something different .... again

This thread has been erased ... let's try again
______________________________________

associative or disassociative? ........ and you shake a little.

Why do people we assume to be top scientists publicly deny the implications of modern science, and promulgate intellectual dishonesty? e.g. We have astrophysicist George Smoot, leader of a US “major research” team saying, after selectively doctoring all the data ........... “Whatever caused the rapid expansion of the universe following the Big Bang--the same forces caused tiny ripples. Because if you try to do something too fast, you shake a little. God might be the designer.” ........ "It's like looking at God.  The order is so beautiful and the symmetry so beautiful that you think there is some design behind it." ........ "It is a mystical experience, like a religious experience," ........ "It really is like finding the driving mechanism for the universe, and isn't that what God is?"

So for as long as people have been sitting around camp fires at night and staring at the stars, they have wondered and sought reasons for the universe and their own existence. Some early people felt the land floated on an endless ocean, later changing this to the back of a giant turtle. Others added elephants, endless waterfalls, solar chariots, and the like, creating a logically consistent but completely incomprehensible monstrosity of a universe. Through time infact the major cosmological models have started as simple, observationally derived ones, but at some point, people it seems have stopped paying attention to the evidence and relied only on their minds to complete the vision. What was observationally consistent but associatively incomplete soon switches to a dissociative response with ones that are logically complete but not consistent with observational evidence.

This is the question of questions, our true anxiety, and whilst not merely to just protect our inner vulnerability, how do we coordinate our internal systems of sensory, perceptual, affective and conceptual functions?

Our transference projections can be associative or disassociative. e.g. We may carry on with simple dissociative responses, much like walking into Harvey Normans and being asked “ do you need a little help?” Dissociative responses abound with such compelling power and variety with all manner of mystics and maestros. We can have exceedingly happy groups of people in playpens with cocksure “answers” only too willing to help. We can have a Karl Kruszelnicki, our very own science media bugs bunny, who in one microsleep provides all the human engineered, fake scientific answers about the “beginning of the universe”. There is simply no end to this terrific avoidance phenomena stuff to soothe or tranquilise one’s anxiety. It is seemingly all so complete and cosy although not at all consistent with observational evidence.

Dissociative responses are tied to the idea of exceptionalism which proposes that with the advent of consciousness, we can now step outside evolution, go under it, rise above it, or stop it. This point of view needs to be understood as a technical misconception because all our behaviours are indeed deeply embedded and clearly evolutionary.

When Picasso first looked into Cezanne’s artworks it was a particular feeling of anxiety and uneasiness that he found of interest. This was a world going from the track to the trackless, from the wire to the wireless, the visible to the invisible and where adaptation to such anxieties may involve an accommodation of some suspended judgement, may involve becoming subversive, may involve some pain in experiencing the self, may involve us to be less passive and more knowingly vulnerable, and may involve one to be different and separate from others in the socioecology. Associative responses recognise uncertainty, don’t always provide smug answers, are not defense mechanisms, are very real, are difficult but more fullfilled, demand discipline, embrace democracy, are progressive and tend to the optimistic. So, whilst it is impossible to know everything about anything, it IS possible to know more about anything.

When we come to the current promoted cosmological model that we have seen for sixty years or more, we get a disassociative society favoring a finite cosmos that supposedly began in a moment of divine perfection 14 billion yeas ago, is expanding out and is consequently running down to an ignominious end. ( i.e. the Big Bang Religion) Although globally we are significantly more technological, we have this unscientific version which is more incredible than any myth anyone ever made. It is not consistent with any observational evidence.

____________________________________________________

........ to be continued