There is hope

It's possibly over a month since the discussion took place. One of those casual meetings with another customer at the storage facility. Casually talking about each other's life experiences, he in his late 50s. His words of encouragement, that there is hope for changing the future. Hope for change that deeply held religious convictions can be shed, replaced by a new understanding of the natural world. 

His words were: 

"My father changed from his deeply held religious views at age 93, there is hope."

My personal conclusion is that it would take perhaps 500 years for society to gradually change where the majority views the natural world as I have come to see it. His statement is reassuring. As the baby boomer demographics changes, those that are left and seek social interaction, a sense of community, are simply forced by their diminishing numbers to seek knowledge outside of their hereditary held beliefs. Some will come to realize that what they once asserted to be sacred, was simply their personal State of mind. Their own personal opinion, based on doctrine and ideology passed on from there ancestors, and their family. These states of mind do not represent the world as it actually is, they are simply a bias, a lens through which everything is interpreted. When the only reference material in many social groups is the sacred book, and everything else is labeled as lies and deception, and fake news, little will ever change. 

Only they're loneliness as a result of diminishing numbers will force the encroachment of new knowledge and new understanding. Such is the reassuring words of this individual, "My father changed from his deeply held religious views at age 93, there is hope."

Scaffolding

A simple but interesting title. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. Where to begin? Let's begin by going back, going way back, going back to the beginning. The beginning? The beginning of you! When did you begin? You began long before you realized you were you.

What brought about this morning of mental exploration? Perhaps a mental rewind, remembering a response during our conversation. Perhaps a pivotal point for this moment’s observations. Quote: “I don't need to clutter up my mind with things like that.

What do I find most disturbing about this response? I might add that this response was from a senior, well into their eighties. However, this would be a common response from perhaps just about anyone. Probably the response from most of those in our social networks. Most disturbing about this response is the individual denial that life, regardless of your place in it, is a learning experience. For an individual to have the default opinion that knowledge is clutter, describes a far deeper predicament in our social networks.

Back to that statement that I made earlier: “I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.“Perhaps we can make this extremely simple by dividing individuals into two camps. Why only two? Well, maybe not precisely two, maybe a spectrum? Perhaps people are somewhere between the two extremes.

Two camps: 1) Conformity 2) individuality

Conformity, probably the easiest to describe. A social network, an organization, a cultural practice, ethnic, and many more. Anywhere that we observe clusters of like-minded individuals. The term populism would describe perhaps one of the most common.

Individuality, the most difficult to observe. Go to the individual level in society, perhaps looking for black sheep. More specifically, look for those that appear to be achieving their personal goals despite public opinion. By this I mean they base their daily decisions on the best information at the moment, because of a lifetime of observations and experiences. Their daily path through life is a continuation of friction with those around them. Differing opinions, different methods, not a path for the weak, a liberal requirement of a strong sense of determination, with an overabundance of logic and reason.

Why these two camps? Because they are observable in our general population. Why do we have this observable division?

Examining the why. Sometime ago I came across information that stated, the “self” that people become, comprising two sources. The average population is about 50% from each of the sources. Individuality, therefore, is 50% inherited, 50% self-development and environment.

The scaffolding changes throughout your lifetime. There is little you can do about your inherited traits, such as certain behavioural characteristics. There is also little you can do about your ability to observe and analyze. However, inheritance establishes a starting point, although you can develop your perception further. That which is further developed as life proceeds, your environment influences. Your environment has a direct correlation with your ability to develop individual logic and reason, or to adhere to environmentally biased conformity. History has shown us that offspring from families distantly related genetically produce a lower level of cognitive awareness. We can do little to improve this circumstance. Perhaps, conversely, we can say that the greatest genetic diversity produces the highest degree of cognitive self-awareness.