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:
Man's concepts may remain essentially unchanged
over considerable periods of "time".
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:
The world is "flat" !!! ----- The sky is "blue" !!! -----
Illness is caused by "evil spirits" !!! ----- and, of course -- (a "classic") -----
The Earth is the center of the Universe around which the sun revolves !!! ----- etc., etc..
[ Even today (while listening to the melody "Blue Skies" playing in the background), Man may talk
about the sun "rising" ----- and, offer a hearty
"God Bless You" when someone sneezes ]
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"
-- when viewed in the light of "alternate
perspectives" --
may -- 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.
By definition, the word "obvious" means "apparent". BUT ----- "apparent" to whom ???
(Obviously) -- IF you touch a red-hot coal, you will get burned !!
(But, what happens to the
word "obviously" when another human being walks barefoot
over a bed of red hot coals without suffering any burns ----- or, even, any apparent discomfort ?)
(Obviously) -- Grass is "green" !!
(Try explaining that concept, sometime, to a child who has been blind from birth)
(Obviously) -- The world is "flat" !!
(If a "map" is flat, the world must be too ----- right, Columbus?)
(Obviously) -- Man can't fly !
("Darn it, Orville, IF God had intended man to fly, HE would have given Man wings")
(Obviously) ----- Man is a creature of Earth; he will NEVER walk on the moon !
( However, that idea makes for a whale of a story, Mr. Wells )
(Obviously) ----- Man MUST argue and fight. It's "human nature";
[ and, you can't change human nature ----- ("obviously" !) ]
( Wish those dumb idealists would stop trying to rock the boat !!!)
(Obviously) ----- Through the rest of these "writings", we are going to be quite careful in
"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"
Back to
Last Reviewed: January 01, 2009
copyright © 1969 - 2009 The Emerald Trust -- all rights reserved
