The Empirical Manifesto

One of the definitions of imagination is the ability to face and resolve difficulties. Which makes sense given imagination is an integral component of the learning process, from which higher-order thinking skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are subsumed - the essential building blocks of critical thinking. More important however, imagination helps provide meaning to experience and understanding to knowledge; it is a fundamental faculty through which people make sense of the world.^*


Think about that for a moment - if you cannot imagine - you will likely, more often that not, be surprised, confused, or baffled about everyday events which occur around you that fall outside normal routine. In essence, you may perceive no reason behind something you experienced. Imagination "is the ability of forming new images and sensations when they are not perceived through sight, hearing, or other senses."^*


I am rarely surprised in part, I believe, due to my automatic and constant scenario-running; following potential logical conclusions in an array of possible variables and outcomes. "When facing a situation, `I can't believe this is happening` is not an acceptable answer for a workable solution. Furthermore, why not? We are each responsible for maintaining a general understanding of causality and the role we play in it, or at least the recognition that we could all be faced with situations in which we were not prepared. It would be foolish to coast through life thinking things would never change. The fact that we weren't expecting it is not a sustainable end-game when repeated ad nauseum."^*


Constructivism is a learning theory which promotes the ways people create meaning of the world around them by way of a series of individual constructs - different types of filters we choose to place over our realities for the purposes of comprehension. Rounding back to higher-order thinking, one subset, social constructivism, helps teach in part how to provide multiple representations of reality, avoid oversimplification by representing the complexity of the real world, and encourages thoughtful reflection on experiences in order to promote understanding.


The fact that our imagination is fueled in part by our perceptions skirts the frightening waters of belief, covered in exacting detail here. Frightening only if we are unable to process, absorb and apply new knowledge which may conflict with what we think we know - how we expect the world to be, when in fact it may behave differently at times leading to the surprise, confusion or bafflement above. Wikipedia says that imagination differs from belief because belief "endeavors to conform to the subject's experienced conditions or faith in the possibility of those conditions; whereas imagination as such is specifically free." Whatever the outer circumstances, I am ever perceiving inner pattern-forms and using real-world materials to operationalize them. Others may see what is and wonder why; I see what might be and say "Why not?!" Imagination coupled with belief.


Higher-ordered thinking isn't for everyone. Challenging fixed beliefs takes not only courage, but a modicum of comprehension and self-awareness, two things I've been hard-pressed to discover in the general population - everyone thinks they're open-minded...except for that one thing.

I apply, or attempt to apply, the Nash Equilibrium to my everyday life, in every interaction. Its become a sort of philosophy for me. "Altruistic objectivism" if you will, as I don't subscribe wholly to any singular thread of philosophical debate - I don't have to - the best of many in an ever evolving comprehension of life far outweighs the limits imposed upon any single ideal.

Hiroshi Mikitani, CEO of Rakuten Inc. recently posted,

There is no such thing as common sense.

In fact, the only real truth in business is that all ideas are relative. Every manner of thinking has some strong points and some weak points. Nothing is ever set in stone. This is the nature of our world.

What’s important, therefore, is to progress forward while constantly adapting to new situations...Nothing is ever finished or fixed. Therefore, no one can ever declare his or her idea absolutely right. There is no absolute. Only the evolution of ideas.

Be suspicious of common sense and those who cite it to convince you to avoid progress. Do not fear going against common sense. Ideas evolve while being constantly adapted.

It dawned on me quite suddenly that Nash's equilibrium is, in essence, a practical application of Lawrence Kohlberg's third-tier of his Development of Moral Reasoning. Simply pointing out that learning to balance your own needs along with the needs of others as a postconventional value can be seemingly elusive and without form, but when coupled with making one's best response to the actions of the other players who are also [rationally] vested in a holistic solution both individually and collectively, then you have a workable, teachable, repeatable theory.

Adam Smith said the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself, right? That's what he said, right? Incomplete. Incomplete! Because the best result would come from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself AND the group. Governing dynamics, gentlemen, governing dynamics. Adam Smith, was wrong!

The vernacular used here gave me pause to additionally consider the practical application of postconventional values in accordance with integrative bargaining over compromise; which at first glance utilizes the Nash principle, leading me to believe all conflict can be resolved through those who practice postconventional behavior. Again, rationality is stressed, for any sub-optimal decision by a "player" ends up hurting everyone, including themselves, in order to "win." When winning in the game of life is perceived as everyone finishing in first place over any single individual, our own personal accomplishment will mean that much more, and that's an ideology I can support. Fulfillment can only be reached by giving of oneself. It will never, ever come, by individual "winning."

Concisely, the Nash Equilibrium is a practical application of Kohlberg's postconventional values in the Development of Moral Reasoning which is integral to conflict resolution.

