The issue of singular, overriding perspective has been with humanity, since the first man told a story. The technological marvels of the modern era only accelerates the process, but throughout human history, each cultural groups have placed themselves in the center of the universe. What are the multitude of religious systems that preoccupy the human race, if not a narrow, peculiar perspective on the universe?
It is with deep irony that your post resonates with such perspicacity; in an era of infinitely deep and accessible information pool, we humans only bring a cup to fill our own preconceived notion of our world. The Hellenes, Persians, Romans, Chinese, Aztecs, Incas, and Indians of the past can be excused for harboring a parochial, regional perspective concerning the universe, but in this era of information exchange at light-speed, parochialism is a paradoxical phenomenon.
The modern mind seems to be susceptible to two reactions, when confronted with ideology foreign to its sensibility: vehement rejection or unconditioned acceptance both arising from egocentric viewpoint of the universe. Those of the former denies any attempt at empathic understanding of the foreign, since their perspective is the only correct truth; while those of the latter impute a shared ideologic assumptions on the foreign concept, since their perspective is universal in all mankind. It is difficult to judge which of the two is more arrogant.
This is probably the most interesting comment I have read in a while, and very eloquently put, but I fear that I am not nearly as smart as I thought I was, and that this must be going right over my head, because it doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Could you elaborate on why is it ironic that this post is insightful?
Also, in regards to the narrow-minded perspective of ancient civilizations, I would offer an alternative; that we simply have a parochial understanding of their understandings. History is far too open to interpretation, and to manipulation. I don't think there is a person living today who could speak with any authority on the limited perspectives--or otherwise-- of those who lived thousands of years ago. My guess, from looking at what they managed to build, and how these similar structures can be found in many diverse parts of the ancient world, is that there was nothing regional at all about their outlook on life, and that they were more of a community of Earthlings than we are today, even with us now having the means of communicating all around the world in a second.
I do see exactly what you're getting at here, and it was really the motivation for me writing this piece. However, I do think there are plenty out these who do not default to one of these two options when hearing something that others would consider to be uncomfortable. There is just far too few of those types in the world.
I thank you for sharing such a deeply thought out comment, and I hope you will explain in a little more detail why you consider the post to be ironic.
Thank you for your reply. I find irony in the medium upon which your thoughts arrived, via an internet platform that prioritizes posts according to user preferences (feed).
Thanks for providing me with some clarity, that makes perfect sense now.
The two sides of the coin - acceptance and rejection - are, I think, not related to any ego whatsoever. They are both aspects of the brain's "optimised efficiency algorithm". So many functions are hidden away from consciousness as background processes so they can happen faster. I think the big joke is that so many processes that do impinge on consciousness actually come from the same source. It is so much more efficient to believe what you believe, and reject what you don't believe, rather than consuming all that energy thinking!
Until, of course, something happens to shatter that belief system - and notice that they tend to shatter rather than melt away, like a fission reaction.