This is a declaration of war. A declaration of war on the boundaries of free think. For years now, I’ve been bound by the bonds of an archaic monolithic structure of thought. Shaped and built by the experiences of my predecessors. Contained within a container of my own experiences, associations and prejudices.
That structure of boundaries has a name. A name I have yet to define. This structure of boundaries is often in opposition to practical thought. Practical thought should be based on the current situation at hand and the future needs that the situation and objectives combine to generate.
The following is the first of a series in which I seek to define the thought war as it emerges.
Part I - An analysis of the system of decision making
While I remain within this boundary, there can be no justified criticism of another person’s perception or thoughts. For as long as I cannot define the problems with my own thought structure, how can I rely upon that same thought structure to generate the impulse, thoughts and reasons which are essential for dealing with an external thought structure?
However, just as no observer within a system can observe the entire system (due to the fact that by being within the system, his presence and actions of observation will generate change a change in the system at the instant that his action of observation takes place.), my mind cannot comprehend itself in totality. This is an important point, for if the mind cannot be comprehended in full, then the thought processes and the results of their interactions will remain uncertain to a degree. This has the trickle down effect that further actions without an awareness of their effects will further future observations. Observations which are incorrect will then give rise to an inaccurate situational picture. As such, even if the mechanism for interplay between factors within the situational picture are ideal, the resulting decision from the situational picture will fail to be ideal. More often than not however, the mechanisms for interplay themselves are evolutionary and influenced by the long term behavior of the system. Hence it is rare that these mechanisms are ideal to a totally new situation. This then introduces further bias into the systemic decision making.
That structure of boundaries has a name. A name I have yet to define. This structure of boundaries is often in opposition to practical thought. Practical thought should be based on the current situation at hand and the future needs that the situation and objectives combine to generate.
The following is the first of a series in which I seek to define the thought war as it emerges.
Part I - An analysis of the system of decision making
While I remain within this boundary, there can be no justified criticism of another person’s perception or thoughts. For as long as I cannot define the problems with my own thought structure, how can I rely upon that same thought structure to generate the impulse, thoughts and reasons which are essential for dealing with an external thought structure?
However, just as no observer within a system can observe the entire system (due to the fact that by being within the system, his presence and actions of observation will generate change a change in the system at the instant that his action of observation takes place.), my mind cannot comprehend itself in totality. This is an important point, for if the mind cannot be comprehended in full, then the thought processes and the results of their interactions will remain uncertain to a degree. This has the trickle down effect that further actions without an awareness of their effects will further future observations. Observations which are incorrect will then give rise to an inaccurate situational picture. As such, even if the mechanism for interplay between factors within the situational picture are ideal, the resulting decision from the situational picture will fail to be ideal. More often than not however, the mechanisms for interplay themselves are evolutionary and influenced by the long term behavior of the system. Hence it is rare that these mechanisms are ideal to a totally new situation. This then introduces further bias into the systemic decision making.
No comments:
Post a Comment