The third tenet of Distilled Harmony is Distill Complexity. I do not, at least have not, written about it often because, well because it’s complicated. However recent experiences with “news stories” seemingly arising on different planets force me to address this oft neglected tenet. So be patient with this post. Take notes, draw diagrams. Walk around, talk back. OK. Here we go.
In order to distill complexity so as to arrive at a clearer, more accurate, more precise understanding of any issues under consideration in order to proceed wisely as individuals, or as society, we need first be able to grasp the nature of, and the details that define, the complexity. I said it was complicated! Sadly, I am becoming convinced that if such a definition has not already slipped through our fingers, it is in imminent danger of doing so.
The optimistic view of the Information Age is that we have at our command all the information necessary to solve humanity’s challenges. A more pessimistic take is that there is so much information available that one can construct, and support, virtually any version of “truth.” The complexity, rather than being the raw material from which we can distill truth, becomes a vast array of data points from which we can distill whichever version of truth fits best with our personal perspective, beliefs, attitudes and values.
Presented with an assertion, position or policy, any well-trained graduate of our universities, or post graduate schools of law, medicine, or business, - or perhaps a facile high school student - needs only access to any of a variety of today’s powerful search engines to create a persuasive, well-documented refutation of that assertion, position or policy. And yes, I realize that one obvious conclusion of this train of thought is that a couple of disconcerting casualties of the Information Age may be reality and truth.
Alternatives to that depressing conclusion may lie in paying close attention to the notion that there are differences among the related concepts of information, knowledge and wisdom. Briefly:
Information is the Dragnet, Joe Friday, view of the world. (For those of you younger than, oh, say 65, Dragnet was a TV detective show that ran from 1951 - 1959. Joe Friday, the head detective would alway confront a witness, usually a woman, with the phase, “Just the facts, m’am. Just give us the facts.” Apparently still available via Sling TV.) Hence, information is “just the facts” - the data.
Knowledge is the process by which we assemble those facts into logical, cohesive, “if - then” statements about the world we live in; if I/we do this, then this will be the result. Knowledge is knowing how the world works.
Wisdom is choosing which flavor of knowledge we put in place as individuals, societies, nations to most benefit those individuals, societies and nations.
To do that, to determine what you consider “the most beneficial knowledge narrative,” one must clarify one’s own beliefs, attitudes and values. A word of warning here. I suggest that you do make a list of your core beliefs, attitudes and values. But make sure that each item on your list begins with “I,” not we. “I” believe so and so. “I“ value such and such. “We” statements tend to reflect adherence to a group norm. Which is often OK, but your list needs to be personal and need not always mirror the norms of any group to which you belong. Then, make your list, check it twice or thrice to see if it really does reflect your intellectual and emotional core concepts.
The objective, obviously, is to personally live according to the narrative most consistent with those core concepts. (My “Foster Harmony, Enable Beauty, Distill Complexity, Oppose Harm.”) The alternative is to accept the psychic whiplash that accompanies the dissonance and stress made possible by the constant clash of competing versions of existence residing in the overwhelming stream of data that underlies the Information Age.
In conclusion, it is only responsible to consider one’s inevitable interactions with those adhering to alternative narratives. We have been conditioned to consider “fight or flight” as our primary choices. But while being the source of the current reportage in both main stream and fringe media, fight or flight are not the only options. Perhaps it is time we all gave more credence to the idea of observe, consider, and tolerate. Contrary to the “fight or flight” perspective, tolerance is not a bad thing. Tolerance is not an indication of weakness. Perhaps tolerance is the flavor of wisdom that can most benefit us all. Tolerance is merely an acknowledgement and acceptance of difference. Something we could all use in these new, but troubled, times.
.
lovely post
ReplyDelete