Dynamics of N-fold Integration of Disparate Cognitive Modalities

Prefixes determining experience of the present moment underlying pseudophilia

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

Introduction

Faced with multiple crises and conflicts of every kind, the world is witness to appeals for unity on the part of leaders variously embroiled in such crises. Despite the gravitas with which these appeals are framed, they can be increasingly recognized as naive -- in the light of past responses to such initiatives. (Finian Cunningham, Biden's 'Unity'â-... By War? Information Clearing House, 22 January 2021; Michael Rectenwald, The 'democracy' and 'unity' of Biden's inaugural address have fine print: 'After dissent is silenced', RT, 20 January 2021).

The naivety with regard to simplistic understandings of unity is currently evident in the commentaries evoked (Peter Baker, In Biden's Washington, Democrats and Republicans Are Not United on 'Unity', The New York Times, 21 January 2021; Julie Hollar, Media Allow Republicans to Use 'Unity' as Tool of Division, FAIR, 22 January 2021; Steve Chaggaris, Joe Biden's difficult, if not impossible, push for 'unity', Al Jazeera. 21 January 2021; David Siders, Biden gets a cold dose of 'unity', Politico, 21 January 2021; Joseph Stepansky, Biden is promising 'unity'. But what does that mean? Al Jazeera, 6 February 2021).

False optimism? Such appeals are consistent with one or more optimistic beliefs that are widely shared to a degree, variously including:

• the possibility of global peace as the outcome of insightful global leadership
• the discovery of some kind of philosopher's stone or Holy Grail -- a cognitive Rosetta stone by which differences could be reconciled
• a Theory of Everything as the outcome of scientific endeavour and insights of a higher order into transdisciplinarity (Engaging with Insight of a Higher Order, 2014)
• the possibility of a new Renaissance (Missing the New Renaissance?  2010)
• the arrival of a messianic leader, as variously prophesied
• anticipation of singularities of various kinds -- more especially a technological singularity (Emerging Memetic Singularity in the Global Knowledge Society , 2009)

These possibilities may well be articulated using "healing" as a metaphor, beyond any reference to healing individuals (David Corn, Joe Biden's Inaugural Address Was a Plea for "Unity". But Healing the Nation's "Soul" Won't Be Easy. Mother Jones, 20 January 2021; Edward Achorn, Abraham Lincoln Healed a Divided Nation. We Should Heed His Words Today. Time, 16 February 2020; Clinton Global Initiative, Healing the Nation, Clinton Foundation). Similar references could be found with respect to "healing the world"' and "healing the Earth".

Unfortunately with regard to use of the healing metaphor, it fails to address the divisions between those who have contrasting understandings of "healing", whether inspired by a particular religion or by the challenge evident in healing the body (Remedies to Global Crisis: "Allopathic" or "Homeopathic"? 2009). The contrast between "mainstream" discourse and the protesting "dissenters" can be seen in this light.

Constraints: Complementing the hopes -- and the quest for their realization -- is an unfortunate array of constraints on integrative global sense-making. These might be understood to include:

• the evident inadequacy of the remedies variously proposed and implemented -- in the light of a depressing track record
• the evident disagreement about those remedies -- especially those promoted as alternatives
• the resource constraints associated with particular remedies -- and competition for possession of those resources
• the marked preference for simplicity in the face of undeniable complexity (and despite any technical need for detailed explanation) -- exemplified by preference for slogans, potentially embodied into marketing jingles
• the challenge of comprehension in a multilingual society -- despite assumptions regarding the use of international languages, especially English
• the challenge to interrelating the insights of the variety of disciplines claiming relevance -- especially in the light of the variety of jargons by which they affirm their distinctive expertise and identity
• the challenges to the credibility of those claiming unique knowledge of what is most appropriate -- given criticism of their relevance and track record from other perspectives, however questionable
• the restrictive claims on the articulation and implementation of remedies, especially with regard to use of technologies claimed to be relevant -- most obviously intellectual property rights (copyright, patenting, licensing, and the like) by which vital knowledge is incarcerated
• the emphasis on certification after a requisite period of learning for valid comprehension -- readily deemed elitist and of pseudo-relevance to the complex nature of emergent crises
• the emphasis on appropriate publication ("rendered public") as a guarantee of credibility -- in a period when such publication is dubiously and uncritically controlled by the few and potentially subject to levels of secrecy and paywalls limiting access and effective dissemination
• the relative indifference to the challenge to significant sectors of society in adapting to the imposition of new technologies -- most obviously the challenge for the elderly of online facilities (banking, welfare, voting), effectively institionalizing new forms of inequality, most obviously treating as irrelevant the time required for delivery and uptake
• marked delays in the diffusion of information and the uptake of significance -- despite claims regarding the role of the web
• the major shift from a degree of success in presentation of information in text to that presented visually or otherwise -- thereby raising questions as to what can be effectively communicated, to whom and with what delay
• a marked tendency to knee-jerk condemnation of the unconventional -- and the possibilities beyond convention and "outside the box"

Perspective? With respect to both the hopes for effective remedial responses and any critical analysis of the constraints, seemingly missing is the lack of perspective on the various processes from which appropriately  integrative understanding could emerge

Complementing that lack of perspective is the lack of necessary appreciation of a "right to be ignorant" -- in contrast with the legal principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat . This could be understood as including:

• a right to be impatient at the inadequacies of elites claiming unquestionable competence
• a right to be unable (or unwilling) to understand complex explanations and proposals
• a right to act on a previously acquired knowledge base, however limited -- empowered as it may be by intuition (however misguided)
• a right to "rediscover the wheel" -- especially given its integrative symbolic role (as with the mandala)
• a right to assume that one has been "sold a pup" (Having Bought into a Wreck -- What Now? Cognitive challenges of embodying reality otherwise, 2018)
• the right to be dubious regarding elitist proposals such as the Great Reset
• the value of "unknowing" -- notably as celebrated with respect to creativity and mysticism

There is considerable irony to the fact that, however limited, a degree of perspective on such processes has been widely publicized through the "poem" notoriously presented by Donald Rumsfeld in his role as US Secretary of Defense in the midst of the so-called "humanitarian intervention" in Iraq. The focus on "known unknowns" and "unknown knowns" can be taken further with respect to "undoing" (Unknown Undoing: challenge of incomprehensibility of systemic neglect, 2008; Strategic Patterns in terms of Know

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