it’s not a mathematical thing. I can go from disbelief to belief, from congruity to incongruity back to another congruity anytime I wish

One thing I like about Wikipedia is that its users will toss in unexpected links to other fields…. reminders that a lot of these concepts are “signs of the times” (sorry – signs? get it? tongue emoticon anyway…) –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_therapy
and I find, when a subject is _difficult_, go _outside_ of the context you’re constrained to, see it from another perspective, then come back again.

I’m sure the method I use falls within _one_ of these philosophical schools of thought, but I don’t know which one. After all, I believe I’m a product of the generation I grew up in, and all my assumptions were laid out within it, and only through deconstructing the assumptions given to me do I have a hope of reconstructing a ‘me’ that’s more… authentic.

So, even though I may be using the same possibly flawed tools to analyze possibly flawed tools, nonetheless, it’s not a mathematical thing. I can go from disbelief to belief, from congruity to incongruity back to another congruity anytime I wish … a concept that ALSO is likely paralleled by something already bootstrapped in my past.

But I’m ok with that tongue emoticon Fear of infinite recursion is ridiculous, imo.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.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


five × 3 =

Leave a Reply