Zero vision and the Western salvation narrative


“You want if possible—and there is no madder ‘if possible’—to abolish suffering…?” 

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (par. 225, emphasis in original).


Some, or even many, have started to question the zero accident vision and the safety commitment practices it produces. Our knowledge of what a zero vision is, where it comes from and how it might or might not work has many gaps. In a sense, it is still a ‘black box.’ Little is known about the exact activities and mechanisms that lie underneath the reductions in harm that committed companies have witnessed, and little research has been conducted into this. Effectiveness of implementing the vision is not uniform. Negative consequences have been noted, such as excessive quantification and bureaucratization of safety, the suppression of incident and injury data, and the unfocused spending of investigative resources and improvement initiatives. And though often considered a worthy ethical commitment, most accident theories, e.g. normal accident theory, man-made disaster theory and drift theories do not believe that a zero vision—a world without accidents—is actually achievable.

Let’s take a brief look here at the very cultural-historical basis of what amounts to not just an idea, but an ‘archetype’ in Western thinking. It locates the commitment to a zero vision inside what is known as the salvation narrative—the notion that a world without suffering is not only desirable but achievable, and that efforts expended toward that goal are morally right and inherently laudable¹. This contrasts with other cultural-historical traditions which see suffering as inevitable. The aim of considering these foundations for the zero vision is to understand that the zero vision is but one option. Even if many in the West consider it to be morally self-evident and unquestionable (the kind of persuasion that turns some into ‘zero-zealots’), such a consideration can show that the commitment has become enabled during millennia in which a particular narrative of suffering took hold in the West. Whether this makes a zero vision right or wrong is not the point (and probably beyond any individual’s judgment). But it shows the zero vision as historically and culturally dependent—the product of social constructions that have gradually established the zero vision as a legitimate reading of suffering and salvation today. Other readings are possible too, which carry different, and possibly more humane, implications for organizational or managerial commitments.


The Western salvation narrative
rainbowSociologist Max Weber noted that salvation or relief from suffering has been a central pursuit of humankind for millennia, which “is still present and pervades contemporary organization and management…though today it is rarely referred to in religious terms, nor typically called salvation”. The idea that a world without suffering is not only desirable but achievable is deeply embedded in Western thinking about ethics, human choice and action. Most cultures evolved allegories about their own birth. Many start with human beings living in close intimacy with the divine. In this blissful initial state, there is no ontological divide, there is complete harmony with nature and each other—and no suffering. Storytellers may have invoked these images to reassure listeners that life was not meant to be so painful, so separated. Then, typically, follows a separation. The allegory of Adam and Eve who inhabit the Garden of Eden (placed second among more than twenty creation stories that can be found in the Judeo-Christian bible, but likely the oldest one, from around 1000–900 BCE) follows this script. But it does so with a major distinction from similar contemporary accounts (e.g. the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh). The Judeo-Christian account places moral responsibility for that separation (and humanity’s subsequent introduction to suffering) on the human; on a human rule violation.

Through historical events that span millennia and shaped the societies we inhabit today, this has had a profound effect on how the West reads the connection between human choice, commitment, compliance and suffering. Important writers along the way such as Augustine, Luther and Calvin contributed to this characterization. Augustine, for example, writing in the early fifth century BCE, explained that:

…when an evil choice happens in any being, then what happens is dependent on the will of that being; the failure is voluntary, not necessary, and the punishment that follows is just (Yu, 2006, p. 129).

Suffering, in this reading, is caused by bad human choices; it is the just punishment that follows on such choices. Suffering is not inevitable, it just depends on ‘voluntary’ rational human choice. The other side, though, much advertised in the Protestant ethic (see below), is that suffering can be relieved by good choices, and by hard work. A return to Eden may be difficult, but a world without suffering is a proper aspiration, as it hinges in large part on our own efforts.

Weber sees clear links between such beliefs about suffering, salvation and organizational practices that reverberate even in our own time. Current managerial and organizational practices have grown, even if thoroughly secularized, out of the Judeo-Christian tradition, through the Protestant ethic. Weber coined the term ‘Protestant ethic’ in 1904. It is the view that a person’s duty is to achieve success through hard work, commitment, diligence, engagement and thrift, and that such success is a sign of salvation. Around the time of Weber’s work (late 19th – early 20th century), a strong work ethic and subsequent success were seen as signs of salvation; as a relief from suffering. It fulfilled the Western salvation narrative through a secular paradigm of individualism, rational choice and consequentialism. That is, individual workers were responsible for the creation of their own salvation; their own choices determined their success at this; and their actions got measured by the consequences, the outcome.


