 |
|
A Case for Narrow-Mindedness? |
|
"The inability to keep more than one thing in mind at a time is
a natural human limitation." - James Kwak
The quote was taken from the note below which discusses the
debt problem as a symptom of "one thing in mind at a time..."
syndrome.
I was unsure of what to entitle this particular TPOV, but
there is one in here somewhere and let's see if I can make it
clear enough.
Fractionalization is natural because is a way of "sorting"
reality from all the possibilities, and then focusing on that
which matters...usually to each of us.
We "fracture" reality in order to do that--naturally as the
author states--we need to limit what is on our minds.
Susan Cook-Greuter made a slide for my use once that I posted
as part of my stories I did some time back, which basically
states that as one's ego complexity becomes more complex, one
does not necessarily become happier.
Most likely this is due to lower limits on reality and having
a larger perspective on things which devoid of fracture become
too complex to solve, or even to grok.
So we prefer to limit--naturally we are inborn with filters
which create narrow minds--our perspectives and the short
piece below by the quote's author is part of the story of how
our narrow-mindedness leads us into larger and larger debt.
The question is...is that a necessary outcome?
Do we have to remain subject to the case of our
narrow-mindedness?
I suspect that the answer is yes, and no.
Yes, in that it's probably not a bad idea to limit most of
reality--to that which matters.
No, in that what matters to one, might be the cross others
have to bear and this is the rub, no pun intended.
My ideas @F-L-O-W had to do with a notion that while we could
and would remain narrow-minded (relatively we can't not be),
that we would also put systems in place that absolved us of
some need to be much more that most of us can't anyway...it's
degrees only when you really get down to how narrow-minded we
are anyway, even the smartest is dumb and fractionalized
relatively speaking.
Helpful Hint: There I think the case for
narrow-mindedness is a good one, yet the system needs to
remember that we are and do something to augment what is
natural design--fractionalization.
Action Step: The question to contemplate for
me is can we remain naturally in a system that has a lot of
benefits become negative as complexity accelerates, or, can we
know we are narrow and then design systems which keep the
negative impact from multiplying by being so?
My sense is that it is possible and that is your action step.
Not necessarily to become less fractional, but to part of
systems which honor fractionalization but offset it with
humane systems of differentiation and integration.
We can't stop adhering to what important to us, but have to
realize the compounded effect of what is good for us may not
be good for us over time, and in other realities. |
© Generati |
|
