You are here

Massive Elicitation of Psychosocial Energy

-


Massive Elicitation of Psychosocial Energy
Mass-Energy equivalence
Configurative thinking and metaphor
Equivalence, isomorphism, correspondence and metaphor
Beneficial reframing of fundamental differences
Metaphoric implications of energy, mass and light
Universe of knowledge
Technologies and disasters as metaphors for collective learning
¡¿ Defining the objective ∞ Refining the subjective ?! Explaining reality ∞ Embodying realization
Fukushima, cherry blossom and "mono no aware"
Mass-Energy transformation in psychosocial system containers
Conclusion
References

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]


Insights arising from the multiple disaster of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan (2011)
and from the massive Arab uprisings in the same period


Introduction
Mass-Energy equivalence
Configurative thinking and metaphor
Equivalence, isomorphism, correspondence and metaphor
Beneficial reframing of fundamental differences
Metaphoric implications of energy, mass and light
Universe of knowledge
Technologies and disasters as metaphors for collective learning
¡¿ Defining the objective ∞ Refining the subjective ?! Explaining reality ∞ Embodying realization (References


Introduction

The following discussion is necessarily speculative in an attempt to explore alternative ways of thinking about the "crisis of crises" in all its cognitive complexity -- about which there would appear to be a dearth of the much-sought creative "new thinking". The argument exploits, with only limited apology, the manner in which nuclear technology is framed in society -- upheld as it is as the key to the energy requirements of global civilization.

Basically it could be said that people in their thousands (if not their millions) run the risk of death from inadequately tested technologies that they do not comprehend -- on the advice of experts and authorities in whom respectful confidence is expected. However both experts and authorities have repeatedly demonstrated their capacity to deceive and arrogantly to deny any culpability for the resulting disaster (Abuse of Faith in Governance: Mystery of the Unasked Question, 2009). This systemic condition has been highlighted in the case of the Japanese disaster (Anticipating Future Strategic Triple Whammies: In the light of earthquake-tsunami-nuclear misconceptions, 2011). Simultaneously, but over a longer period, learnings have been offered by the massive uprisings in various Arab countries.

The argument here is a form of response to the spectrum between truth and myth in the quest for higher orders of integrative thinking and coherence, as previously discussed (Relevance of Mythopoeic Insights to Global Challenges, 2009; Cultivating Global Strategic Fantasies of Choice, 2010). With respect to "energy" specifically, the argument follows from an earlier exploration (Reframing Sustainable Sources of Energy for the Future: the vital role of psychosocial variants, 2006).

The suggestion is made that technology is the art of benefitting from differences. Society is indeed much challenged by fundamental differences and disagreements -- despite vain efforts to claim the contrary through promoting the reality of universal frameworks. The question is whether there is a form of technology, from which energy can be derived, associated with reframing what is maximally different -- as distinguishable by human patterning capacity.

In an Annex (¡¿ Defining the objective ∞ Refining the subjective ?! Explaining reality ∞ Embodying realization) the paradox of how knowing might then be fruitfully constrained is explored. The argument exploits the concept of "refining" nuclear fuel, "enriching" it through isotope separation to the degree required to enable the critical mass fundamental to the viability of nuclear technology -- as employed at Fukushima and elsewhere. The suggestion is that "defining", as premature or simplistic closure and containment, effectively "dampens" any possible psychosocial analogue -- in contrast with what might be implied by cultural refinement, notably as understood through a process of "subjective refinement". Simplistic explanations of "reality" (as a form of quenching), or those relatively inaccessible to collective comprehension, then preclude fruitful realization and its effective embodiment.

The argument questions the widespread tendency to promote a particular set of truths as "universal" -- as meriting (if not necessitating) its acceptance by all. Rather it recognizes the naivety of this expectation in a vast and turbulent knowledge society -- in contrast with the tendency to articulate and embody distinct worldviews, whether individual or collective. The latter view -- a complementary form of naivety -- is often more consistent with experiential reality. It is one which may therefore be more practical for individuals and collectives in isolation. It is also consistent with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To that extent its communication here is rather to be understood as the playful presentation of a cognitive vehicle -- as with any work of art by which one may be transported (Enacting Transformative Integral Thinking through Playful Elegance, 2010).


[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]