Envision a cascade of Chagalian like angels in corporate
regalia descending upon infinite rows of corpulent insatiable mass appetites. The nest-like babies widen their mouths to
receive spoon fed portions of ‘junk science’ all the while humming along to mantras
in the form of lullabies.
The idea that the ‘denial industry’ is some other
entity that we must overcome or plead with for transparency is a passive
tendency masquerading as genuine concern.
In reality, there is no hard line
between us and them, we are the
denial industry; each individual, every one of us, matters as an instrument of
change, we are both means and ends.
(The above illustrates a reaction to an often frustrating issue; the absence of logic in everyday thinking - that thin line between knowledge and paralysis, between theory and practice, between 'what's it matter' and actual paradigm shifts in thinking, ethics and action Though the lines above seemingly condemn persons that embrace the ignorance defense, they actually represent an honest examination into what compels people to act contrary to how they know they ought to act. The idea is to empower all people and not alienate them through rhetoric. In this way perhaps more people may feel compelled to act with common sense and responsibility.)
We often use the argument from ignorance defense on vital issues that may involve compromise, or rethinking how we live our lives - creating a logic language barrier of sorts; we pretend not to understand the terms. This adaptive technique may be predicated on arrogance as Sebastian suggests. So what are some real life changes we can make to encourage all people (with the capacity) to embrace innate common sense and eschew 'junk science'?
(The above illustrates a reaction to an often frustrating issue; the absence of logic in everyday thinking - that thin line between knowledge and paralysis, between theory and practice, between 'what's it matter' and actual paradigm shifts in thinking, ethics and action Though the lines above seemingly condemn persons that embrace the ignorance defense, they actually represent an honest examination into what compels people to act contrary to how they know they ought to act. The idea is to empower all people and not alienate them through rhetoric. In this way perhaps more people may feel compelled to act with common sense and responsibility.)
We often use the argument from ignorance defense on vital issues that may involve compromise, or rethinking how we live our lives - creating a logic language barrier of sorts; we pretend not to understand the terms. This adaptive technique may be predicated on arrogance as Sebastian suggests. So what are some real life changes we can make to encourage all people (with the capacity) to embrace innate common sense and eschew 'junk science'?
No comments:
Post a Comment