Eliciting insight from covert "usification"

Eliciting Insight from Covert Operations by US (Part #6)

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

This argument endeavours to frame the opportunity for radical coherence in engaging otherwise with externalities (In Quest of Radical Coherence: a group design initiative, 1994; Existential Embodiment of Externalities: radical cognitive engagement with environmental categories and disciplines, 2009).

Global coherence: Any sense of "global" then derives from imaginative capacity to engender an encompassing integrative framework. The process may be facilitated by drawing upon a variety of disciplines of which mathematics may be of special relevance (Geometry of Thinking for Sustainable Global Governance: cognitive implication of synergetics, 2009). This is consistent with the arguments of George Lakoff and Rafael Núñez, Where Mathematics Comes From: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being, 2000). However such arguments can be fruitfully married with those of theology (Mathematical Theology: Future Science of Confidence in Belief Self-reflexive Global Reframing to Enable Faith-based Governance, 2011).

The challenge would seem to relate to one of arraying, or configuring in some way, the figments of imagination -- as they are "carried" by categories and entities claimed by convention to be externalities existing "in reality". It is then irrelevant whether it can be claimed that "concrete proof" is available to substantiate that existence.

The resulting radical coherence then reframes what can otherwise only be perceived as systematic misleadership at the global level (Emergence of a Global Misleadership Council: misleading as vital to governance of the future? 2007; Framing the interplay of (mis)leadership and (mis)followership: challenges and responsibilities, 2007). Ownership can then be taken of any recognition of misleadership -- to be woven imaginatively into a more meaningful story, more capable of carrying whatever are esteemed as the highest values.

Ironically, the coherence of this argument can be clarified by juxtaposition of arguments relating to two "extremes", namely the confusion with regard to the sense of self and with that of how it is claimed the universe should be understood.

• Ambiguity in understanding of self: With respect to the self, as argued by Anil Ananthaswamy (The Man Who Wasn't There: investigations into the strange new science of the self, 2015; The Maladies of the Self: from autism to out-of-body experiences - what mental disorders are telling us about who we are, 2010):

  From the Buddha to the modern scientist and philosopher, humans have pondered the nature of the self. Is it real or an illusion? Is the self in the brain, and if so where in the brain is it? Neuroscience is telling us that our sense of self seems to be an ephemeral entity created by the brain: that the self is an illusion - nature's most sophisticated sleight-of-hand. Yet this obfuscates a basic truth: we are our selves. Remove the self and there is no 'I' on whom a trick is being played, no one who is the subject of an illusion. What's more, when the self gets disturbed, the ramifications are so serious that suggesting to the sufferer that the self is an illusion is of little help.

Why is it so conventionally assumed that the self lends itself readily to unambiguous definition and description? Why make such an assumption oneself -- and by whom is that simplification encouraged?

• Ambiguity in understanding of universe: Ironically, given the current condemnation of extremism in any form, Ananthaswamy is best known in relation to astrophysics (The Edge of Physics: a journey to Earth's extremes to unlock the secrets of the universe, 2011; also published as The Edge of Reason) and consequently as a TED Conference speaker (What it takes to do extreme astrophysics, TED Conference, 2010). However, the New Scientist, with which he is closely associated, has now published the arguments of a famed physicist (Lee Smolin. You think there's a multiverse? Get real, New Scientist, 20 January 2015), now the focus of controversy (John Horgan, Troublemaker Lee Smolin Says Physics -- and Its Laws -- Must Evolve, Scientific American, 4 January 2015; Brian Appleyard, Physics: Superstitions and Allegories? 5 January 2015). Smolin writes:

  Cosmology is in crisis. Recent experiments have given us an increasingly precise narrative of the history of our universe, but attempts to interpret the data have led to a picture of a "preposterous universe" that eludes explanation in the terms familiar to scientists. Everything we know suggests that the universe is unusual... If we reached into a hat filled with pieces of paper, each with the specifications of a possible universe written on it, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would get a universe anything like ours in one pick -- or even a billion. The challenge that cosmologists face is to make sense of this specialness.

It could well be asked whether such an assessment applies as much to global society as to the universe, especially given that most imagine their lives more readily within the former rather than the latter.

What is surprising is the extent to which those claiming the greatest expertise in the understanding of the universe should be confronted so frequently with doubts regarding its nature -- whereas those claiming expertise with regard to global society are distinguished primarily by their certainty as to its nature. Even more striking is the failure to recognize the role of the imagination with respect to the nature of the latter, in contrast with that regarding the universe -- as framed, for example, by Stephen Hawking (The Dreams That Stuff Is Made Of: the most astounding papers of quantum physics -- and how they shook the scientific world, 2011).

