Why is it that when we see a wall with a black speck on it, we pay so much attention to the black speck, the 0.01 percent of the area, but very little to the massive 99.99 percent of the surface area?

We pick and we pick and we spend our lives looking for thornless rosebushes. Instead of precise diagnosis and the lesser evil or the greater good of alternatives in the horizon.

And by so doing, we lose our ability to perceive ambiguity accurately. And thus, we hand over risk-taking, and the returns and job-creation opportunities from risk-taking, to others. Thereby reducing the amount of wealth available to society.

Like farting around the goal-post and not wanting to try until we are sure it will go in, and someone else takes the ball off us.

Is it possible that it is because we are wrong in viewing everything as default opposites? Is not light complementary to darkness? What use is Edison's invention, the lightbulb if not for darkness? Is not a plug complementary to a socket like a mountain is to a valley? Should not the 'Opposition Leader' be called the 'Complementary Leader' — after all, does not the Complementary Leader assist in keeping the main leader honest and in making sure all perspectives are taken into account in arriving at the greater good policy?

When someone has an opinion that is contrary to ours, should we not treat it as a complementary opinion that either affirms ours or helps in finding the more accurate reality? After all, much better that he has a contrary opinion, then he (a) be apathetic (b) throw red herrings or (c) launch personal attacks, is it not?

Without government, religion, media, universities or bank accounts to blame, ants have no problems with food and shelter.

Is it possible that ants succeed more because they do not have as perverted a view of reality as we do? That they are much better at perceiving and acting rapidly on ambiguity?

And before someone says "oh, but every human being is like that", let me pre-empt it, "If two wrongs don't make a right, do six billion wrongs make a right? If it doesn't help our cause, why bother with this Knowledge-Society-suicidal argument?"