Oct 08 24
To believe in a linear (unilateral) point of view is irresponsible and selfish.
To act on a linear (unilateral) point of view is irresponsible and something akin to wickedness.
To have acted in a manner informed mainly by a linear (unilateral) point of view (as we all have) and not take pains to integrate the mistake (with others and yourself) is grotesque.
Also, confidence is meretricious, pedant-ism is obfuscation, sanctimony is disgusting, and topicality is transcendentally reductionist.
A thoroughly exhaustive (almost inarguable) exposition of the above points can be found in this list of cognitive biases.
The list is quite sobering, and necessary exposure (we think) in times like these where the greed of the robber barons of digital media (both news and social) is turning us all into simplistic, wildly un-self-critical, gossipy, tackily ostentatious, pretentiously faux-intellectual, narcissistic goblins only capable of linear, unilateral and binary thinking (a la 👍👎 + endless reams of pointless, un-researched, mock-authoritative, provincially anecdotal comments — like everyone’s 15 minutes of fame is spread out imperceptibly over a lifetime 🙃).
(It’s also worth saying that “times like these” is meant genuinely, that is, these are wonky times in a long string of wonky times — in Flaubert’s writing there’s all sorts of commentary on the rise and shitty effect of newspapers, as well, the broad adoption of the printing press led to the protestant reformation and that whole mess, the Chicxulub asteroid created some substantially wonky times as well, etc., etc., etc. etc. ...)
If reading the list of cognitive biases (even if only a little bit) one’s reaction is “I don’t make these types of errors” that is serious cause for concern — as everyone makes these types of misapprehensions all of the time (whether political, metaphysical or straight sense data type conceptions). Case in point, if one’s primary mode while reading this brief text, is simply to try to sort the writer, with rigidity, into a narrow, dichotomous category (ignoring all partials, overtones and subtleties that exist herein) that person is likely exhibiting one or all of the following cognitive biases (the False Dichotomy Bias and/or the Ingroup-Outgroup Bias and/or the Selective Perception Bias and/or Attentional Bias).
As well if one doesn’t try and at least attempt to bracket out [in the Husserlian phenomenological sense] and engage the (oft mentioned here) late work of Turing on reaction-diffusion as an underpinning of the fascinating/surprising/full-width causality of formation (whether tangible or mental) — that is, if one doesn’t try to constantly and seriously attempt to scrape the barnacles of stupidity off of the hull of their outlook, such is a terrible way to traverse life.
What should be foregrounded is the Pursuit (writ large) of unfeigned conciliation with all objects, animals, histories and with as many perspectives as an individual mind can handle.
To act on a linear (unilateral) point of view is irresponsible and something akin to wickedness.
To have acted in a manner informed mainly by a linear (unilateral) point of view (as we all have) and not take pains to integrate the mistake (with others and yourself) is grotesque.
Also, confidence is meretricious, pedant-ism is obfuscation, sanctimony is disgusting, and topicality is transcendentally reductionist.
A thoroughly exhaustive (almost inarguable) exposition of the above points can be found in this list of cognitive biases.
The list is quite sobering, and necessary exposure (we think) in times like these where the greed of the robber barons of digital media (both news and social) is turning us all into simplistic, wildly un-self-critical, gossipy, tackily ostentatious, pretentiously faux-intellectual, narcissistic goblins only capable of linear, unilateral and binary thinking (a la 👍👎 + endless reams of pointless, un-researched, mock-authoritative, provincially anecdotal comments — like everyone’s 15 minutes of fame is spread out imperceptibly over a lifetime 🙃).
(It’s also worth saying that “times like these” is meant genuinely, that is, these are wonky times in a long string of wonky times — in Flaubert’s writing there’s all sorts of commentary on the rise and shitty effect of newspapers, as well, the broad adoption of the printing press led to the protestant reformation and that whole mess, the Chicxulub asteroid created some substantially wonky times as well, etc., etc., etc. etc. ...)
If reading the list of cognitive biases (even if only a little bit) one’s reaction is “I don’t make these types of errors” that is serious cause for concern — as everyone makes these types of misapprehensions all of the time (whether political, metaphysical or straight sense data type conceptions). Case in point, if one’s primary mode while reading this brief text, is simply to try to sort the writer, with rigidity, into a narrow, dichotomous category (ignoring all partials, overtones and subtleties that exist herein) that person is likely exhibiting one or all of the following cognitive biases (the False Dichotomy Bias and/or the Ingroup-Outgroup Bias and/or the Selective Perception Bias and/or Attentional Bias).
As well if one doesn’t try and at least attempt to bracket out [in the Husserlian phenomenological sense] and engage the (oft mentioned here) late work of Turing on reaction-diffusion as an underpinning of the fascinating/surprising/full-width causality of formation (whether tangible or mental) — that is, if one doesn’t try to constantly and seriously attempt to scrape the barnacles of stupidity off of the hull of their outlook, such is a terrible way to traverse life.
What should be foregrounded is the Pursuit (writ large) of unfeigned conciliation with all objects, animals, histories and with as many perspectives as an individual mind can handle.