    
|
|
21 May 2003
Evoking Authenticitythrough polyhedral global configuration of local paradoxes- / - Introduction Paradoxes Bridging a paradox: opening a new space Non-viability of a meta-stable space Stability through configuration Containment and authenticity Nested sequence of polyhedra Movement and focus of attention Authenticity as "re-membering" the present moment Cultivating the present moment "Making a gateway" Tragedy of "dis-membered gateways" Modelling: construction of a dwelling or temple by configuring polarities Modelling: stakeholders and authenticity Modelling: configuring paradoxes through the tensional integrity of their relationships Modelling: authentic dialogue and quarterstaff combat? Modelling: encoding contrasting understandings of authenticity Modelling: authentic dialogue as a game? Illustrations from Taoism and Buddhism? Fundamental paradox: Authentic vs. Unauthentic References IntroductionSociety is highly stressed by a range of amazing paradoxes, contradictions or intractable inequalities. Most frequently cited, for example, is the fact that the top 20 percent of society worldwide owns or controls 86 percent of resources, and the bottom 20 percent owns or controls 1 percent of resources. This situation is most forcefully exemplified by the income disparity between employees of a corporation and the disproportionate financial rewards accorded to their CEOs. A second example might be the explicit constitutional right of citizens to bear arms in the world's exemplar of democracy (a major trader in such arms) -- which officially supports the "decommissioning" of weapons of opposing factions in Northern Ireland, but fails to promote that constitutional right amongst its coalition partners and as a key factor in its efforts to export democracy to other countries. Is a heavily armed citizenry to be considered essential to the checks and balances of such a democratic system -- and to its comprehension and successful uptake by others? Individuals have to deal with such "irrational" situations, whether in their personal capacity or through the organizations in which they work. They have to explain them to their children. The track record of national and international institutions in responding to these situations is far from encouraging In the example cited, the gap is known to be increasing between rich and poor. Following the dramatic shift towards a monopolar world system as a result of the new new strategic policy of the USA, this paper explores the fruitful implications of the challenges highlighted in an earlier paper (America as Eve-ill Empire: Evocation of Authenticity Elsewhere, 2003) The exploration which follows focuses on the possibility that by both recognizing the range of these paradoxes, as well as configuring them appropriately together, a much healthier way forward will emerge. This approach is distinct from that employed in global modelling (based on systems analysis), or in identifying the elaborate networks of relationships between problems or strategies. The concern here is with how the configuration of paradoxes is comprehended as a whole, especially by an individual who is in many ways torn apart by them -- for example: longing to be richer (evoking envy) and feeling guilty compassion for the poorer (associated with a degree of disdain). The specific focus is on whether the range of paradoxes can be represented and comprehended as a spherically symmetrical polyhedral structure. Of particular interest is whether such a "global" structure could be endowed with the mnemonic properties which, through their pattern of interference, could evoke another way of being in the world. The question is whether, appropriately configured, a pattern of paradoxical disparities could constitute a form of "gateway" -- through which a more authentic and integrated mode of being becomes viable, whether for society or for the individual. ParadoxesParadoxes and contradictions are here considered to be dissonant opposites whose existence undermines the coherence of behaviour ordered by rational principles. This can form the basis of an alternative approach to aesthetics, as in Paradoxism initiated by Florentin Smarandache [more]. The concern of this paper, however, is that they force people to act in ways with which they are not comfortable and that are troubling to their consciences. This may be accompanied by complex exercises of rationalization and denial. It may be difficult to reconcile such differences, especially in response to the pointed questions of innocent children. As discussed elsewhere (Antagonistic Dualities: Polarization and Paradox, 1983), one approach to the logical discontinuity between contradictory "answers" is through the study of paradoxes. For Solomon Marcus (1982): "Paradoxes occur when two different levels of knowledge, of language, of communication, of reality, of human behaviour, etc. are seen as one level, are mixed, are superposed, are combined, or are confused." He gives 18 pairs of levels which demonstrate a variety of paradoxes of which some are well-known to specialists. To clarify the semiotic difficulties involved, Marcus groups them into four types:
