You are here

Global comprehension from within?


Global Economy of Truth as a Ponzi Scheme (Part #12)


[Parts: First | Prev | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]


In what form can anything be usefully expressed about one's own personal sense and comprehension of "globality" -- especially for oneself? The challenge has of course been recognized by many -- as well as ignored by many. Notably appropriate is the title of the post-humous work by Gregory Bateson (Angels Fear: towards an epistemology of the sacred, 1988).

One common device is the use of metaphor -- whether in words, music, or art. The vocabulary of mysticism, and the experience of psychoactive drugs, are a common resource. Metaphor may be employed by taking widely recognized phenomena of "external reality" and implying an anlogous pattern in the experience of an "inner reality".

This process could even be described metaphorically as usin externalities like a surf board to surf the waves of experience of inner processes. Hence the reference above to biomimicry and technomimicry -- even ecomicry. In considering globalization, a form of economicry might be imagined.

Especially intriguing in this respect is the set of external realities by which human cultures have chosen to order the universe and its exploration. Notable authors in this respect are Joseph Campbell (The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: metaphor as myth and as religion, 1986), Henryk Skolimowski (The Participatory Mind: a new theory of knowledge and of the universe, 1994), and Marsilio Ficino, as discussed separately (Composing the Present Moment: celebrating the insights of Marsilio Ficino interpreted by Thomas Moore, 2001).

For some, greater signifiance can be given to the coherence and "globality" of that experience through the patterns framed by mathematics and astrophysicis -- and especially cosmology. Their highly creative quest for a unifying understanding engenders a multiplicity of enanbling metaphors (Entering Alternative Realities -- Astronautics vs Noonautics: isomorphism between launching aerospace vehicles and launching vehicles of awareness, 2002).

Examples are provided by insights into the origin of the universe (the Big Bang), of black holes, dark matter, and te formation of the solar system and its planets (Psychosocial Implication of Without Within: enjoying going solar for oneself, 2013). In each case insights are offered into te role of energy, information and relative frames of reference. The disciplines in question are howeve exceptionally indifferent to the inner cognitive implications of their insights -- or even whether they are readily accessible to comprehension. This is especially the case with some of the insights considered most profound and seminal by mathematics -- despite the above-mentioned arguments of Lakoff and Nunez (2001).

Rather than accepting the conventional external framing of globalization through which most, if not all, are placed at the periphery (even defined as peripherals), how can an individual frame experiences "at the centre of the universe"? Given the struggle of cosmology, is there more to be discovered with respect to any sense of individual uniqueness and originality -- possibly even as a singularity?

Aside from the vainly repeated injunctions of religion down the centuries (with their only too evident destabilization of a civilization in crisis), is their need for a new language through which higher orders of meaning are to be recognized and sensed (Engaging with Insight of a Higher Order: reconciling complexity and simplexity through memorable metaphor, 2014). Cognitive "trophic levels" of a higher order relevant to the seductive sense of negentropy to be informed by some form of indwelling intelligence (Implication of Indwelling Intelligence in Global Confidence-building: sustaining the construction and dynamic of psychosocial reality through questioning, 2012).

In a global civilization characterized by a dangerous degree of divisiveness -- unencompassed by any fruitfully meaningful paradigm -- the mystery of gravity merits continuing attention. As implied by the variety of "gravity models", this suggests that cognitive processes with behavioural implications could be considered and experienced in such terms. Arrogance in whatever form has a gravitational sense to it -- whether experienced internally or externally. The associated fynamics can be experienced like a whirpool or vortex -- metaphors common in that regard.

In the absence of more fruitful "explanations" within society, each is therefore free to engender "implanations" (Being the Universe : a Metaphoric Frontier, 1999; Engendering 2052 through Re-imagining the Present, 2012; Eliciting a Universe of Meaning -- within a global information society of fragmenting knowledge and relationships, 2013).

Such a process of creative imagination (extensively explored in fiction) offers a means of reinterpreting continuing speculation, framed by the so-called simulation hypothesis, regarding the possibility that humanity dwells unwittingly inside a simulation. This is potentially consistent with recognition by some belief systems of the fundamental misperception of reality and the emptiness of form -- although the "simulation" may well be self-engendered. The challenge of "incomprehension" for all may then be more usefully framed through engendering "outcomprehension" (Living with Incomprehension and Uncertainty: re-cognizing the varieties of non-comprehension and misunderstanding, 2012).

What of the implications that one may oneself effectively engender and embody the Ponzi scheme pattern -- so skillfully projected onto problematic external globalization? Clearly there is a particular "cognitive twist" to be "re-cognized". How indeed, as "designers of the simulation", is "kidding oneself" as to its existence effected in reality as personally experienced -- Potemkin style?

Potentially far more problematic is the human sacrifice (whether voluntary or involuntary) considered appropriate at the highest level of the stepped pyramids of pre-Columbian cultures, notably Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan (cf human sacrifice in Mayan culture, human sacrifice in Aztec culture). Heart-extraction by the priesthood was viewed as a means of liberating the istli and reuniting it with the Sun: the victim's transformed heart flies Sun-ward on a trail of blood (Ray Kerkhove, Dark Religion? Aztec Perspectives on Human Sacrifice, 2008). In this respect there is considerable irony to the experimental geometrical configuration of stacked 3D tori in that these take the form of a heart pattern, as previously explored (Cognitive heart dynamics framed by two tori in 3D, 2016).

Can a global Ponzi scheme be recognized as a contemporary variant of such a seemingly perverted "logic" -- epitomized by depiction of a stepped pyramid on the dollar bill? More curious is the above-mentioned process of "hope-mongering" associated with any "heartless" Ponzi scheme and its relation to the voluntary sacrifice made at this time by a jihadi on a pathway to heaven.

It is in this sense that the experience of humour may play a special role -- particularly since it is so systematically designed out of any multi-level academic model of repute. The argument has been developed separately (Humour and Play-Fullness: essential integrative processes in governance, religion and transdisciplinarity, 2005). The point is delightfully made in the following.

The Hazards of System Building
by Matthew Melko, System Builder
(Offered to participants at the Foundation for Integrative Education Conference, Oswego, August 1969; reproduced in Main Currents in Modern Thought, 269, 2)
  1. You identify with your system. It cost you blood to build it, and if it is attacked, it is your blood that is being shed.
  2. You cannot tolerate tentativeness, suspension of judgment, or anything that does not fit the system.
  3. You cannot apprehend anyone else's system unless it supports yours.
  4. You believe that other systems are based on selected data.
  5. Commitment to systems other than your own is fanaticism.
  6. You come to believe that your system entitles you to proprietorship of the entities within it.
  7. Since humour involves incongruity, and your system explains all seeming incongruities, you lose your sense of humour.
  8. You lose your humility.
  9. You accept all these points -- insofar as they apply to builders of other systems.
  10. So do I. (P.S. I hope I believe in the cult of fallibility)

 


[Parts: First | Prev | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]