This week I want to ponder the imponderable: that which cannot be precisely determined, measured, or evaluated. Specifically, this week's written thought is a continuation of my search for "Again" two weeks ago. In that written thought, I was troubled by our baffling inability to differentiate reason from emotion. On the surface this difference appears obvious, but somewhere within the process many of us come to believe that those personal inclinations sprouting from one's determined desire for explanation and control are perfectly reasonable. Garbage in, garbage out. I cannot reasonably explain a conclusion with an unexplainable assumption, yet in this regard it appears that is what many of us are doing. More than the what though, I want to understand the why.

Yes, I have many unsupported opinions and beliefs, (as I believe we all do). I do not want to explore whose delusions are less delusional. I want to explore our inability to recognize all unsupported (un)certainty as delusion, on a spectrum of delusion that ranges from -quite possible to -possible to -unlikely to -we will never know with certainty to -why are we talking about this to -certifiably insane. The midpoint of this spectrum would fall halfway between unlikely and we will never know with certainty, and (to define the flow) quite possible is that which has much tangible evidence, but is not yet considered a fact; (facts are a different realm entirely, not on this spectrum), and certifiably insane is far-fetched fantastical tabloid-headline misconception believed by a very small minority. Discussions on the 'possible’ half of the spectrum have potential to be productive, provided there is agreement from all parties that the issue is on that ‘possible' half. Most discussions in which all parties are on the 'we'll never know' half of the spectrum serve no purpose beyond ego and perhaps to support/justify working to move a “we'll never know” issue into their realm of fact; (i.e. garbage in, garbage out). And those discussions in which there is disagreement as to the half of the spectrum (or the realm) on (or in) which the issue resides, should never be discussions. Agreement, (i.e. common ground) must be established. It has become important, (perhaps a determinant for our survival), to have productive conversation, yet we waste so much potential insisting on conversations in which one party's fact is another's “we'll never know.”

Is this insistence simply ego? Or does the ego come from fear? If so, is the fear subconscious? Or is the fear a conscious, adamant denial further empowering ego?

I suppose one could also deny ego by claiming a natural superiority. To me, this is ego; but I understand how superficial thought can establish this unexplainable assumption as the impetus---the unmoved mover---of all of Everything. And coming from this foundation, (brittle as it may be), it is inevitable that the thinker will assume that of all superior beings He or She is the most superior (or at least the most deserving), perhaps followed somewhat closely by those superior beings most like him or her; and from there it is easy to confuse his or her self in God's image with God in his or her image. And of course the next step is the act of creating Truth and proclaiming certainty. All this based on an unexplainable assumption.

To evaluate and assess tangible evidence feels as if it should be a straightforward process. So the conscious denial and/or the subconscious defense indicates very strong / entrenched feelings, and if an individual refuses to see or cannot see the fear or the ego, how will they ever see the inanity of their thought process? Because of the superficiality, they will suffer from confirmation bias when they look at evidence and results; often, even when the evidence is overwhelming.

So I am struggling to find reason other than fear and/or ego, (recognized or not), to explain the ‘why' in our inexplicable search for Again. Do those most fervently searching for Again deny fear and ego and the inexplicability of their search? Or do these acolytes simply ignore it by drenching it with righteous indignation and surrounding it with pontifications?

I suppose that establishes where I stand. It is maddening.

New thoughts...

I see “Make America Great Again” as synonymous with, “Stop the world, I want to get off.” I understand the sentiment but maintain an awareness that the world cannot be stopped or even slowed, and there is only one way off. I believe this search for Again to be a plea for simpler times and perhaps the ‘why' for many is because they have given up keeping up. Perhaps it truly does not begin as fear or ego, but, like the child who stubbornly sits in the middle of the grocery store aisle because he is tired, perhaps it begins as a sort of innocence or naiveté. And when I look at the evolution of two factors not examined two weeks ago, perhaps this ingenuousness helps to explain the concomitant fear and ego.

These two factors are intelligence and population.

Intelligence
Because IQ tests are revised every few years in order to maintain 100 as the average, an increase in IQ is not readily apparent, but accounting for these revisions, researchers have found gains in IQ since 1900 have averaged about 3 points per decade. This indicates that if an individual with an IQ of 100 today were transported to 1950 they would score around 120 and if they were transported to 1900 they would score around 135; those are leaps from average to superior to borderline genius. But intelligence goes beyond an IQ score. I would take the position that the average adults of 1900 (who would be classified as deficient today) and 1950 (who would be classified as dull today) knew what they had to know for their time. And from this, I would argue that (even if we could) we should not go back to a simpler time because our intellect (both individually and collectively) is in its time. I would extend the argument to say that though we may be comfortable as a borderline genius in 1900 or as superior in 1950, our individual intellect would likely be wasted in that time. In this regard, a simpler time is a dumber time, and today is the time for today's intelligence.

Population
In 1900 the world population was 1.6 billion, and in 1950 it was 2.55 billion. Today it is more than 7.6 billion, right at three times that of 1950 and nearly five times that of 1900. At its most basic level---the number of thinking, feeling, communicating, intelligent, opinionated human beings---the world has become exponentially more complex. In addition to the number of individuals, we have also grown the number of possible affiliations per individual, thus providing multiple identities, often making it more difficult to differentiate us from them. From a global perspective, (and from where I sit), this blending and melding is positive and advantageous; but it seems that those pursuing Again prefer a more clear-cut and enduring line between us and them. In this regard, a simpler time is a more divided time, and today is a time for transition to a global perspective.

So...
Regarding intelligence and population, in our search for Again, simple = dumb and simple = divided. And if I am unable to physically travel back to a time when dumb and divided worked, I understand why an ardent admirer of Again might want to work to bring dumb and divided to the present day. And though if they have any prolonged success, it may lead to the beginning (or the middle, or the beginning of the end) of the end, I also better understand why, when met with disagreeable difficulty, these seekers of simplicity might sit down in the middle of the grocery store aisle and throw a tantrum. If I close my eyes and clench my little fists in my ears and scream at the top of my lungs, then I won't see you and I won't hear you and I won't have to think about believing you.

This explanation does not make the insistence any more reasonable, but it does provide some basis for understanding. So perhaps the answer, as with any child, is patient, kindly forbearance and firm, constructive correction.

The question then becomes, will the correction take hold in time, or will the yearning for Again provide just enough resistance to make our efforts toward survival too little, too late?