Continuing from yesterday, the marginal paths and nebulous directions of pre-cognition.
A necessary prerequisite is an understanding of the solipsistic nature of science as currently implemented, and of skeptics in particular. We enter the unknown like 16th century Europeans. In little wooden boats. The bedrock assumption being that we do so alone; we arrive in each new world with no thought of its being inhabited already.
The conceit here is that precognition has been all along a fiction, so there can't have been organizations and affinity-groups with antennae alert for signs of its development in the young of any given generation.
But that is the posit. Not only that but that there are kinds of acuity and range, just as with sight and hearing . And blindnesses. And trompe l'oeil and camouflage as well.
That the obvious darwinian advantages of precognition are balanced by its potential for terminal mistakes on a grand scale. Unless you see ahead all the way you won't know for sure that you haven't led yourself, or worse your people, down a very long path to oblivion. Seeing ahead all the way being still another impediment to pragmatic competence. Because what's up there? All the way up there? Is there an "all the way"? If not, and you looked, mightn't that lock your questing soul into an endless cycle of apprehension? And if there is an "all the way", an end, how much of that terminal vision is the result of the weight of your observing mind? How much of what you see do you make real, by seeing it?
But solipsistic drones in the rational professions insist that there can be no such thing. Vehemently. Some of that is the understandable result of slogging through the bogus claims of the low-grade mad. Or being gently accosted by smarmy new-age dolts. But some of it is also the resistant anxiety of a world-view that sees its own demise in the light of paradigm-shattering patefaction.
The simple premise of this isn't so much the existence of precognition as a distinct human attribute, but the possibility of it. The adolescent response of men whose ideas about what's real are directly challenged by the assertion that it is possible to see time from outside the immediate context of the inhabited moment - the scorn and huffy contempt that rises before any argument's been made, is a clue to what's really happening here.
In a world of human dominance and control, in which the dominating species tolerates the constant degradation of its young, or a large segment of the population of its young - spending a few minutes or a few million dollars in open-minded investigation of a subject like this shouldn't generate as much hostility as it does.
A necessary prerequisite is an understanding of the solipsistic nature of science as currently implemented, and of skeptics in particular. We enter the unknown like 16th century Europeans. In little wooden boats. The bedrock assumption being that we do so alone; we arrive in each new world with no thought of its being inhabited already.
The conceit here is that precognition has been all along a fiction, so there can't have been organizations and affinity-groups with antennae alert for signs of its development in the young of any given generation.
But that is the posit. Not only that but that there are kinds of acuity and range, just as with sight and hearing . And blindnesses. And trompe l'oeil and camouflage as well.
That the obvious darwinian advantages of precognition are balanced by its potential for terminal mistakes on a grand scale. Unless you see ahead all the way you won't know for sure that you haven't led yourself, or worse your people, down a very long path to oblivion. Seeing ahead all the way being still another impediment to pragmatic competence. Because what's up there? All the way up there? Is there an "all the way"? If not, and you looked, mightn't that lock your questing soul into an endless cycle of apprehension? And if there is an "all the way", an end, how much of that terminal vision is the result of the weight of your observing mind? How much of what you see do you make real, by seeing it?
But solipsistic drones in the rational professions insist that there can be no such thing. Vehemently. Some of that is the understandable result of slogging through the bogus claims of the low-grade mad. Or being gently accosted by smarmy new-age dolts. But some of it is also the resistant anxiety of a world-view that sees its own demise in the light of paradigm-shattering patefaction.
The simple premise of this isn't so much the existence of precognition as a distinct human attribute, but the possibility of it. The adolescent response of men whose ideas about what's real are directly challenged by the assertion that it is possible to see time from outside the immediate context of the inhabited moment - the scorn and huffy contempt that rises before any argument's been made, is a clue to what's really happening here.
In a world of human dominance and control, in which the dominating species tolerates the constant degradation of its young, or a large segment of the population of its young - spending a few minutes or a few million dollars in open-minded investigation of a subject like this shouldn't generate as much hostility as it does.
