November
10, 2006
There is a paradox. The more one is able to see natural complexity, as it actually exists
in natural reality; to see its structure, the more one is able to be a magical
being through the realization of simplicity.
You say:
"I informed you that I don't understand your words. If I don't understand, perhaps the audience for your proposal won't understand as well. I understand your ideas, but only after a time consuming struggle through your words. "
Our work deals directly with a "why" dimension that is actually and really "complex" in the sense that more than one interpretation is actually expected. The "why" dimension always have multiple "hows" (see the work by Gerald Edelman on response chains in metabolic reaction systems). The reason why I make a reference to the Noble laureate Gerald Edelman is to remind us that the natural world is as it is, not as a 8th grade intelligence might believe that the world is.
In the mind of most government contractors and program managers, if
there is more than one interpretation possible, they are "trained" to
stop and create the glassy eye syndrome.
This type of behavior would not be natural to a child in the 8th
grade. The child would show awareness
consistent with exploratory behavior.
Is this "behavior" a core cause of the dysfunction we have talked about? Is it simple to see that we have a culture that glorifies the, advertisers notion of a, 8th grade intelligence and makes decisions that are irresponsible and controlled by profit motives?
Second, there are things that just cannot be communicated to an 8th grader mind, particularly an 8th grade mind that is 65 and in charge of IT expenditures for the federal government.
You and I have been here before, and I sense a rejection of the notion that I should be allowed to be myself and that others be allowed to restate and simplify what is in fact material that is presented with a great deal more effort that the actual effort required to stop, pause and mediate on what is being said.
Again, the problem is not in my clarity, it is in the dumbification of program manager and contractor behavior. Let me make it simple. The program manager is almost exclusively focused on "Who gets the money and how much?"
With "Who gets the money and how much?" there is nothing complex. There is nothing to think about. There is only money being expended and made. End of story?
"being lost in something" seems devalued by our educational system.
It is perhaps something that is learned - and places restrictions on what we come to believe we can understand or not.
Without coming into the mystery of something (ie the possibilities of
the National Project), it may not be possible to understand the full picture,
the "why" and the "how". And thus NO SOLUTION is
possible.
My work and my language is trying to shift the context from:
"Who gets the money and how much?"
to
"Why is there a problem and how do things work?"
The current historical opportunity is to defined solutions based on an actual understanding of the full picture (ie the complete dimensions of who, what, where, where, why and how).
I have argued that this is a very side spread learned cognitive disorder;
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/QuestionOfAccess/AQA.htm
That makes the "communicate only at the 8th grade level" argument acceptable.
The (conjectured) learned cognitive disorder places a limitation on ourselves. But it is not due to an individual failure.
The disorder is "useful" in keeping us as individuals in a comfortable place within a system (that just happens to be way out of balance in specific ways).
So the issue you raise has to be side stepped as without actually understanding the full picture, the investigation that are up coming will focus on stupid issues as if these were the one's we need investigated.
Founding the National Project will take dedication.