| Tolerance and relativity, values of the evolution of knowledge|
|30 May 2003 @ 16:00, by Claudiu Andrei Sbarnea|
The value of the evolution of knowledge - the capacity to give a solution by following through our thinking process as many as possible enunciations related to each other.
If the truth is magic or not, is a feeling, a product of our morality or just a simple convention that we establish, I say is less important to materialize its meaning, or the meaning of other terms like this one, then how important, and fulfilling, is to learn to determine more understandings of it, to be able to percept as many as possible of the enunciations that are part of a process of thinking whenever we ask ourselves a question.If we materialize everything around us, we manage to state for a standard even the way people think, and maybe some of us will be called specialists, but I doubt that will help the evolution beside easing the consumption of life.
Many of us use the expressions: Â“yes, relativelyÂ”, or Â“everything is relativelyÂ” with predilection when the argument of our conversation partner is sustained in relation with the analysis process developed in ourselves and there is at least a small trace of incapacity to relate or just a vision from a different point of view. But, why we never ask ourselves where is determined our limit in processing a new enunciation as an answer to the one received from our partner? Why we donÂ’t analyze more our own way of thinking, the steps our mind follows while striving to create a new enunciation.
Â“RelativelyÂ”, or Â“everything is relativelyÂ” Â– this expression is sometimes a contra-argument or is understood like that. In any case itÂ’s the result of the inner need to redirect the discussion to the abstract because we donÂ’t find another way to reply correctly or we need to express our disapproval not finding a proper way and we hurry to do it before analyzing our own stop. At the same time there is a intuition-born reason that we follow, or just a need for delay because of the effort needed by the process of thinking.
As a funny brake: Â“DonÂ’t challenge the stupid because he has a rested mindÂ”
Personally I think that everything is relatively to the power of perception of each individual. I try to force inclusion in perception of: the memorization, interpretation, generally the processes that direct to knowledge.
If we receive an enunciation from exterior, from another person, we start creating an answer, our own enunciation, filtered by our own mind.Relating it with others makes determining this new enunciation, and the process is not linear. Capacity to make relations counts in the ability to include in the result answer as many as possible of the paths followed by the initial enunciation with the remark that many of them are lost consciously and unconsciously (not important, not relevant or not determined, not understood).The following image may suggest how complex is only one process of thinking. Paths marked in green are those included in the result and those marked in blue are ignored.
I say there are limits in the number of enunciations that we include in a process in order to create a new one, and more I think some of us try to simplify their way of thinking, adopting principles and theories forever without being always opened for better answers. We donÂ’t have to be perfectionists, we would spent all our time thinking of the way we think and we wonÂ’t do anything. We should only search for the second best answer each time.
The paths are different from person to person. This thing is proved by psychology. Some people first follow the scientific part of the given enunciation to determine a new one. Others treat the sentimental content of the enunciation. Is important that most of us never try to analyze from different sources, instead want to find a simple answer which is the indubitable truth in relation with few precise condition, even if a globally, better answer, is far from this one.Therefore is born the problem of tolerance in relativity. Relativity because all things around us can be related to others, tolerance, because the progress counts in the capacity to recognize and respect otherÂ’s beliefs and practices.
No doubt there is a large area in the each personÂ’s thinking process where objective enunciation become subjective leaving space for relativity to some other enunciations. This, I think, is a reason for initial errors in almost all major impudent inventions and discoveries at their birth. The error is a condition for progress.This area can be studied, pushed, enlarged until a certain level, which can be the tolerance limit for relativity.Evolution has proved that we can push this limit in all domains, and this indirectly directs to evolution.Unfortunately the many times we are found at this point of reaching the limit we cannot recognize ourselves in this situation and try to stop the discussion with an uncompleted enunciation.
As a conclusion: I consider the value of the evolution of knowledge, the capacity to give a solution by following through our thinking process as many as possible enunciations related to each other.If we encounter a limit letÂ’s step on it every time.
Category: Social System Design
31 May 2003 @ 01:47 by : Are There Limits?
Among the many interesting considerations that come to me during this article is how translation from one language to another affects our enunciations. It might be fascinating to you should someone attempt to translate the above back into Romanian---or whatever language you learned at your mother's knee (which idiom may give you some problems too). I think there must be an illustration for this article too...or at least you refer to an image which I gather must exist someplace else. No matter, my question is do you believe there are limits to enunciation or should we "step on" all limits we encounter in order to communicate? Thank you very much for this.
9 Aug 2003 @ 15:11 by : This one has got it!
His language isn't even necessary. Just look at what he made bold as his entire statement, and you can see he is touching the toy beyond language.
Each of us contains a -very simple feature- which can solve -any- problem, and answer any question. It uses -error- *playfully* in order to triangulate on any possible target or arrival position - more accurately (by factors) each time it 'sense-checks'.
This wonderful and poetic posting actually has the key to something lost for thousands of years, but because we are so specific, we have trouble locating or activating it.
The triangluation of error, distributed amongst intimate groups...is the very source of cognition itself...organismal, human, hypersentiences...everything.
Language leads -away- from this power when authorized over it. It build artifacts that clog the transports with war, domination, and noise....
brilliant post, in more ways than one.
Other entries in Social System Design
29 Nov 2008 @ 22:27: THE ENEMY WITHIN
6 Aug 2008 @ 07:40: In quest of a New Civilization: Summary and going ahead
12 Mar 2008 @ 17:14: The Vital Necessity for Agreement
6 Aug 2007 @ 11:40: America The Vindictive
13 Jun 2007 @ 17:47: Scale of confront, including mechanics of polarization
15 Jul 2006 @ 16:05: Global Assembly Progress Report
2 Jun 2006 @ 14:11: Boring or Specific?
19 Apr 2006 @ 12:52: The Global Social Reality
10 Feb 2006 @ 08:13: The true you
7 Jan 2006 @ 12:57: The Unworkable Practice of Permanent Leadership