I know, spirituality to you is a load of mumbo jumbo, but it does help people find peace with themselves. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about shedding yourself of guilt, of anger, of ill-feeling, of anything that makes you feel shame. And then you can focus all of your energy on ascending. I don't know what you truly believe about yourself. For all I know, you use your intelligence to compensate, to make yourself feel better for other things you think you may lack - I don't know. But maybe you could start reading your own mind? ~ Dr. Elizabeth Weir, Stargate: Atlantis [to Rodney McKay after he triggered an Ancient device which increased his cerebral activity and allowed him to read minds] (The Tao of Rodney)

In the not insubstantial task of attempting to catalog not only my own behavior, actions, intents and motivations but those same concepts in other key players, I have not only run across an old pet peeve, but have several times found myself spewing the same pet peeve I despise in others! I ask you, how is that even possible? Complexity. Given the complex nature of intertwined intellectual and emotional tendrils, separating them has not been a simple task. And this gives rise to sloppy secondary control mechanisms when wholly focused on completely draining primary mental activities.


That finally answered, I required a definition for this peculiar occurrence that I was now falling prey to myself. To set some ground rules, why yes pulling this plank from my own eye first gives me jesus-authority to remove the speck from yours! Additionally (and more secularly) since I don't live in a glass house that clearly affords me the freedom to throw rocks. Hey, I didn't make these parables up, I'm simply following them. That being said, let's discuss (y)our shortcomings!


So I have this aversion to substantiated wistfulness, with a side of expectation. Its complicated. Anyway, while I myself was prone to deep pining during the Romantic Period of my life, I've grown quite accustomed to the whirlwind events of what I like to call, "life" and the many changes it brings. And I assume that everyone learns about the same lessons about life that I do, and that if they haven't yet, an explanation of that lesson should be sufficient. Not sufficient enough for it to replace their actual experience, but enough to understand where I'm coming from. They don't have to live their life the way I live mine, but I do expect them to be able to comprehend my point of view as I attempt to comprehend theirs. So far so good?


Right. So my theory attempts to minimize that woe-is-me feeling of melancholy when you are aware of the events surrounding its conception. Surely by understanding the steps which precipitated the (potential) loss you wouldn't be as prone to its influence. Or would you? If the answer is yes, we're discussing grief and while these helpful tidbits may assist in accelerating the process, it won't supplant it. But if we're not - if we're just talking disappointment, or failed expectation - then knowing the *why* ought to be enough to offset that, right?


I was working on another project today and I required an online English-to-Latin translator. I pulled up the first two which hit on google and after I put in my word, but before I hit "Translate" I double-checked that it was set to English --> Latin. It was, and I proceeded. Much to my dismay it gave me a dictionary definition instead of translating it, and I noticed it had somehow flipped to Latin --> English. I sighed heavily and opened the other tab. It did the same thing! Curious, I looked up the word to discover its etymology - yep, you guys are way ahead of me - it was a latin word already. (And because codekitten is going to ask, the word was quiesce.) Anyway, it dawned on me^* that perhaps I was doing that in r/l too? Trying to define things which already were, as I understand them, self-defined. I don't have to explain myself to anyone but myself, and I'm finding that the most challenging of all.

---

* - What photogoot would call one of my Water Cooler Moments.

Compassion isn't a political agenda item. Peace and conservationism aren't Leftist ideas, yet modern-day pundits decry it as a Socialist movement - something which threatens to tear the fabric of Democracy from our fingertips. Mention "giving" or "helping" or "recycling" and young Conservatives immediately close their minds to the liberal propaganda which is sure to follow, when in fact its these very ideas - peace, love, giving - that all people, regardless of political alignment, strive for and promote every single day. Conservatives tend to just not want it legislated. That's different than not giving.

Compassion is not a political weapon to be wielded. Its not to be denied, nor assigned to any group of people. Its a universal label, to be applied freely by all. Where then lies the stigma?

The problem isn't necessarily the Right and Left Wing talk show hosts equally stewing feverishly in their spun tales - for anyone with any level of maturity will soon come to realize neither camp is ever completely honest. In fact the very basis of that hosts existence, no matter which side they're on, is to accuse the other side of doing it wrong. My conservative friends don't listen to Olbermann, and my liberal friends don't listen to Rush. Unless its to get inflamed about something - because its the perfect environment for that; An emotional powderkeg. They don't listen to their respective personalities out of anything more than confirmation. Justification for their thoughts and actions.

No, the problem (as always) is people. People who are too busy lining up to be labeled to listen to what's being said. I am by no means advocating "vote for the person instead of the party" rather, I'm asking everyone to just take a step back from politics for a moment and consider the harm its doing to our opinions of one another by way of these labels, and the part you're playing through the propagation of this myth - the myth that your politics or religions are making this world a better place.

If you really wanted to make the world a better place, you'd lay down your political party and your religion and you would follow the ethic of reciprocity: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I don't follow this advice more than when I'm behind the wheel of my car. I treat everyone how I wish I were treated, and my short commute is filled with the happy thoughts of a nation of drivers who aren't rude, careless, ignorant, angry, or stupid. Hands down its one of the more difficult things I do during the course of my day because it hurts my soul that most people simply don't care.

These same people, they've labeled themselves and call themselves by any number of names: Republican, Christian, Democrat, atheist, liberal, conservative...and they all pride themselves on being more open-minded than those who disagree with them. How wonderfully flawed.

Truly living by treating others as you yourself would like to be treated would culminate in a whole host of other little problems given our diverse nature, but it would be a damn fine start to a better world.

All of them, better worlds.