Because of the interconnectedness of Nature and a sense of purpose of organisms, we are more sensitive to "ancient wisdom." One example in current vernacular is: "What goes around comes around." It would appear that Conservationists may have had convincing experiences early in life to foster a more 21st Century mindset, which focuses on interconnectedness. Also, we may understand that mainstream 20th Century thinkers had early experience of success with mechanisms, and separatist style analysis of themselves in the world. These have generally been successful in business and government sectors. Although, it may be that they felt they had no choice but to play by 20th Century ontology rules. If they don't seem to listen, they likely can't hear even though they might wish to.

I think 21st Century epistemology will incorporate much of the mechanistic ideas of 20th Century science but will add a more multi-causal perspective. Our knowing will not stop with mechanical single cause-single effect logic, but will understand how many variables create interaction effects which require more elegant analysis such as chaos theory. This will not be easy for a society, which is used to learning only until arrival or "graduation." However, for life long learners, this prospect adds zest to our existence. Moreover, we will be forced to move across boundaries between traditional disciplines, with political science drawing images from biology, economics crossing into ecology and psychology drawing upon ideas from physics. Inductive reasoning, of Sir Francis Bacon, may also enjoy resurgence too.

Go to top of right column

Having a 21st Century interconnected sense of being in the world offers new options for interaction with Nature and other humans. Like the photons in Quantum physics that choose (based on circumstances) to behave like a wave or a particle, we can choose a more respectful, conciliatory style in resolving our differences.

The 20th Century seemed to require an adversarial and a disrespectful stance. Disrespect makes it easier to attack an other person and has become the pervading sentiment in Western Society. However, this has undermined self-respect and left many doubting their ability to withstand the "slings and arrows of adversity." Offense seems the best defense. Children learn that tantrums get desired results and becoming adults they unwittingly adopt indignation as a favored weapon. Of course, the (win-lose) adversarial stance begs a counterattack or defensive maneuvers, while a conciliatory style seeks a win-win outcome. From this perspective, the parliamentary question times are a parity on the petty politics of the primary school yard. I feel sorry for individualistic, adversarial politicians who are eventually defeated and cast out of the political "arena," while the impact Statespersons proves to outlast their funerals.

Previous Page
Return to Free Information