Cooking-Up Knowledge 2
Free Associations: Cooperative Interaction [essay]
Absolute certainty is a misnomer; however, there
are optional opinions. Optional opinions are beliefs
based on certain knowledge. Beliefs are associations to
conditions, are an individual's (psychological) effect to
(traditional, philosophical, democratic) causes during interaction.
Knowledge is a convention of wisdom, is the individual's
explanation, justification, and/or rationalization of what
occurs during an interaction. Therefore, optional opinions
are conditions freely associated to a convention of wisdom;
optional opinions are perceived effects to causes that are
based on certainties derived from an explanation, justification
and/or rationalization of a situation encircling an interaction.
Optional opinions catalyze relationships. Relationships
are situated by cooperative interaction, and are relative
to layers of cooperation that link a type of knowledge consistent
with a belief. The layers of cooperation that serve as a
portal for certainty are personal, professional, and political.
Building relationships requires interacting on the various
layers. There is a simplistic understanding between individuals
who interact on a single layer, however, in most situations,
interaction tends to occur on more than one layer and thus
understanding is more circuitous.
By exploring the permutational paradigms of layering
personal, professional and political cooperation through
interaction, this essay will discuss the simplicity and
circuity of understanding the optional opinions presented
within free associations.
Mutuality--agreement in understanding--is the key to overcoming
dislocation. Besides the outright disapproval of perspective,
individuals disagree when the explanation, justification
and/or rationalization of the association to conditions
is too convoluted (as described in bilateral dislocation),
or too complex (as described in trilateral dislocation).
However, while simplicity may be the key to reflecting mutuality,
simplicity only scratches the surface of comprehending the
traditional, philosophical, and democratic causes that affect
the psyche. Simplicity does not give rise to full understanding,
only to agreement in principle.
For individuals do freely associate conditions based on
conventions of wisdom. The complexity of the individual's
conventions is directly proportional to the amount of complexity
he/she has in his/her life. The simplicity or complexity
of an individual gives rise to optional opinions. Paradoxes
such as complex simplicity or simple complexity rarely give
rise to mutuality. Reflection occurs when an individual
decides/attempts to follow a path of simplicity (agreement
in principle) or complexity (agreement in understanding).
Belief and knowledge conflict within the individual, as
belief and knowledge conflict within a group of individuals.
Such potential for conflict either keeps mutuality at bay,
or sets mutuality as a rigid standard. There is little difference
for gaining certainty. So, to arrive at certainty, individual's
difference needs to be tolerated to the point of gaining
certainty. This does not mean individuals must reflect mutually
each other's opinions. No. Certainty means clarity of opinion
and the ability to (re)locate perspective flexibly.
Flexibility allows the individual to ascertain more clearly
what common sense is, what the common goal is, what the
common issue is. Henceforth, the individual is able to see
the simplicity as well as the complexity involved in a situation,
associate the associations to conditions and conventionalize
the conventions of wisdom.
Through self-evidence, self-interest, self-governance,
one could begin to freely associate relationships between
(another's) cause and effect, begin to fathom the key dynamics
of unilateral, bilateral, and trilateral configurations,
and learn how to protect one's opinions, that is if one
can keep one's options open.