On the "obviousness" of the "obvious"

(prose form)

 

 

Perhaps, the following premise has been previously stated by someone else (somewhere).
Nevertheless, it needs to be stated (again?) for the purpose of this commentary:

This lack of change, however, does NOT necessarily mean that such concepts are "true".

(In fact, numerous "time honored" concepts have, eventually, been proven to be totally "false to fact").

Lack of change, then, may simply mean that a given concept has not been successfully
"challenged" by the use of "logic";  or, by an accumulation of "empirical evidence".

Or, it may mean that a given concept has become so common-place -- or static -- that no one has
recently bothered to re-evaluate that concept in the light of "new knowledge" or "alternate perspectives".

Concepts that become "static" fall into a category which may be called "the obvious". And, when
things are "obvious", they are no longer "worthy" of notice ----- or, so it would seem.

[ Hasn't it been stated (somewhere) that IF you want to "hide" something,
you should place it where it is so "obvious" no one will notice it ? ]

Historic examples of "static concepts" that were "obvious" to the ordinary "thinkers"
of the past are innumerable. Among these are such concepts as:

While we may now laugh at the "obvious" foolishness of our ancestors, is it not possible that some
 of what WE believe to be "obvious" may -- when viewed in the light of "alternate perspectives"
-- eventually prove to be just as "foolish";  or, just as fallacious ??

One purpose of these "writings", then, is to challenge the "obvious" by presenting the reader with an
opportunity to mentally view quite ordinary things from other than a "static" (ego-centric?) perspective.

Who will read this these "writings" ???  Well, as they deal exclusively with the "obvious" --
 "obviously" some will be those who "think they think" -- but (obviously) don't.

NOW -- to drive the final nail into the coffin we have tried to construct for the one word,
in every-day use, that (to us) is MOST indicative of a "closed mind" at work:

(Obviously) the "meaning" of the word "obvious" is SO "obvious" that most people
never seem to question whether they truly "understand" what the word implies -- or not.

"our" use of the word "obvious(ly)";  and, will use it only as a "red-flag" meaning:

 

"Danger - - Thinking is Required"

 

A "Suggestion" ??

 

IF correctly used, the word "obvious" (in any of its forms) would indicate

 a "clarity of perspective" on the part of a writer ( or speaker ).

However, what is NOT "obvious" (apparently) to those who use this word most,

is that this "clarity" is the exclusive property of the "owner" of that perspective

 -- and, is NOT, "common-property" automatically shared by all.

Thus ----- I would like to "suggest" that:

"Personal perspectives" are not -- necessarily -- of value
(or even of interest) to anyone else !  And, that.....

"Personal Truth" is not -- necessarily -- synonymous
with "Universal Truth"

"OBVIOUSLY"