Solomon Marcus and Monica Tataram have applied these distinctions in the analysis of 60 interacting global trends noted by the Goals, Processes and Indicators of Development Project (Paradoxical and and antinomic aspects of the global trends in the world today, 1982). They argue: "When dealing with the contemporary world, a basic step is to learn how to progress from a descriptive to an evaluative analysis, from what is directly perceived to what is scientifically understood, although such an understanding may sometimes surprise the intuitive perception....Many such trends are organized in opposite pairs, but their contradictory nature is much more richer and perfidious than what these binary oppositions reflect." The difficulty with any such approach is that the very logic of the method employed disguises the full force of the paradox and of the hiatus it engenders in any univocal communication. It effectively prevents the insertion of the engendering elements into the same framework, unless they are denatured and converted into symbolic entities, as in the case of the Marcus initiative. A particular concern here is with the way in which such unresolved differences get internalized as tensions that undermine individual and collective health and any feeling of well-being. In a sense exposure to a paradox is to place oneself "in the line of fire". This may be used to advantage or may, through stress, be a direct cause of ill-health. Colin Talbot (How the Public Sector Got its Contradictions, 2003) makes a useful comment on choice of terminology:
Talbot distinguishes three types of contradictions:
It is the latter which is the prime focus of what follows. Talbot introduces the valuable question: Why is it that paradoxical political, organisational or managerial behaviour seems to be not merely possible but actually beneficial, in certain circumstances? Such paradoxes may be particular to an individual and may be fundamentally disruptive of the harmonious flow of daily life (as notably identified in Chinese as *** or in Japanese as ***). The disturbing paradoxes for some may be of little significance to others. A suggestive preliminary checklist for consideration in this process might include:
Such a random selection may be seen intellectually as simply a list of antonyms. The emphasis here however is on the experiential response to such antonyms as they are used to categorize and order phenomena of daily life. An extensive study of these antonyms has been made in the context of a project on Human Values [more]. A comprehensive list of some 3,000 value concepts was ordered and clustered in terms of 230 value polarities, like those above. The study pointed to the possibility of globally configuring all such value polarities together [more]. Some steps were taken in this direction in the online version of this database, but were handicapped by constraints of mathematical algorithms and computer graphics technology [more]. At this stage, without denying the possibility and desirability of more complex and comprehensive configuration, the focus here is on any individual's personal choice of the more limited (say 4-12) active paradoxes that "torture" their own daily life. Bridging a paradox: opening a new spaceFaced with a paradox, an individual has effectively to deal with the coexistence of two incommensurable world views that manifest as a form of dissonance. This dissonance may be stated in dry factual terms, as in the opening paragraph of this paper. Doing so ensures a distance from their experiential reality. In the case of the first example above, however, coming face to face with an impoverished child in the gutters of Calcutta, whilst carrying a wallet of money that could feed the child for a lifetime, is another matter. The paradox is rendered more acute when the gutter is outside the house of a person richer than most could every hope to be in the West. Variants of this situation exist in every country. The individual in such situations is faced with a dynamic that can be handled in various ways -- none of which take away the nature of the paradox. Dysfunctionally this is best seen in the dynamics associated with substance abuse in a family setting (as notably explored by Transactional Analysis). But, potentially, it is the individual that can simultaneously attach meaningful value separately to both of the incompatible world views. It is the individual that may see both situations in a form of "value stereoscopy" through which a curious form of integrative aesthetic "perspective" is obtained. Failure to acquire such a "stereoscopic" view renders the individual vulnerable to being sucked uncontrollably into the chaotic dynamics to which he is then exposed. The linear polar relation is bridged by the individual who introduces a third pole -- the awareness from which the polarity is experienced. The individual becomes the "bridge" through which the dissonance is reconciled -- but only by participating in that dissonance as in a piece of avant garde music. It is in this bridging that we are shifted out of linearity and binary thinking. We construct or constitute the bridge across the paradoxes (polarities) that we perceive. Such issues have notably been explored from a theological perspective by John Robinson's analysis (Truth is Two-eyed, 1979). In arguing for a heterogeneity of epistemologies, Magoroh Maruyama (Paradigmatology and its Applications, 1974, p. 84) offers a beautiful metaphor in response to the (homogenistic) question "but which one is correct?" Maruyma's argument for "poly-ocular vision" calls for the use of different mind-sets together in order to transcend the limitations of each -- as in binocular vision. It is irrelevant to ask which eye has the "correct" picture and which the "wrong" one. For him: "Binocular vision works, not because two eyes see different sides of the same object, but because the differential between the two images enables the brain to compute the