THESE THINGS CALLED CHANGES

We could look around us and claim what we see and experience indicates decline.  We could and many do that include, the disillusioned and discouraged, the disenfranchised, dreamers and idealists will be visited by realists.  And who could argue? Except is it possible the strenght of this point of view might be illusion.  Whether it is or isn't, how are we to know?  Apart from that we would need some reason to invest our thinking in that enterprise.  'So what?'  Who would be inconvenienced one way or the other. Does it truly matter that we know the truth? Whose to say it isn't one qualifited opinion in a world of continuous opinions, all on a spectrum that reduces opposition as shades of grey. At some point the extreme edge of one meets the extreme edge of the other. When we speak about opposites, it is us speaking about stereotypes for the purpose of slowing down the vibration temporarily to let us observe more closely. Stereotypes serve a purpose that isn't a problem until we ascribe causality. That A+B=C when all we really have is A=B=C.  I suspect we are of the same mind as were those who elevated thinking. Maybe we should read Jan Komenius, or know who was  Abū Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyyā al-Rāzī?  But we're tribal, as were they. It puts what we and they are thinking and saying in a broader context. Whose truth are we talking about?  The one that applies narrowly or the one that might be distant but more accurate? The logic and knowledge of those involved might be self serving or malevolent. Or it could be what seemed right at the time.  The greater truth, if there is ultimate truth, will be the measure that matters in the long run. But today, optics matter. How we get there? that's what we strive for- getting there.