We like experts. In a complex and confusing world experts comfort us. Experts, by our way of thinking, manage complexity through sheer brute force. Experts have a large volume of "knowing" and the weight of their knowing allows them to wrestle complexity to its knees, or so we like to belive. The prowess of experts makes sense to us because we tend to view ideas as objects, discreet chunks that can be possessed or dispensed. These idea objects can be organized, alphabetized, divided into categories and labeled, what we call "classified knowledge." A governing body, which collectively presides over the full corpus of classified knowledge pertaining to a particular topic, dispense pieces of information in an linear and sequential way which allows for optimal acquisition of idea objects. Once a person acquires what the governing body deems a requisite volume of idea objects the person becomes "an expert." The governing body issues a piece of paper along with an acronym which, in perpetuity, bestows upon the expert the title of "expert."
That isn't to say the above description is the day to day reality of those we call experts, rather it's how we in the West tend to think about knowledge and expertise. It's about the largely invisible metaphors we carry around regarding how the world works.I'm working on a manuscript that's about the way we perceive the world and, therefore, what we view as possible within the world. The ideas I'm working on weren't arrived at in a way we typically associate with an expert.I haven't been working in an "acquisition of predefined idea-objects" way. My process was one of listening, like an explorer in a jungle at night with only a vague notion of where I wanted to get to. Reading was like a flashlight which would briefly illuminate things. Thinking and writing were like candles I could light to keep things slightly, albeit dimly, illuminated. All the while I listened. I listened, over the course of several years as to where to look, when to turn on the flashlight, where to light a candle. Eventually I could see enough of the right things around me to know where I was, it was a process of a place being revealed to me.A lot of people who are called experts will recognize both the mastery of classified knowledge—let's call it object-thinking—and the intuitive exploration beyond the bounds of classified knowledge—let's call it place-thinking—to be very much in keeping with the day to day reality of their work. Most experts understand the importance of both object-thinking and place-thinking. But again we tend only to validate and venerate object-thinking that operates within classified knowledge. The manuscript I'm working on pertains to the idea of object-thinking and place-thinking; further, our culture tends not so see or validate place-thinking. To clarify, ideas regarding our culture's denigration of place-thinking were arrived at through place-thinking ensuring they will be neither seen nor validated. Sigh. Being a person of Western origin, I struggle with the validity of my own ideas, not because of the ideas themselves, but because they were arrived at in an institutionally non-sanctioned idea object obtaining kind of way.These ideas about place thinking and object thinking, it seemed to me, needed the blessing of science before anyone, including myself, might take them seriously. Enter the interwebs. I have recently and seredipitously—or maybe it was because I was listening—chanced upon a lecture which indicates the language and metaphors I've struck upon do indeed fit with current science. In fact, they fit stunningly well and in ways I might not otherwise have imagined. I've been rescued from my self inflicted mobius strip of doubt.The lecture is by Iain McGilchrist, it's based on a book he's published called "The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World." I excitedly contacted Dr. McGilchrist with a few queries; he was both approachable and gracious. He set me in the direction of "hemispheric utilization bias" also known as "characteristic perceptual asymmetry." I have to admit, the geek in me let out an almost inaudible whimper of excitement.Having not yet aquired the book, I want to go on record, in the spirit of an overly eager fanboy dissecting movie trailers, as saying I'll bet the bias and asymmetry are contextually driven. Unlike discrete fine motor skills bias, or handedness, which is more or less set; hemispheric bias fluctuates and is contextually driven in relation to physical and social environment, particularly when both pertain to perceived social expectation. [hand clapping, giggling] I can't wait, I can't wait, I can't wait.
Of course there's the uncomfortable reality that I am working on a manuscript only to discover someone smarter, more articulate and infinitely more credentialed than I has already published a book along much the same lines. Why would I bother carrying on? Not to be overwrought about it, but I'm writing from a conviction that I had been entrusted with something. Now that that's in writing it sounds even more dick-ish than it did in my head, but I humbly submit it as true to my experience. I've been writing not so much to "publish a book" in a limited sense, but as a steward of these ideas in a broader sense. A book is the beginning of stewardship so to speak. So, if the stewarding of ideas is the point, then yes, even a person as uncredentialed as I might contribute in some small way to the life of these ideas. I'm reminded of Madelene L'Engle quoting Jean Rhys:Jean Rhys said to an interviewer in the Paris Review, "Listen to me. All of writing is huge lake. There are great rivers that feed the lake, like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. And there are mere trickles, like Jean Rhys. All that matters is feeding the lake. I don't matter. The lake matters. You must keep feeding the lake. ~Walking On Water
Here's the beginning of my trickle. Please interact, because sometimes I feel like I'm pissing in the wind.
THERE ARE TWO WAYS OF SEEING
There are two ways of perceiving, processing and talking about the world around us.
One way is what we can call an object-thinking way of seeing the world.
The other way is what we can call a place-thinking way of seeing the world.
Object-thinking is about:
what already is
convergent thinking
classified knowledge
making the strange familiar
prose
Place-thinking is about:
what can be
divergent thinking
recognition
making the familiar strange
poetry
OBJECT THINKING
We could call object-thinkers Tinkers .
The "tinker" in us is so named in the best sense of this word, a dedicated skilled craftsman bearing particular knowledge and particular tools for a particular task.