invisible dimension". The brain computes a third dimension which cannot be directly perceived. And if we live in a multidimensional space even more epistemological "eyes" are required. Reducing such vision to the parts in common provides much less than monocular vision. The co-presence of distinct perspectives ensures that from their differential an individual can envisage a more fundamental insight. The difficulty with Maruyama's presentation however, is that he often appears to associate such "poly-ocular" vision with the heterogeneity characteristic of Japanese culture, although this may not be his intention. This would then preclude the use of a homogenistic epistemological "eye" in any such poly-ocular configuration. Each "eye" has its inherent limitations and strengths, and the homogenistic "eye" presumably has its own vital contribution to make to the process of encompassing (or responding to) the complexity of our collective condition. In terms of his metaphor, this paper is about the design of such poly-ocular configurations and how they may be comprehended through any given "eye". His work, with J O Harvey's (Experience, Structure and Adaptability, 1966), demonstrates that a minimum of four such "eyes" are required to describe the variety of perceptions of our collective reality (see also Four Complementary Languages Required for Global Governance, 1998). For Vladimir Dimitrov and David Russell (The Fuzziness of Communication: a catalyst for seeking consensus, 1994):
A cautionary note in relation to this issue is provided by George Orwell's classic identification of "doublethink" in his novel Nineteen Eighty-four (1949; Plume, 2003). In Thomas Pynchon's introduction to a new edition of that novel (extracted in The road to 1984, Guardian 3 May 2003), describing society today:
Non-viability of a meta-stable spaceThe bridging place that the individual then occupies in this triangulation is an unstable, uncomfortable place. The experience is fundamentally jarring. It is this that augments the person's own level of stress. Such stress can of course be reduced by rationalization and denial, or simple indifference. The impoverished can be labelled disparagingly as "losers" or "trash". The focus can be placed on aspiring to the wealth of the rich seen as exemplars. This might be seen as a healthy pragmatic response for the individual -- and as realpolitik for a nation. More intriguing is the context of questioning opened up by a paradox when facile rationalization is felt to be inadequate. It is a cognitive space in which the simpler realities no longer hold so well -- if at all. The departure of the young Buddha from his father's carefully constructed protective palace -- after encountering the suffering of others -- makes this point. The extensive use of koans in Zen makes it in another way. The questioning space opened by a paradox, whilst exciting as a philosophical challenge full of promise, is not a stable one. There is no satisfactory rconciliation or resolution within the framework troubled by the paradox -- except through rationalization and denial. This may appear extremely viable in the short term -- as with the US use of binary thinking ("you are either with us or against us") -- but such paradoxes do not disappear. They might be seem to be eternally patient. Stability through configurationAs indicated above, there are many such paradoxes, whether or not many are actively problematic for a given individual. Rather than offering attention to paradoxes separately and in arbitrary succession, there is a case for exploring the consequences of considering them together -- at least those experienced as significant in a given period. The question is what might then be understood experientially by "together"? How can two or more paradoxes be held within a common framework? What exactly is a "common framework"? The question is especially relevant given the frequent appeals to "common values" and the search for a comprehensible, viable, universal framework for them -- with no concern regarding the paradoxical relationship in practice between many values and their polar opposites. Whether obvious or not, "positive" values (such as peace and freedom) have their "negative" aspects, just as "negative" values may have their "positive" aspects. Clarifying the nature of such "value polarities" was a particular concern of the above-mentioned Human Values project. What might be the characteristics of such a framework, given that its paradoxical components are significant primarily because they "break out of" rational cognitive frameworks? In the bridging situation described above, the individual provides the framework holding the single paradoxical relationship together. This might be termed a 1-dimensional configuration. If such a single paradox is represented by a line (or rod), consider the possibility of being able to dispose several such rods on a flat surface (2 dimensions). If the individual is to respond to them collectively, then the individual can be understood as placed at the centre of the configuration. So 3 paradoxes might be laid out to form a triangle with the individual at the centre. Similarly 4 might be laid out as a square, 5 as a pentagon, or 6 as a hexagon, etc. Setting aside for the moment whether (or how) the ends of the rods are linked in such a configuration, the question is how it impacts on a person's awareness -- "handling" 3 paradoxes simultaneously, for example. Whereas with the single paradox, the person could "evade" the destabilizing dynamic by "moving away" from the