I have been exploring the concept of human development by “non-innovation”, in other words, the idea that everything evolved without any great thinkers or “eureka” moments, and it has been extremely fruitful. Today I was looking at the development of farming … and I had a Eureka moment (which using the methodology I have, is not supposed to be part of human development).
The model says, that there is nothing special in this “eureka moment” even if it felt marvellous to me. Instead it was something that was going to happen inevitably and I just happen to be the person it happened to … and that was simply a result of the current state of human technological development. It was going to happen, whether I was around or not, So, I am nothing special …. but it still felt good.
But aside from the paradox inherent in MY approach (and it is mine … so a Eureka idea … so very much a paradox in a theory that says “Eureka moments don’t matter” … and they do not “belong” to people … they are just an inevitable stage in development that was always going to happen.) ….
But aside from that paradox, I’m increasingly seeing that it is going to be very difficult to explain what I’ve done to academia. Academia is a stifling culture which praises and admires the “Eurekas” … indeed it is very much a culture of the “inventor” and “expert” to whom it ascribes all great things. That is because it is a culture that praises the individual … especially the individuals in charge of academia.
They were never going to like my approach, even when it was obvious what I was doing, But now I find that I’m starting to develop quite sophisticated complex ideas of human development, which all rely on earlier work, non of it published. You cannot understand my latest ideas, without accepting and understanding the earlier …. non of it published,
Of course, publishing would improve the work through critique … and it will be far from perfect … but getting bogged down in long debates about detail would also destroy my ability and will to continue. The stifling culture of academia that “only changes one death at a time” is never going to accept anything so radical where even the approach is radical, but the result is a series of extremely radical proposals – all extremely controversial – so all draining my time to “argue my case” and therefore motivation to continue moving forward if I publish.
In current academia, even if you are an insider (not an outsider like me) to be accepted new ideas have to be pushed for the whole length of an academic career to finally be accepted. Because I am not so fettered, I’ve been able to do the work of half a dozen academic careers in a fraction of the time, albeit, the quality will never be as good as a thoroughly “traumatised” academic idea pushed for a lifetime against vicious critique.
Fortunately, I have no particular desire “to be accepted”, so I do not need any academic to agree with me. I just want to work it out … because the way we actually developed is absolutely fascinating. It’s like watching the very best thriller series, and never being disappointed. It’s like having my very own time machine … and I love it.
So, do I go back to start trying to explain … or continue the adventure into the unknown? Not a difficult choice.
