."
It is also surprising to me.
I think human beings finding it comfortable pushed down all
their inherent abilities, not allowing their ontological support system to
help them, especially in such a situation required a quick flight as the animals
did and instead they turned to their superficial/epistemological
knowledge with an exessive trust as if they are well protected by all
arrangements made for their comfort. This is especially true for tourists.
The rest -locals- is a different and longer story. It also has its
similar weak points, though very different human rapsody.
Ayten
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 6:40
PM
Subject: Re: Why ignore the 'unknown or
non-obvious?
Hi Jamie,
I don't think it's "science" that's at fault here but human
nature, habit, and hubris. Qualities we are prone to as a species
and need to guard against when we see it getting counter-productive
in ourselves. The trouble, in my view, is that not very many people are
even aware of it, much less looking to avoid the pitfalls of it. The fact that
the press is universally remarking on "how amazing it is" that all
the animals in the path of the tsunami managed to figure it out and save
themselves, without any text-messaging or satellite imaging or
what-have-you... that's what blows my mind. The vast scale of human surprise
over such a thing is just amazing to me.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:38
AM
Subject: [ROSEN] Why ignore the
'unknown or non-obvious?
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
|