polarity in many directions, now the ability to do so is constrained. Such movement is effectively "barred". The individual can indeed step out of the configuration -- effectively denying its existential challenge and "moving out of the line of fire". Or the individual can move "up" and "away" from the configuration -- perhaps diminishing its existential weight. Or the individual can "move into" the plane of the configuration -- embodying the set of paradoxes in some way. In this case the configuration provides a kind of stable place for instability. To some degree the individual's awareness is dynamically held in that space more firmly than in the case of a single paradox. Any shift "towards" or "away" from a particular paradox in the plane is corrected by the pull of the others. In such a situation the individual's awareness is effectively "stressed" -- or inductively "heated" -- at the common focus of the dynamic set up by each paradox. In this sense the configuration functions as a kind of door or gateway that is opened by the transformation processes associated with the "heating". Rather than "heating", the process might be understood as a form of "transportation" -- perhaps somewhat modelled by the operation of a linear magnet. The "co-operation" of the paradoxes serves then to shift awareness "through" the configuration in a somewhat controlled manner. However if "through" is simply considered like going through a door into a new space -- this implies that in this new space the paradoxes will somehow magically no longer apply. Whilst such "irrational" spaces may well exist, as in fantasy and fiction, they are not the focus of this exploration. Again a failure to configure in some way results in the individual being sucked uncontrollably into the chaotic dynamics to which he or she is exposed -- the dynamics around a strange attractor. Containment and authenticityRather than disposing the paradoxes as rods on a flat surface, suppose now that they are arranged in 3 dimensions -- again with the individual at the centre. In this case 6 such paradoxes could form a tetrahedron, 8 an octahedron, 12 a cube, etc. Again the individual's awareness is dynamically held by the pull-push relations between the various paradoxes. However the hold is now even firmer, and the individual can no longer be "transported" in the same way. In a sense, any "transportation" is now into the fourth dimension, whatever that might be considered to mean. A cooking metaphor is helpful at this point, namely the suggestion that the individual's awareness is "transformed" rather than "transported" -- through the inductive "heat" associated with simultaneous exposure to the set of paradoxes. The individual is then forced to shift the dimensionality of awareness to discover a "space within" in which the paradoxes are reconciled according to unforeseen criteria. In this sense the configuration of paradoxes may be understood as evoking authenticity -- as with the use of a koan in Zen. The "fire without" is then somehow embodied as a "fire within": warmth ("heat") << "material" resistance >> light ("enlightenment") Of course, the configuration of paradoxes can also be experienced like the bars of a cage that prevent movement in any direction. This may well be a fruitful way of describing the situation of many individuals, of many groups, and of society as a whole. In this sense lack of freedom is a prime characteristic of society -- and many experience it in those terms. They may indeed engage in patterns of activities that appear to amount to freedom. But to what extent are such freedoms equivalent to those of a beast endlessly pacing the perimeter of its cage in a zoo -- or a fish in a fish tank? Aspects of this challenge have been explored with respect to "think tanks" and the "tank thoughts" to which such a container metaphor gives rise (see "Tank-thoughts" from "Think-tanks": constraining metaphors in developing global governance, 2003). What makes a container a livable environment -- in which one can thrive? And what kind of life can inhabit it? A Sufi tale alludes to the process of creating a door-less golden cage, that may at some time prove attractive to the spirit or muse that then takes up residence there – but which may also leave at any time. In this sense the container is not a constraint but a frame of reference through which higher dimensionality may be brought into focus and experienced. By contrast, in seeking to evoke authenticity, the challenge of designing and operating such a configuration in practice is superbly modelled by the challenges of nuclear fusion technology. In this case the much sought energy benefits of nuclear fusion can only be achieved if the generated nuclear plasma (a fourth state of matter) can be held within a container. Given that the plasma degrades if it comes in contact with its container, the design problem becomes how to hold it away from the walls of its container. This may be achieved by designing the container as a "magnetic bottle" in the light of the insights of magnetohydrodynamics [more; more]. The walls of the container, like the paradoxes in the configuration above, exert push-pull forces on the plasma. In this way the extremely high temperatures of the plasma (necessary for fusion) can be sustained without it being "quenched" by contact with the container wall. Authenticity requires analogous detachment. As might be expected, there is an intriguing isomorphism between the construction and operation of a magnetic bottle and of the traditional alchemical crucible and the associated notions of Ovum Philosophicum (which can be translated as the Philosophical or Hermetic Egg) [more]. This suggests that magnetohydrodynamics, and the associated fusion technology, might offer vital clues on how to operate a configuration of paradoxes. Given Isaac Newton's non-mathematical preoccupation with alchemy (only recently acknowledged), it is interesting that physicist David Peat has specifically related alchemical preoccupations to those of nuclear plasma (where "tensions" in the following quote might be understood in relation to the polarities of this paper):
