Re: Why ignore the 'unknown or non-obvious?

[James N Rose <***>]

Judith,

There's lots that goes into the "perpetual amazement"
syndrome you mention.  Part of it has to do with the
intention of certain leadership sectors to keep populaces
naive and 'ignorant' .. in the literal and the pejorative
senses.  Peoples aren't encouraged to challenge the status
quo, otherwise they might challenge more than individual
items here and there.  They might question voting improprieties
as if they had a right to question them. ;-)

Keep'em amazed and overwhelm their senses and when you need
them to roll over and do tricks, they'll be there for you.

My concern though is the grander scope that has to do with
RR's initiatives and mine and others.  The scale of paradigm
we discuss here rises so far above the conventional standards 
that we have to set better, newer, higher, standards for
conceiving things and the nature of the universe.

To start with the expectation that (living) systems
have abilities and capacities other than 'our own';
to believe and expect that we ourselves even are 'undiscovered
universes' and have agencies more than we think we have
as well .. is a mind set incumbent for new cultures to
develop/exhibit/practive .. new cultures that human beings
have the capacity to become ; which are founded in the scope
of a naturally complex universe of the type your father 
identified and began to talk about in generalities.

I have been writing for many years about the nuts and bolts
and organic integrations of this new-think.  But I kept
focus on the fundamentals, only with temerity mentioning
applications and impacts.  But as the years move forward I
realize that transformation of the species isn't going 
to happen based on intellectualizations of the insights
we have here, but on visceral life-grabbing attachments,
understood in the gut and experiences of people.

Which means that the language and expression of RR style concepts
has to be embellished into moments and phenomena and events
people can identify with on a daily basis.

Our ideas here have to be so superiorly encompassing and
_inclusive_, that no concepts can stand against them.

We talk about notions here that rise to the import levels of 
'irresistable force', against which there -is no- 'immovable
object'.   Because the immovable and resistive stances are
embracable -within- the family of notions we speak of.

No notion or percept is alien to us.  Not even reductionism 
and rigid narrow-set dichotomies.  OR machiavellian myopia.  :-)

Jamie










>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