On behalf of Serenity, we believe that the shadows on Plato’s cave are “reality.” We don’t recognize that someone is standing at the entrance to the cave and selectively determining which aspects of reality get projected onto the wall. We don’t acknowledge that someone else is standing inside the cave offering us a description and analysis. We can hope for a direct experience or at least for “honest” interpretations. Yet, we remained confused about what is “real” and often don’t trust our direct experience. We move, with great reluctance and considerable grieving, to a recognition that reality is being constructed for us and that we need to attend not only to the constructions, but also to the interests and motives of those who stand at the entrance to the cave and those who offer us their interpretations.
Plato’s metaphor of the cave does provide us with the opportunity to gain insights in our reflections on the nature of the cave, the world that is projected onto the walls of the cave, and the nature and agenda of the interpreters. This requires that we tolerate (or even feel comfortable) with Complexity. We should also consider whether or not to step outside the cave (direct experience). However, we must recognize that we might actually not be able to step outside the cave. Or we might just be stepping into another cave. Perhaps it Is safer to remain inside the cave than to venture outside without the help of interpreters. Should we (and can we) face the profound challenge of unmediated experiences (stepping outside the cave)? This certainly leads us far away from Serendipity—but may open the door (or cave entrance) to the fresh breeze of VUCA-Plus diversity—and reality.
Ambiguity and Clarity
Living in the mid-21st Century we are likely to find that many of the things we encounter and events that are happening around us can be quite confusing. Our world is often not very easy to observe clearly and the conclusions we reach about reality are often not consistent. Our collective blurry vision has an important systemic impact. As a society we can’t trust the accuracy of what we see or hear. Furthermore, we can’t trust what “experts” tell us about the world in which we are living (Weitz and Bergquist, 2022). If we are being honest with ourselves, then we are forced to adopt a social constructivist view of the world. There is no fundamental reality that can somehow be accurately assessed. Rather there are alternative constructions of the “real” world—which leave us with no clear, unambiguous sense of what is real and what is false. The traditional objectivist perspective must be abandoned. There is no objective way in which to assess the real world. We are living in Plato’s cave and the light we see projected on the wall is often flickering and not clearly seen.
What does this mean for us personally? It means that we often must look and listen a second or third time to ensure that what is seen or heard is accurate. And we must examine our own assumptions and our own constructive frame of reference to fully understand the way in which we are viewing the world. This task is quite challenging given all of the distorted lens and shades that are blocking our vision and creating our Bubble of Belief. How do we deal with what Frederick Jameson (1991) once called the “troubling ambiguity” of postmodern life?
We can regress to what William Perry (1970) titles a “Dualistic” perspective. We subscribe to the reality offered by one particular “expert” who arrives at our doorstep with a mantle of authority. This authority can come from academic or research-based pedigrees or from a position of power. Unfortunately, academic and research-based credibility can readily be questioned given the inherent instability of academia and research in the mid-21st Century (Weitz and Bergquist, 2022). It gets even worse when this instability is accompanied by acknowledgement of social construction as an underlying framework for assessing the value of expertise that is offered. We are faced with the prospect of transitioning to what Perry titled a “Multiplistic” perspective—where all expertise is questioned. Better to turn to power as a second source—that is much more stable and reassuring. It is authority embedded in power that will often win the day when the world is saturated with ambiguity. Regressive Dualism triumphs . . .
Download Article 1K Club