The configuration serves as a kind of control framework -- except that the framework is essentially dynamic and the control is one of holding in place so that a transformation can take place which is of a higher dimensionality than the container. Virtue-Vice pairs, understood as paradoxes of daily life, can be usefully configured as such a control framework through which life is navigated (see Navigating Alternative Conceptual Realities: clues to the dynamics of enacting new paradigms through movement, 2002). This perspective raises the issue of how being (and feeling) alive is related to the experience of existential paradoxes. Are such configurations associated with a sense of identity -- with what we have to live with, and through which we have to express ourselves? Are they the energizing dynamics of life? To what extent might the many forms of life be understood as different ways of resolving the "metaphysical" challenge posed by a particular configuration of paradoxes? To what extent is a coherent worldview sustained by an appropriately configured set of paradoxes -- by the "burning" bars of a cage? Nested sequence of polyhedraThe geometry of the set of spherically symmetrical polyhedra is such that there are pathways of transformation from one to another [more]. The simplest are embedded implicitly in the more complex in which features of the simple are elaborated in more and more complex ways. If polyhedra can be used to hold "paradoxes" (as suggested above), can these be used to distinguish patterns of dynamic constraints on different systems, as follows:
The "maturation" process, through the sequence of polyhedra, then provides progressively greater sensitivity to the contextual challenge of embodying complexity. In a sense any given polyhedron in the sequence could be understood as functioning like an antenna -- a polyhedral array -- sensing the potential of the next complexification. The emergence and nature of higher forms of organization might also be explored in the light of two seemingly contrasting evolutionary forces:
This progression points to the manner in which authenticity offers the requisite degree of complexity (in terms of Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety) to provide coherence to the ecosystem of paradoxes. But the set of paradoxes active to consciousness in the struggle for coherence may be only of tertiary significance, leaving more fundamental paradoxes unaddressed, except by analogy and correspondence. Movement and focus of attentionIndividual attention tracks endlessly around any container, often following habitual circuits -- as noted by many meditation masters and psychologists. Some control may be exerted as with the control of the traffic on a model train set of some complexity -- switching points, stopping/starting trains, etc. The circuit may be more complex still -- perhaps as with the circuit board of any piece of electronic gadgetry -- capacitors, resistors, etc -- or with an extensive electrical grid. Attention may flow along pathways as along any decorative garden walk. Any particular stretch may be experienced like the string of an instrument -- it may be plucked to evoke resonances and harmonies with others elsewhere. Degrees of consonance and dissonance may be detected. Patterns of association may become perceptible as in the art of poetry. As with any journey, there is a pull onward to the next junction, and the next -- the potential of distant green fields. Significance may be derived from such "tourism" -- with explication taking the form of travel journals as in the earliest exercises in linear route mapping. In a formal organization the flow and focus of attention is ensured by arrays of subunits. A conventional organization chart might be seen to be an array vital to that body's knowledge management process. Typically this is hierarchical -- with daring excursions into matrix management and network organization models. These may all be considered to be different styles of array. They reflect equivalent arrays in conceptualization: hierarchy, matrix, and network. Interestingly the French term for a matrix-based conceptual array is grille de lecture, emphasizing that it is through the conceptual array that external phenomena are read -- as through a pattern of window panes (and, ironically, the Windows computer operating system offering a "gateway" to surfing the web). It is also worth considering how many conceptual schemes, whether theories or in the form of operational plans, can be considered as arrays -- ranging from lists of concepts (as in web menus), through tables, to more complex structures. The organization of these may be of special significance in practice (see Representation, Comprehension and Communication of Sets: the role of number, 1978). Although much studied, it is questionable whether array technology as applied to social organization is now as sophisticated as that applied to radio antenna design and operation. There has been little follow-up