Taboo - Quareness Series 120th "Lecture".
It may seem odd that the only thing we can really be certain of in this life is change...
and that the nature/type of any future change is necessarily uncertain in itself. But it seems odder still that people mostly tend to think and behave as if most things are certain...until some totally unexpected circumstance/occurrence arises. You have to wonder if perhaps some strange psychological quirk is at play here?
Thinking about this has led me to wonder about what seems to be quite a widely spread peculiar phenomenon involving an automatic, deeply ingrained refusal to acknowledge that something contradictory to what we might consider "normal" (and therefore unacceptable to our worldview) could possibly exist, no matter what the
evidence shows. With this type of mentality, any "undesirable" subject can acquire a taboo status which most people would tend to shy away from engaging with or even discussing.
The late renowned astronomer Dr. J. Allen Hynek who was the main public face of the US Air Force's 1951-1970 Project Blue Book (established to investigate the UFO question) and who over time became disillusioned with the lack of any real interest in the matter at official levels, postulated that where there's an inability to accept
something so revolutionary (e.g. the existence of such "inconceivable" crafts), our psyche shuts the whole thing out. As he put it...the impossible reality "overheats the human mental circuits and blows the fuses in a protective mechanism for the mind...
When a collective breaking point is reached, the mind must openly disregard the patent evidence of the senses. It can no longer encompass such evidence within its normal borders." He concluded that due to the totally bizarre, shocking and even traumatic nature of such an event, there is no energy for action, as if everyone was operating on a dead battery. And this dynamic can affect groups of people as a whole, with not even those in charge exempt from its numbing effects..."With apathy goes the ability to accept even the most inane explanations - anything whatever - to stave off the necessity to think about the unthinkable."
Given the increasing proliferation of abuse/use of socalled "debunking" in today's world, this dynamic seems to have spread far wider than say UFO or Crop Circle questions e.g. "alternative medicine", "political correctness", "scientific consensus", etc. The point here is not that any "non official" view may be correct or otherwise, but
rather that the debunking more often than not seems to be solely aimed at dismissing every aspect of the target's case. And this approach inevitably misses the perhaps quite small portion that may in fact be genuine cases e.g. the 5%-10% of UFO sightings or those few Crop Circles that have not been conventionally explained. There's also the matter of the value of our giving some open-minded thought to what might prove true in the future e.g. could UFOs involve say time travel back from the future or Crop Circle formations encompass some form of "yet to be discovered" electromagnetic or sound frequency deployment as ways of explaining how the limitations of our currently known laws of physics seem not to apply in such cases? Sadly the routinely fast dismissing/ridiculing approach tends to shut down (or drive underground) any further consideration/investigation...to the detriment of growing our public knowledge.
To divert a little here may I point out that scientific research is usually taken as based on the relationship between observed nature and a representation of this reality, formulated by a theory in mathematical language. However, in quantum mechanics the world of particles does not appear to be bound by the strict determinism of classical physics i.e. currently we only know how to predict the probability of an occurrence among a range of possibilities. Unless there are some yet-to-be-discovered numbers beyond mass, charge and spin that physicists use to describe particles, it seems there is indeed an existing reality that transcends our understanding i.e. we cannot know everything about the world of the infinitely small. Indeed imagining an underlying law is vital for physicists looking at disparate observations...sometimes several theoretical models may compete to explain a phenomenon and it's only then that logic takes over again.
We can reasonably infer that the progress of ideas springs from what we call intuition...a kinda jump in knowledge that goes beyond pure rationality where the line between objective and subjective is no longer completely solid. In sorta scientific jargon we could say that thoughts come from neurons under the effect of electromagnetic impulses (as if there was a short circuit between cells) where chance is at work. Intuition may pop up randomly, but this randomness is constrained by each individual’s experience, culture and knowledge. It would appear that our physics (as we know it Jim) is limited to describing how nature reacts in given circumstances and that the essential randomness of quantum theory shows that total understanding is not available to us. Nevertheless it looks like randomness is what makes intuition possible and thereby allows for creative processes in both science and art.
It would seem that the main underlying driver of this drive for the "comfort" of certainty is one of fear, in particular a widespread fear of the unknown. The current covid-19 crisis provides a striking example of this in that almost all attempts to address the problem by so many governmental and medical authorities appear grounded in the fear of losing control over an "unknown" virus. Indeed most of humanity seems (at least so far) to have quite willingly endorsed this "anxiety inducing" approach. Just a short time ago one would have risked being regarded as "cracked" for suggesting that a large portion of the world would/should go into "protective lockdown" for an
extended period of time...and yet it seems being "cracked" is quite a deal more widespread than was thought.
As the world slowly emerges from this "fear cocoon" (as it inevitably will) a more balanced view of what honours human welfare may hopefully evolve...in particular a greater appreciation that the basic drivers of our species condition are mutually "opposites". Despite "surface level" appearances, love and fear cannot really happily
coexist and our long term survival chances will likely depend upon our choosing wisely between these orientations. As the best of us have always told us...choose inclusive love and we live (forever)...choose divisive fear and we die (forever).
Some folk work for basic needs
To satisfy with words and deeds
The narrow limits of their creeds.
Others work to be perceived
High profile must be achieved
With spotlight framing pride and need.
Some folk work from day to day
And never let their thoughts astray
To soar along the pilgrim's way.
Others live to face each day
With image honed in every way
To fit their view of what holds sway.
Such attitudes may not succeed
In meeting mankind's future need.
Sean.
Dean of Quareness.
June, 2020.