Sometimes it helps to spend time on nested metacognition. There can be several interpretations of an event, even if all observers are acting in good faith. Interpretations hinge heavily on private wisdom and margins of meaning, and therefore, let alone history, a single moment are actually as many moments as there are observers, plus one, compensating for the absolute truth of that event, assuming that exists, or for the unspeakable Absolute, which, in a religious or scientific sense, is heavily insinuated to be existing. Over hundreds of years of usage, all terminology (especially in political, philosophical, or soft disciplines), has fallen prey to interpretation, and also polysemia, since our world has expanded far more rapidly than our vocabulary could. Therefore, to look towards history or politics, traditional tropes do not mean anything except with a prologue that sets context to the semiotics, both liminal as well as subliminal. This sets out working definitions of which word is used in what way- and indeed, each individual is free to draw upon any number of disparate sources or create their own working definitions. This overhead may rival the actual thought itself in volume, and often, exceed it. This can be inefficient. Today, in the rich ecosystem of information, we can no longer operate with classical or even modern instruments of observation and analysis alone. We must, perhaps consciously, make way for newer techniques. Such shifts are neither rare, nor unique. If we look at human history alone, we have made distinct mainstream migrations from racial memory to oral tradition to myth to semi-mythical histories before attempting a journalistic method. The others tools and techniques share space with our present and favoured lenses, but the primacy shifts. Perhaps some of the present state of political delirium rests on the inherent conflict between the contemporary individuals increased ability to view and process multiple threads of information, versus the standard political rhetorics which try to build on one, two, or a small number of things as political fulcrums. The Marxists, for example, consider the human being to be the motors of history, the neoliberals consider the markets to be motors of history, and so on so forth. The inherent problem with this approach is that one is sometimes so heavily invested in a perspective that all other perspectives are rejected without adequate inspection. In addition, reductionist techniques alone work well to solve a small piece of a puzzle, but that only makes sense in a bigger context. Reductionism is fundamentally important to science, and while it retains its significance, the mixing of a reductionist angle to anything, especially soft subjects, must always be balanced with context to avoid information loss and to prevent distortion of a big worldview around only one grain about which the observer senses some solidity. The postmodern approach to looking at politics rejects absolutes, and while that is a parallel current, it is not a popular way of study and analyses, and in addition, it also fails to correct for a holistic framework by missing out on other factors outside the human agency. Any study of other aspects like biology, environment, physics, statistics, and so on are usually left outside the domain of history and political science, and is often only adopted when one looks to prop or corroborate an opinion or a conclusion which were reached at separately, with much less rigour. This is aggravated as each discipline is now hyperspecialized, and one can no longer have true polymaths within the operating definitions of what a human being is today. As data expands, so should the repertoire of analytical tools. Perhaps now we are at a situation where we can in fact begin to realistically allow data to guide our opinions, and not the other way around. --x-- To this effect, I reject traditional landscapes and use my own stagegated way of looking at anything. It has helped me feel my way through the otherwise vast world with a little more confidence. The contents of each of the buckets are flexible, while the buckets themselves are relatively fixed spaces to create workable boundaries. 1. Tattva: The first stage is the hypothesis. This is where one is free to draw from any number of traditions, colour them with their own slant and understanding, set out a taxonomy and goal, and so on. This phases of defining the worldview and the problem, if made explicit, creates a stage for civil discussion and debate, since it emphasizes the fact that one must have a well-defined worldview, rather than what the worldview should be. This is the space where one is free to decondition ones view and look at everything again, as if new, perhaps held up only with a thin framework of hard science. This is perhaps the point where a heavy premium should be placed, because this will indeed guide everything in ones own life and work, and therefore, everything that the human agency can do to determine the course of future events. 2. Dharma: With a clear working hypothesis of the world and the self, one can ascribe to themselves a role or understand ones duty towards the world. This helps in understanding that each has a different role to play, and these roles can only be voluntarily accepted and not forced. Again, the emphasis is that there should be a dharma, not the dharma itself. 3. Neeti: In the view of a dharma guiding one through the inner or social spaces, one is now more equipped to set rules of engagement. These rules are not only different from person to person, but also internally different, guided by the context set by tattva and the role set by dharma. 4. Karma: With a functional worldview, an understanding of ones role, and a protocol for engagement, one is now free to act the best one can under realistic constraints. This praxis is critical. It is moment of test for all that we were, for what we have become, and for what we are becoming. --x-- This framework does not itself resolve the conflicts of ontology or semiotics, nor does it provide a guide on how best to resolve them. However, it provides clear, neutral grounds on which one can stand and debate without difficulties of one level of engagement bleeding into others, thus preventing the creation of isolated, militant thought that fetishizes one thing or the other.
Posted on: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 06:28:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015