to Patrick Heelan's concern with "The logic of changing classificatory frameworks" (1974) in terms of the conceptual freedom of the lattices of non-Boolean quantum logic -- which is in complete contrast to the essentially mechanistic structure of conventional thesauri [more]. He noticed that meta-contextual languages able to unify two or more contextual languages are isomorphic. One intentional community that made very intensive use of conceptual matrices (which they termed "screens") was the Institute of Cultural Affairs [collective research]. The question is how such conceptual arrays function to orient the flows of insights and control messages throughout a community -- or for an individual. Can polyhedral configurations be understood as arrays of differently oriented facets that focus disparate insights? As such do they effectively function as conceptual antennae for the detection of insights of higher dimensionality? How does this contrast with processes based solely on logical chains of argument -- on a "line" of argument? Can an "argument" then be better understood as an array of reasons to be comprehended through insights into their complementarity and symmetry -- as with a configuration of paradoxes? This then raises issues about the kinds of visual literacy required to comprehend an argument, or conceptual complex, so presented. The work of mathematician Ron Atkin --- concerned with whether humans can live in only three dimensions -- is helpful in understanding the difficulties that may be experienced in holding an array of perspectives of any particular degree of complexity [more]. Forms of intelligence may be cultivated that are more adept at this than those whose strengths lie in conventional forms of literacy and numeracy. There is a case for exploring radiolaria as arrays. They are holoplanktonic protozoa widely distributed in the oceans (and in the fossil record) and range from 30 microns to 2 mm in diameter [more; more; more]. They have long been an inspiration as art forms in their own right [more]. Many are spherical in structure. Extremely interesting efforts by Nicholas Shea have been made to generate such spherical radiolaria structures [more] with graphic software within the context of other generated spherical arrays [more], including buckyballs [more; more].The question is whether such structures could be used to configure semantic content spherically -- a spherical semantic network map. This would then provide a context for exploring whether some collective initiatives effectively involve the construction of such "closed" arrays as "grilles de lecture". Do such structures:
Authenticity as "re-membering" the present momentA vital requirement to sustaining the embodiment of a way of knowing is through a mutually reinforcing pattern of mnemonic keys -- a memetic ecosystem of associations. At its simplest, and possibly richest, this may be a set of songs. Such patterns may be reinforced through any of the arts, in isolation or in combination. Aspects of such techniques are exploited in marketing campaigns, notably in political or religious propaganda. Much less known are the mnemonic techniques, notably associated with mnemonic architecture (as described elsewhere). The concept of cocooning points to other lessons from its metaphorical roots -- the cocoons spun by silkworms, other insects and spiders. The features are juxtaposed to create a psychosocial cocoon, and the resultant web of mnemonic associations, recall the mnemo-technical role of structures such as "memory theatres" (see Frances Yates, The Art of Memory, 1966). Such devices compensate for attention-deficiency disorders, erosion of collective memory (Tensing Associative Networks to contain the Fragmentation and Erosion of Collective Memory. 1980), and the inability to comprehend the longer-term cycles fundamental to sustainability. The traditional mnemonic role of beaded circlets merit wider recognition with respect to the challenges of sustainability (Designing Cultural Rosaries and Meaning Malas to Sustain Associations within the Pattern that Connects, 2000). In effect a way of knowing becomes all-encompassing when the pattern of associations is all-encompassing -- offering particular semantic pathways in every circumstance. Pejoratively, this may be labelled in anti-sect terminology as a dangerous degree of "programming" typical of "brainwashing" -- that urgently calls for remedial "de-programming". Curiously however professional training of any kind is offered through "programmes" -- perhaps implying that any professional qualification is the result of successful programming. Religious education -- to compensate for the errors propagated by sects -- is also offered through "programmes". There is already recognition that the simpler forms of propaganda are evolving through "psychological operations", to "information warfare" into "memetic warfare" -- to be understood as invasive exercises in programming and counter-programming. The plethora of information and knowledge now available, especially via the web, is making evident the diminishing capacity of humans to "make sense" of it as a whole. The situation will be aggravated in the future when every person will probably have a website as a birthright -- to be cultivated during life, and cared for as an electronic tombstone after death, in a process reminiscent of the life-long preoccupations of the pharaohs. People are increasingly overwhelmed by significance -- with significance grasped in the moment rapidly fading and eroding with the passage of time (see |