Once upon a time, it was thought that the Earth was flat.
Before Galileo, the Earth was considered to be the center of the universe.
Little more than 100 years ago, the size of our known universe was limited to our galaxy. (Before Harlow Shapley, the other galaxies were thought to reside within our own galaxy.)
More recently, the theory of tectonic plates, by which the continents were formed into their current state, was considered pseudoscience.
Much that we accept as fact today, when it was first proposed, was met with scepticism by many, and was strongly challenged by those who held the accepted prior world view.
As humankind moves beyond the boundaries of our planet Earth, one wonders what new understanding will be generated by what we find.
Some new fields of endeavor to consider that might challenge our current views range from the cosmological (The new James Webb Space Telescope) to the subtle differences encountered in different gravity fields (Zero or variable G T’ai Chi?), and encompassing such varied and growing fields as those defining Life, Intelligence, Consciousness, and Communication, beyond our home environment.
My interest in this process, whatever the application, is to facilitate communication between differing sides, with both sides not only listening to, but also trying to see and understand any alternative postures, in order to perhaps gain anything of value from them. Both our democracy and our use of the scientific method might benefit from this.
Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis
The Law of Three, or the Dialectic method, suggests that by beginning with a thesis, and contrasting with an antithesis, one might benefit in many ways from any synthesis that might present itself.
(This, coupled with the law of Harmonics, The Law of Seven, might suggest the possibility of Generalization of the principles involved so that they might be applied in other areas and perhaps other scales.)
Unfortunately, particularly in the political arena, we sometimes get stuck before getting past the thesis - antithesis stage, mainly because of the extreme polarization often encountered due to attachment to a particular result.
We might be able to see this more objectively in the scientific arena, which abounds with many historical cases within which one may find some possibilities for solutions. This might be useful in both the scientific and political arenas.
These thoughts might suggest some paths towards an alternative wherever extremely counterproductive or dysfunctional highly polarized situations are encountered.
They are offered here to possibly help in many arenas of discourse, be they personal, political, or ideational in nature.
With each passing day the world seems to be getting smaller, as the stakes grow larger and more global.
Hopefully all of us, with all our differing views, may all find enough common ground to work out solutions and all live on this planet together.
Namaste,
Daniel