Given the freedom of astrophysicists to imagine the universe as they will, should one not reappropriate such freedom with respect to imagining the globality of the world one engenders and inhabits -- as speculatively imagined (Being the Universe: a Metaphoric Frontier, 1999; Enactivating Multiversal Community: hearing a pattern of voices in the global wilderness, 2012)?

Transcending limitations of the vision metaphor: It is curious how dependent has become society on what can be presented visually (text, images, etc), most notably in relation to "envisioning" desirable global governance. There are of course other senses (sound, taste, smell, feel) which potentially offer alternative metaphors -- possibly offering richer and subtler templates as catalysts to the imagination (Strategic Challenge of Polysensorial Knowledge: bringing the "elephant" into "focus", 2008; In Quest of Mnemonic Catalysts -- for comprehension of complex psychosocial dynamics, 2007).

For example, given the worldwide enthusiasm engendered by music, there is a case for exploring articulations of global governance in musical terms, notably through the interplay of US and THEM. This possibility has been variously explored (A Singable Earth Charter, EU Constitution or Global Ethic? 2006; Toneship design to enable noonautics by the voices of civilization? 2015). The possibility extends to drama through which that problematic relationship might be imaginatively reframed -- as with the epics of cultures of the past.

It is in this sense that there is a splendid irony to the framing if "usification" in dramatic terms. What might be perceived as the relevant epics of these times? How might externality be embodied, as has been variously discussed (George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Philosophy In The Flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought, 1999).

Usification? Whilst "usification" may appear to be a questionable term, it is appropriate to note the existence of an Annual US-ification of America Conference, of which it is claimed:

Doesn't the title of the conference speak for itself, truly and freely, as every God fearing American does? Well, let's break it down to an even simpler explanation so as a God fearing American baby would understand: you got yourself a collection of short plays with one Agenda: poking fun of America's past and present... "issues." We'll continue that great American tradition of keeping it simple:

Are you American enough to attend the U.S-ification of America Conference? This Patriots Day Week be the best damn American you can be and attend the U.S-ification of America Conference. A collection of short plays split into two play series with one agenda; poking fun at some of Americas past and present issues. Be American and attend the U.S-ification of America Conference damn it!

In the context of this argument, reference to this usage is necessarily questionable since the intentions of the organizers are somewhat different -- if not extremely different. However the example serves to make the point that "usification" is a process in which all are free to engage. Externalities can be subject to an imaginative "make over" and effectively "reinvented", just as some apply their energy to "reinventing themselves". Global society can be reimagined, as separately discussed (Engendering 2052 through Re-imagining the Present: review of 2052: a Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years as presented to the Club of Rome, 2012).

Transcending binary entrapment: The above argument calls into question the dependence on the binary logic of us and them, if only by implication. However it could be argued that the the case made for subjectivity/internal versus objectivity/external is but a variant of any entrapment in binary logic -- especially if internal (subjective) is presented favourably by contrast with external (objective).

There would seem to be a case for "seizing the bull by the horns" -- as the dilemma might be framed in terms of the skills of bull-leaping cultivated in a pre-Olympian sport, as speculatively discussed (The-O Ring and The Bull Ring as Spectacular Archetypes: dramatic correlation of theatre, theory, theorem, theology, and theosophy, 2014). It is profoundly curious how little attention is given to transcending dualities and the apparent contradictions which permeate philosophy, religion and strategic dilemmas.

Obscured by the argument above, one approach is to shift dynamically between the alternatives -- externality/internality, objectivity/subjectivity -- according to significance in the moment, and withdrawing from either in a process of alternation. Such a process is variously characteristic of biological life (inspiration/expiration, and the like). There is a sense in which this is already a living reality for many (Living as an Imaginal Bridge between Worlds: global implications of "betwixt and between" and liminality, 2011). It can also be argued that such alternation is a key to development (Policy Alternation for Development, 1984).

Whilst one understanding of this process could be that entities have no permanent existence as conventionally implied (irrespectiv of their ephemeral nature from an historical perspective), a more fruitful understanding is that "existence" is understood in terms of potentiality -- in potentia (Wanted: New Types of Social Entity: the role of the "potential association", 1971).

Curiously such alternation is implied by arguments for democracy. Mysteriously this process has however been profoundly undermined and inhibited by the framing of any opposition to US as problematic in the extreme -- a characteristic of THEM as fundamentally evil, if only potentially so (through being badly misguided). Conventional democracy can then be caricatured as the interplay of "good" (US) and "evil" (THEM) -- each side claiming to be the first in order to frame the other as characterized by the second.

The language of negative campaigning typically reflects this -- inviting the electorate to subscribe to both such beliefs. Little effort is made to reframe this dynamic and the language used -- in quest of more fruitful modalities of global governance. The individual, empowered by radical subjectivity, is however free to do so.

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