How the zero vision might contribute to new kinds of suffering
And that paradigm is back—after a century of growing workplace democratization, increased regulation, organized labor and employer accountability. Gray (2009) argues that a fundamental reversal is already visible in health and safety. He calls it a neo-liberal trend towards “responsibilization” and shows how workers are assigned ever more responsibility for their own safety at work. The resurgence of behavioral safety over the past two decades has coincided with the neo-liberal (or in North America: neo-conservative) turn in governance. Workers are held accountable as individual moral, rational actors: two thirds of all workplace safety citations in Gray’s study were directed at workers or immediate supervisors, not employers. Workers are “instructed to become prudent subjects who must ‘practice legal responsibility’” (p. 327). Typical prescriptions are for workers to protect their own safety health, follow safety instructions and training, and use protective equipment. This while error-producing conditions related to production pressures, organizational goal conflicts, shifts and schedules, ergonomic issues, or lack of prevention-through-design might get overlooked.

Workers’ individual choices, then, are seen as responsible for safety, or the lack of it. “The failure to practise individual responsibility in the face of workplace dangers,” Gray concludes, “is often used to explain why workers who perform unsafe jobs become injured” (p. 330). To the extent that Gray’s observations are representative, they embody our contemporary version of the Protestant ethic, and, by extension, the Western salvation narrative. Suffering is caused by human choice; but good choices and hard work can provide relief from suffering. Thus, achieving a zero vision (and avoiding suffering) hinges once again largely on the Protestant ethic (by any other name). A ‘zero vision,’ such as it is, is organized around the eradication of the causes of suffering (bad human choices, bad humans).

The problem is, it might contribute to new forms of suffering. Consider the following two examples:

  • In a food warehouse 150 workers load and unload trucks, lift boxes, drive fork trucks, and move pallets. Each month that no one reports an injury, all workers receive prizes, such as $50 gift certificates. If someone reports an injury, no prizes are given that month. Management then added a new element to this “safety incentive” program: if a worker reported an injury, not only would co-workers forego monthly prizes but the injured worker had to wear a fluorescent orange vest for a week. The vest identified the worker as a safety problem, and alerted co-workers: he/she lost you your prizes (Frederick & Lessin, 2000). This is like making people wear a ‘Dunce cap,’ as was practiced in education with slow-learning pupils through the early 1900’s.
  • A Louisiana man is in prison for lying about worker injuries at a local power utility, which allowed his company to collect $2,5 million in safety bonuses. The 55-year old, who was safety manager for a construction contractor, was sentenced to 6,5 years prison followed by two years of supervised release. He was convicted of not reporting injuries at two different plants in Tennessee and Alabama between 2004 and 2006. At his federal trial, jurors heard evidence of more than 80 injuries that were not promptly recorded, including broken bones, torn ligaments, hernias, lacerations and injuries to shoulders, backs and knees. The construction contractor paid back double the bonuses (Anon., 2013).

In these examples, the organizations’ commitment to zero degraded into bullying and into fraud, respectively. In the first example, as patient safety advocate Lucien Leape would put it, we have “come to view an error as a failure of character—you weren’t careful enough, you didn’t try hard enough.”. The suffering inflicted in that example is, in a sense, a blaming and mocking of the victim. It also tends to create adversarial workplace relationships and eroded trust. A zero vision, in other words, enacted as a late modern form of the Protestant ethic (where workers’ own moral choices are seen as responsible for their avoidance or creation of suffering) can paradoxically contribute to new forms of suffering.

In the second example, workers’ suffering was compounded by unacknowledged and untreated injuries, and by sustaining underlying workplace conditions that could create additional harm. As the Head of the US Occupational Safety and Health Authority commented,

This case shows the destructive consequences that purely rate-based incentive programs can have. Far from promoting safety, the bonus led to a systematic effort to conceal injures. Injured workers were denied or delayed medical treatment. Underlying workplace safety issues went unaddressed (ISHN, 2013, p. 1).

A zero vision enacted through an organizational/contractual incentive system in the second example shows how the archetypical promise of a world without suffering can simultaneously produce suffering and hide it from view. Similar (though much less extreme) cases, or what they stand for, can be found (GAO, 2012).


Alternative visions of suffering
The idea that a world without suffering is the norm from which we once ‘fell’, and that such a world is once again achievable or at least morally laudable to strive for (e.g. through a zero vision) is not shared in equal measure by other ontologies. Buddhism, for example, is acutely concerned with the relief of suffering. It is, however, not equally committed to seeing suffering as the result of human choice, and is ready to acknowledge that suffering is inevitable and universal. Rather than relieving suffering by trying to “abolish” it (as Nietzsche mocked the Judeo-Christian commitment), Buddhism might call for the relief of suffering by compassion or, literally, ‘suffering with’:

The Buddha once comforted a suffering mother who had lost her child, by asking her to find a mustard seed from a family that had not suffered from losing a relative. The mother, who failed to find such a family, realized the universality and inevitability of suffering. She eventually became one of the Buddha’s foremost disciples, filled with compassion in helping others (Yu, 2006, p. 151).

