be careful when ascribing excessive “truthness” to a particular model of reality.

Yes, emergence is a model I tend to favor a little more than some others.

I think models are good as Thought Experiments, helpful in conceptualizing difficult concepts by providing us with something to analogize with – and I think humans analogize well with stories, thought experiments, “imagine this scenerio” type things..


I also believe one ought (yes, I used ought, shame on me) – to be careful when ascribing excessive “truthness” to a particular model of reality.

For me, it’s mostly because I’ve been let down when I find the fatal flaws in each of the models.

It’s entirely egocentric too: I analogize to my own existence when considering exotic issues. I try to be careful with generalizations that attempt to also be specific enough to describe “everything everywhere for all time” because I am the exception. I needn’t have existed at all.

I was an outlier at school yet I punched a hole through the Bell Curve of “Norms” and made a place for myself, even though I didn’t fit in to the statistical norms in a lot of ways.

I afford the same luxury to others as well. I’m still looking for good universal models that already exist but I’ve found but a few bits and pieces that seem universal, and a whole pile of Universal theories that went a “little too far”.

It’s not that I discard them; but I use them as a reminder for myself to be very careful at universals. It makes me rather annoying to have a conversation with at times, but it’s part of my attempt to be authentic.. which I suppose involves being heavily contrarian as well

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

+ one = 6

Leave a Reply