"The axioms of causality are being shaken to their foundations: we know now that what we term natural laws are merely statistical truths and thus must necessarily allow for exceptions. We have not sufficiently taken into account as yet that we need the laboratory with its incisive restrictions in order to demonstrate the invariable validity of natural law. If we leave things to nature, we see a very different picture: every process is partially or totally interfered with by chance, so much so that under natural circumstances a course of events absolutely conforming to specific laws is almost an exception."
Carl G Jung
From the Preface to The I Ching or Book of Changes
The Richard Wilhelm Translation rendered into English by Cary F. Baynes
The Richard Wilhelm Translation rendered into English by Cary F. Baynes
Consider for a moment the smartest person that you know.
Most likely, that person has a couple of letters tacked discreetly at the end of their name and an impressive expertise in one or two areas. If they are really talented, their brains can range out into two or three other areas but with a corresponding loss of "knowitalliveness".
But we have literally thousands of fields of endeavor now, so the one or two areas where they know things is looking kinda threadbare. Now I realize that someone reading this is going to pipe up with the "but all things are connected".
Thus begins this screed. What level of interconnectedness is possible for a bunch of apes with opposable thumbs and an unfortunate tendency toward being curious? Even if we use the sterility of the laboratory and the bright focus of the scientific method, just how close can we come to an understanding of an entire process?
So we come back in a circle to the smart guy. Minds in general do process data well on an individual datum basis. Set up an experiment and do "A" to "B" then wait for a bit and write down what happens. Nice and easy, fully understandable. But then that damn need for reproducibility comes in and smartperson repeats the process a couple of times (the more the better) and sees if things stay the same. This is where the trouble starts.
Outliers crop up after a bunch of tries. Some of them can be ascribed to mistakes made by the smartperson or his designated flunkies, but sure as sure, some of them just sit there, eliciting awkward silence and nerdy frustration.
This is where we sit right now. The outliers are starting to crop up in serious way. We have been running experiments like "how many cars can we sell" and "how much oil can we drill" and "how much stuff can we stuff into the blue sky"?
For a long time following WWII, we were getting solely "good" results and the model worked. About 1972 the outliers began cropping up and a bunch of rogue statisticians from the club of Rome pointed out that the good times would not last.
So, as a former smartperson, I am now trying to change the way that I look at things. I think that the first step it to stop looking at the data the way that I always have. I have always looked at data as the relationship between two physical things. May, just maybe another way to look at it is to try and untangle the web of interdependency that lies in the gaps and shadows of different physical manifestations.
Addendum
Most likely, that person has a couple of letters tacked discreetly at the end of their name and an impressive expertise in one or two areas. If they are really talented, their brains can range out into two or three other areas but with a corresponding loss of "knowitalliveness".
But we have literally thousands of fields of endeavor now, so the one or two areas where they know things is looking kinda threadbare. Now I realize that someone reading this is going to pipe up with the "but all things are connected".
Thus begins this screed. What level of interconnectedness is possible for a bunch of apes with opposable thumbs and an unfortunate tendency toward being curious? Even if we use the sterility of the laboratory and the bright focus of the scientific method, just how close can we come to an understanding of an entire process?
So we come back in a circle to the smart guy. Minds in general do process data well on an individual datum basis. Set up an experiment and do "A" to "B" then wait for a bit and write down what happens. Nice and easy, fully understandable. But then that damn need for reproducibility comes in and smartperson repeats the process a couple of times (the more the better) and sees if things stay the same. This is where the trouble starts.
Outliers crop up after a bunch of tries. Some of them can be ascribed to mistakes made by the smartperson or his designated flunkies, but sure as sure, some of them just sit there, eliciting awkward silence and nerdy frustration.
This is where we sit right now. The outliers are starting to crop up in serious way. We have been running experiments like "how many cars can we sell" and "how much oil can we drill" and "how much stuff can we stuff into the blue sky"?
For a long time following WWII, we were getting solely "good" results and the model worked. About 1972 the outliers began cropping up and a bunch of rogue statisticians from the club of Rome pointed out that the good times would not last.
So, as a former smartperson, I am now trying to change the way that I look at things. I think that the first step it to stop looking at the data the way that I always have. I have always looked at data as the relationship between two physical things. May, just maybe another way to look at it is to try and untangle the web of interdependency that lies in the gaps and shadows of different physical manifestations.
Addendum
I am drawn to the idea of Odin/Wotan as a God. Now, before you go and get all hinkey on me, I don't want the Wotan of Jung's great essay, the Wotan of whacked out NeoNazi's. I am looking at the wanderer and searcher for knowledge. I kinda feel comfortable yet slightly nervous about the idea. I am going to have to listen patiently and keep an eye on him. He doesn't appear to be the God with my best interests at heart. He has bigger fish to fry but if I pay attention, he might offer more than he takes.
When you think about it, that might be the right way to approach a God.
But I have no idea of how he is going to feel about the I Ching thing. I wonder if anyone would be offended if I worked it into the Seidr?
No comments:
Post a Comment