This is of course but one alternative. And these alternatives are not neatly parceled geographically. Western management practices have spread with colonization and then globalization, even as Eastern traditions have seeped into Western-style management and organization. This presents great opportunities. The image of suffering above, and its call to compassion, can for example be found in recent Western literature on ‘second victims.’ These are workers involved in an incident that (potentially) harmed or killed others, and for which they feel guilty and responsible. Their suffering has been likened to post-traumatic stress, a disorder which is currently acknowledged to be incurable—but manageable with proper intervention. In other words, it is the sort of suffering that is inevitable, but for which relief can be brought. Programs for critical incident and stress management, for example, try to do exactly that by prescribing repertoires of psychological first aid, debriefings, and follow-ups. Policies and protocols for this are well-tested and developed by now, though they lack implementation in many fields partly because of the preoccupation with attempting to abolish the causes of suffering, rather than alleviating its effects.

What this might inspire us to consider, is that a zero vision does not necessarily have to translate into an eradication of the incidents that cause suffering. It can also translate into a commitment to alleviate the suffering that remains inevitable; the unrelenting residue of harm that remains even after we have implemented all safety measures we know we should. Such suffering should be addressed by showing compassion and support. This will produce rather different (perhaps more humane) commitment practices—concentrated on seeing the human behind the worker, on disclosure and forgiveness, on consolation, reassurance, restoration and enhancing individual people’s resilience. It is a zero vision directed not at the causes of suffering, but at its effects. Making those effects go away, or alleviating them by offering solidarity, humanity, integrity and collegiality, is still within our power. It is still our choice. That, indeed, is a moral choice toward a zero vision that is worth considering seriously.


Note 1: The Western salvation narrative is, of course, a product of Judeo-Christian thinking—the tradition that gave the West (even if largely secularized today) much of its ethical code. This paper categorically does not wish to impugn the truth or validity that people might read into this tradition, nor the faith which impels them to act morally. It attempts a weak and distant form of exegesis, the time-honored critical explanation and interpretation of texts that stem from that, and alternative, traditions.



Anon. (2013, 12 April). Jail for safety manager for lying about injuries. Washington Examiner. Retrieved from

Frederick, J., & Lessin, N. (2000). The rise of behavioural-based safety programmes. Multinational Monitor, 21, 1-7.

GAO. (2012). Workplace safety and health: Better OSHA guidance needed on safety incentive programs (Report to Congressional Requesters). Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.

Gray, G. C. (2009). The responsibilization strategy of health and safety. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 326-342.

ISHN. (2013, 16 April 2013). Safety manager sent to prison for lying about workplace injuries. ISHN Magazine. Retrieved from

Yu, X. (2006). Understanding suffering from Buddhist and Christian perspectives. Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, 7(1-2), 127-152.



  1. Rob Long Reply

    Sidney, thanks for this post and I liked how you positioned the discussion in a western salvation narrative. I had not considered the theology of suffering in my thinking to date. Either as an archtype or ideology, the semiotics of zero assumes an absolutist, perfectionist or utopian position which you rightly locate in a religious or theological discourse of suffering. Whilst I agree with your reflection on Weber’s theory of the Protestant work ethic, there are a range of traditions that evolved from Calvin and Luther that are neither Puritan nor Capitalist. Such traditions stand in contradistinction to Weber’s observations and can be traced through neo-marxist theologies (Moltmann etc) back to roots in the Anabaptists to Calvin etc. These traditions don’t associate suffering with choice or Weber’s ethic. Such traditions have a different sense of the absolute and perfection where suffering is not caused by human choice and humans are not deemed ‘bad’. I think you rightly recognize other ontologies such as the Buddhist tradition and there are Christian traditions in Protestantism and radical Catholicity that have similar traditions. Such traditions emphasise resilience and grace as their teleology. As far as the zero archetype stands such traditions reject the notion of association of absolutes and perfection with humans. The semiotics of such traditions bear little resemblance to Weber’s generalization and discourse. I see in the semiology of the zero discourse no option but a trajectory and organisational grammar (Halliday) of denial and punitive anguish. Associated with this is also a different theology of hope and empathy that the absolutes of zero disconnect. Thanks for your post.

