Reply to comment

The "in between" would seem the space between the neural synaptic firing seeking a path for release, mainly a patterned path, and the possibility of an alternate path, as yet "untraveled, "unmade," for release. To what extent can we "control" or "orient" the synaptic path? To what extent can we affect the "effect," that is the story we tell, and further, the multitude of stories that we could "tell"? I think we have unexplored potential in this area. While I am no scientist, nor a philosopher, merely an interested inquirer on life's journey, it would seem that with 100 billion cells and 100 trillion synapses, there is sufficient, unused capacity to learn to intentionally author, one might go so far as to say, "control" our own story/stories for our own good, and in turn, the good of the collective. ( I use "good," though a loaded word to be sure, to describe those characteristics and behaviors that aid the collective species, namely humans.) I am interested in this creative capacity, not as a "passive" ability, but rather, as an affirmative, intentional direction, a creative, orchestrated endeavor, where process "I" meets output "I" and the linguistically constructed "dualism" between the "I's" as just described disappears. In other words, the distinction between process "I" and output, consumption "I" is no longer relevant. It is one organ functioning as a neural network interconnected throughout. I think what we will discover about the braIn over the next quarter century will revise our collective and individual narratives revolutionarily.

Much of our linguistic dualisms seem to me no longer relevant, that is to say, no longer useful. I will not go down the "sociological" path as that would truly stir up some controversy, but there is evidence, in "on-ground" work of inner city leaders, that lead me to believe that our ways of describing and labeling inner city problems would be better "tabled" in favor of a completely different narrative that shines the light on problem solving rather than the "'whys" and "wherefores' of the existing "woes." We can extrapolate this to our individual lives as well. How much of our existing linguistic constructs create unnecessary, irrelevant, and therefore non-pragmatic, stories focused on "whys' and "wherefores" of the conventional narrative notions of our view of the world, rather than to possible pragmatic solutions made available to another, as yet unauthored narrative, to our daily problems.

Much to ponder...

Interested in thoughtful inquiry with other of life's inquirers. Many thanks!