𝐒𝐨, 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐌𝐞 𝐖𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 ..

"Anything I might say someone can be prove me wrong. So, now that you know I'm wrong, we have nothing to disagree about." This I got for the great teacher Dr. Serge Gracovetsky who opened his scientific presentation so charmingly with this statement at the First International Fascia Research Congress in 2007.

Who likes being wrong? 

That would be ... well, nobody. Who likes being right? I assume you're intelligent enough to know the answer to that question. Am I right? 

So here we are, everybody is right. Thinks so, anyway. Oh, those that disagree with me, they're wrong. But, to them, they're the right ones; and I'm ... you guessed it. That would be an emphatic, wrongo! Goes with the name, "Wronski".

Am I right?

There's a problem with being right. Not like right about what side of the road to drive on, or which way to unscrew that pickle jar. Not that functional stuff we all have a consensus agreement about. Right as in "most certainly I am" about the conceptual, political, theoretical, scientific stuff. What's it all about kind of stuff.

If you want to get a snootful of righteousness need I get into the military conflicts currently raging? Or, how the medical/pharmaceutical/industrial complex is so all in on Chemistry. There's probably a pill to take for any which way you turn. Is there a pill for righteousness? Side effects? We'll cover the voice over in those ubiquitous commercials with some breezy tunes and happy faces having fun.  "Don't take it if you're allergic to it." Legals are covered. Ask you Doctor. After all he's an expert. Translate: he's right.

It's that certitude don't allow for anything new to get in. Like there's no other way to look at it. Certainly not anything contrary which disproves the position. "Right", after all, is just a position. Way on the other side of the teeter totter from "Wrong". The center just puts you on the fence. Or, so they say.

Beware of the certain ones. Not that they're not necessarily right, but that they're certitude has them in a lock. And, as any God-fearing Buddhist will tell you, things have a way of changing, most certainly. Even in science. All knowledge is provisional. Facts are facts, of course. Theories are workable, until they're not. The Earth was once considered the center of things. Easy to see how come that was the big idea. Then some smarty comes along and it turns out the Sun is. Galileo got into some hot water with the Catholic Church with that idea.

And who would vote for a candidate who claims to not know? The thing is though when you take the position of not knowing, this opens up the field to take in a wide view and seeing creative options, no clutter of certainties. This is not a new idea. It's been there all along. Buried, perhaps, under the din of competing certitudes. 

They say a man who knows doesn't speak. Don't be taken in by the silent ones. They could just be gaming the system, pretending to know. Which is another way of showing the tell that they don't. But, do they know they don't know? That is a good question.

Here's the deal. When you come to that "I don't know" place you find yourself in the most creative position. Nothing coloring your view. If you don't know, then you have to look at something or other afresh. This does not mean that everything you know is down the toilet. No. It's just that you're not clutching it in front of your eyes. It's there. To be drawn upon as needed. But, not forcing itself onto the screen. 

Capische?