It's Hard Being Epistemological

Dear Linguists and Colleagues Across the
Curriculum.

     

It's a convention and a convenience
to say "this rock is hard"--practically
speaking.

But that reduces a ternary dynamic
to a binary relationship and adjectivally
slaps one part with the burden of
the whole.

The rock isn’t hard.
The ratio & relationship between
my butt and rock generates a hardness.
(An ongoing emergent phenomenon)

And that’s the truth of being in between
a rock and a hard place.  Same with sticks
and stones. They don’t hurt, but my
relationship with them smarts.  A lot.  
 
Main point:  the “truth” of convention
and the ways we talk is NOT the TRUTH
of phenomena, not the TRUTH of HAP
hap-ening happily.
 
What’s possible and “impossible” inside a
convention  eclipses if not occludes larger
systemic possibilities and potential.

When I go in a closet to study darkness,
my flashlight (ego-conscious-purpose)
is also a  liablity.  Will I turn it off? 

For all “practical” purposes: inside-convention
truths are what “matters” or what “counts.”  
 
But to know how arbitrary and merely
convenient are the “truths” we swim in
(alma matrix & amniotic)  conventionally
can be a consolation and a motivation
and an explanation as  to HOW and WHY
it is  challenging and problematic to try
to change inside conventions and even more
dramatically: to change conventions. 

Paradigm Shifts, we call them,
clueless maybe as to the nature
of the transmission.

A convention reinforces it’s convenience:
acts as a “conspiracy” (a breathing together)
to sustain a practice, protocol. habit, habitat.
 
This is How We Do It—all of us together.
We admire the emperors new clothing
even knowing he’s bare assed.  It's practical
to comply and demoralizing not to.

Makes GOOD sense all around.
Preserving the Appearances.
Don't mock it.

xxxooo, Sam