Picture the tinker hunched over a work bench, the room around him dark. A single desk light illuminates the work in front of him as he works diligently long into the night. He makes and fixes small objects with dextrous hands.
PLACE THINKING
We could call place-thinkers Explorers.
The "explorer" in us is so named in the best sense of this word, a dedicated and experienced traveller working for the common good.
Picture the explorer on a hilltop vista under a bright sun. He looks over a broad vista, alert, aware of his surroundings, excited to discover new lands which might make use of his friend, the tinker's, skills.
COLLABORATION
We are all both tinkers and explorers.
Like handedness, we all see the world in both ways.
Like both hands, we all need both ways of seeing the world.
PREDISPOSITION
In the same way we need both hands, we need both ways of seeing the world.
Like handedness, we all are predisposed to one way of seeing the world over the other.
We could call this predisposition our perceptual handedness.
People whose perceptual handedness is more tinker-ish we can call Tinkers.
People whose perceptual handedness is more explorer-ish we can call Explorers.
IMBALANCE
Our world (in the West) is a object-thinking world.
It was built by Tinkers who expect the world to operate on object-thinking terms.
Over time the Tinkers forgot they were both object-thinkers and place-thinkers.
The object-thinking world the Tinkers built helped the Tinkers forget they are also place thinkers.
POSSIBILITY
Possibility is infinite, but infinite is still a bounded set.
Human agents acting in spacetime are constrained by hic et nunc (here and now).
Here and now is rightfully our perception of here and now.
Human agency is constrained by it's perception of here and now.
An exclusively object-thinking perception of here and now gives rise to an exclusively object-thinking view of human agency.
An exclusively object-thinking view of human agency leads to an exclusively object-thinking view of the possible.
On it's own, an object-thinking view of the possible is an incomplete view of the possible.
Object-thinking tends to view only tinker-talk as valid.
Tinker-talk tends to view only object-thinking as valid.
Our overly object-thinking world is caught in a solipsistic loop of self-referential tinker-talk.
Our tinker-ish world is caught in a self propagating status quo which has no way of understanding itself as status quo. Our tinker-ish world is in desperate need of an explorer-ish view of here and now in order to gain a renewed sense of human agency and therefore a renewed sense of the possible which can then inform our understanding of the status quo in which we are trapped. That newly informed understanding might then help us escape our self-referential status quo.
BALANCE
A collaborative object-thinking and place-thinking perception of here and now leads to a fuller sense of human agency which leads to a fuller sense of the possible.
Tinkers and Explorers might coexist in a unified system in the same way two hands coexist in a unified system (a person).
THE MEETING PLACE
We might call this unified place in which Tinkers and Explorers coexist The Meeting Place.
The Meeting Place might exhibit particular characteristics when Tinkers and Explorers coexist for the common good of unified system in which they mutually exist.
Conversely, The Meeting Place might exhibit particular characteristics when Tinkers and Explorers are in conflict and do not act collaboratively toward the common good.
AN ETHOS OF POSSIBILITY: Agency, Voice and Context.
AGENT OF POSSIBILITY
Agency in balance is characterized by:
an awareness of, an allowance for, and validation of both object-thinking and place-thinking.
Agency out of balance is characterized by:
The Expert, so named for the worst it implies of exclusively object-thinking.
The Expert can only perceive the world through the linguistic lens of their own technology. (as Postman defines "technology")
The Transient, so named for the worst it implies of exclusively place-thinking.
The Transient can only perceive the world through the linguistic lens of the world's dissimilarity with The Transient's vision of a better world.
The Expert and Transient are locked in polar conflict having no means of communication or compromise.
VOICE OF POSSIBILITY
Voice in balance is characterized by:
an awareness of, an allowance for, and validation of both a poetic voice and an analytic voice.
Voice out of balance is characterized by:
The Imperial Voice, so named for the worst it implies of exclusively object-thinking language.
The Imperial Voice can only speak in terms of immutable, eternal versions of its own certitude.
The Voice of Narcissus, so named for the worst it implies of exclusively explorer-ish language.
The Voice of Narcissus can only speak in it's own self-referential versions of self-indulgence.
The Imperial Voice and The Voice of Narcissus are locked in polar conflict having no means of communication or compromise.
CONTEXT OF POSSIBILITY
Context in balance is characterized by:
an awareness of, an allowance for, and validation of both object-thinking ways of perceiving and speaking and place-thinking ways of perceiving and speaking.
Context out of balance is characterized by:
The Machine, so named for the worst it implies of an exclusively tinker-ish context.
The Machine can only allow immutable certitude within the linguistic realities of its own technology.
The Starless Sky, so named for the worst it implies of an exclusively explorer-ish context.
The Starless Sky can only allow self-indulgent cynicism which can only be "not," and never "is".
The Machine and The Starless Sky are locked in polar conflict having no means of communication or compromise.
WESTERN INSTITUTIONS, being tinkerish places of exclusively object-thinking, are distinctly places of The Expert, The Imperial Voice and The Machine.
THE CHURCH by and large, is a subset of the broader cultural context in this regard.
THE CHURCH is an out of balance tinker-ish context in which only tinker-talk is seen, allowed and valued and therefore where only Tinkers flourish.
THE CHURCH, by and large, is a place of The Expert, The Imperial Voice and The Machine.
