Perspective

My outlook is based on a paradigm busting paradigm. Seem paradoxical? It almost is. This is the mental perspective that I require in approaching the world, insofar as, I must necessarily operate under auspice of parameters assigned by whichever paradigm is predominant in my mind, yet, I am whole-heartedly committed to continually update the paradigms I've got here-and-now. My task is to use all the information at my disposal to show different ways of looking at the same thing when there are multiple perspectives on the matter. My method is an 'inter-disciplinary' approach, only to speak euphemistically, with the foundation of my intention; which is to say, I am not committed to anything but my pursuit of further learning.

All perspectives are valid. A perspective is a human way of doing things, looking at the world, a filter, per se, by which the incoming information from the world is interpreted. To further qualify this, as is of course necessary, some perspectives are better than others. Sometimes this can be assessed quantitatively, for example, when faced with new data to interpret, a perspective that includes more developed and integrated information from more sources is preferable to one that does not. By gathering more and more perspectives together, the resulting perspective can test perspectives against each other by means of human experience, and, the more perspectives that are weighed and balanced in that human life, the better off they might be in encountering the condition that is life.

I see those perspectives as the most advantageous when putting together conceptual structures that address common human life, and also in making new neural networks in human individuals. But only when these more advantageous perspectives can be recognized as such, and then themselves be integrated into social and mental life does any benefit from better perspectives actually occur. Better integrated paradigms lead to better human function, insofar as incoming information can be better assessed and further integrated into human life. This is the strictly-open calculus of operational paradigm construction.

Sometimes perspectives need to be assessed qualitatively as well. The best way to point this out is to show the inverse of the open-ended calculus, that is, closed-system paradigms. With all too many examples to offer, it boils down to a perspective that refuses to acknowledge any potentially conflicting datum that might inhibit its' survival as a filter for consciousness. Whether this is inherent in the perspective or the choice of individuals involved I don't know, but it's most likely a combination somewhere along the line. This mode of being feels satiated with its' limited station in life, even when faced with the immeasurably wondrous mystery that is the condition of conscious life. These kinds of perspectives do not qualify as sufficient for me, even though they might for some, which is not my station to judge. I only hold my paradigms as valid inasmuch as others' are as well, even though my tendencies could generally be considered contrarian in nature to begin with.

Any perspective that can be demonstrated to be a closed-system, by its' refusal to admit novel information that can be assessed from within its' own parameters but not integrated, is inadmissible on a level playing field. For example, an easy one, is the general public literacy on the concept generally called UFO, but having within itself as a particular discipline of human learning, many sub-categories with inexhaustible treasure troves of physical evidence, eye-witnesses, official and unofficial documents, pictures, videos, etc. ad infinitum, to say that "I don't believe in aliens," is a manifestly closed-system perspective. I like to use the word ideology, as it shows that, broken down, the idea (ideo) and the word (logos) are sufficiently contained in each other, and no further inquiry need be made.

Although my perspective assesses the predominant paradigms of the day as hopelessly closed-system and doomed to eventual failure, I am living a strictly-open life. When it comes to looking at a phenomenon I can usually refer to several perspectives at a time to analyze what I'm seeing, and thus have many interpretations to choose from when picking my preferred perspective. This open-system paradigm is never satiated with any particular way of looking at life, and continually requires new information to integrate; out of both curiosity and the idea that by widening my ability to make new paradigms I will eventually be able to help others along their own paths of constructing appropriate filters of their own for the reality we all face together.

Together we can come to common perspectives for the betterment of us all. By incorporating a paradigm that necessarily busts all previous and forthcoming paradigms by providing better paradigms to follow, the conditions of life will become more clearly ascertained and configured to tailor everyone's individual needs.