  2. Bill Wilson Reply

    Dr. Dekker,

    The “Zero Vision” for Safety might also owe a lot to Philip Crosby’s “Zero Defects” (ZD) philosophy in Quality [1]. Probably the most well-known (and diametrically opposed) alternative might be the “System of Profound Knowledge” (SoPK) of W. Edwards Deming [2]. Both have their good points, e.g. ZD with its focus on defect prevention and SoPK with its focus on the understanding of systems — and both demand that everyone (from the shop floor to the CEO’s office) be involved in Quality. However, they have very different base assumptions regarding defects: ZD says the standard must be 0 because anything else is a commitment to error, whereas SoPK says that variation is inevitable and must therefore be managed. A study of the philosophical differences between ZD and SoPK might yield results that look very similar to this article’s arguments related to Safety.

    Bill Wilson


  3. Tanya Hewitt Reply

    I too appreciate this idea of the Western Salvation narrative, its roots in Judaeo-Christian teachings, and the perverse consequences that striving for a zero vision brings us to today. I do hope, though, that this acknowledgement does not distract from a preventive approach. Perhaps some insight from Edwin S. Shneidman, the noted thanantologist and suicidologist might help. He was the first to truly study suicide, and pioneered the idea of there being three phases to the process: prevention, intervention and postvention. He argued that all three components comprise suicide (either completed or averted), and that not engaging in postvention for a bereaved family or a person from whom intervention was successful is an incomplete process. Perhaps this can be transferred to safety – where there are preventive efforts (and perhaps that is where the emphasis should be), but there are ample intervention efforts (the recovery processes, for example, that HROs are so well known for), and postvention efforts – the second victim and like approaches. While these intervention and postvention processes are necessary, so is prevention. However – prevention without a zero vision edict, to be sure. I just don’t want to see the “inevitability of error” take over a discussion in safety – as this can be a very formidable challenge in preventive efforts.

  4. Rob Long Reply

    Tanya, thanks for your thoughtful ideas, I will follow up Shneidman. I find the notion of prevention, intervention and postvention very helpful. I think one of the fears and ideological drivers of the zero discourse is founded in binary oppositionalism. THis supposes that truth is established by the denial of opposites in other words, that if you don’t favour zero one advocates harm. Such thinking and logic is fundamentalist in nature and suits the zealous conviction of zero religiosity. What is missing from the ideology of zero is any discussion of the psychological by-products of zero semiotics (the text, symbols and grammar of organising). The idea that zero is semiotically neutral is an absurdity and most articulate zero as a noble virtue without any consideration of the many embedded contradictions. I don’t accept the discourse of error so popularised in safety for it too presupposes a binary construct of risk. Why is the notion of fallibility missing from the language of safety and why is the notion of fallibility understood pejoratively rather than through the lens of learning and resilience? If we are indeed going to do ‘safety differently’ we need to first move forward from binary understanding of humans and modify the semiotics of failure, fear and error from safety discourse. As long as the binary logic drives us to the illness of perfectionism and the autocracy of absolutism, safety will continue to put window dressing and spin on a dehumanising process.

  5. Ryan Reply

    Great read. I would like to offer one other, perhaps redemptive, exegesis from St. Augustine, which you’ve actually captured quite nicely in your final paragraph Sidney, focussed more positively on what we should do, in contrast to what we should avoid.
    “Love, and do what you will”.

  6. Liam Moran Reply

    Dr. Dekker

    I enjoyed your article, though I disagree with your premise. And, it is interesting that you should use the word ‘archetype’ in relation to Zero Harm rationale. In his wonderful book ‘The Master and his Emissary’ Ian McGilchrist describes two ways of looking at the world and interpreting reality based on brain functioning. One groups what is perceived according to particular features that must invariably be present, whereas, the other takes account of the whole, comparing it to an ideal, exemplar or archetype.

    The previous world view, according to McGilchrist, favors abstraction, needs certainty, cannot cope with paradox and constructs its beliefs block by block in a linear progression. And because its thinking is decontextualized, tends towards a slavish following of the internal logic of the situation, even if this is in contravention of everything experience tells us. The other way of looking at the world, though, sees complex, embodied, interdependent wholes that are treated holistically in their context, are part of a narrative and are grounded in an embodied experience.

    This article, therefore, would appear to be an instance of one world view looking at the other, trying to make sense of it utilizing only its own criteria, hence, the placement of the phenomena under scrutiny within a narrative and contextualized. This though, is not how the other type of thinking works.

    And, while I too have noticed the quasi-religious nature of all health and safety, but particularly Zero harm (moral righteousness), I do not believe that it is religiosity that is driving this thinking. I believe that it is being driven by the same thing that is driving religiosity in the first place; a biological evolutionary adaptation.

    In his book ‘The Righteous Mind’, Professor Jonathan Haidt of New York University’s Stern School of Business suggests that there are essentially six basic moral foundations. Each foundation has different settings and, like the settings on a music sound system, can be set high in some people and low in others. One of these foundations stems from an evolutionary adaptation which helps us avoid things that might contain harmful germs. It produces disgust and a desire for purity. However, this desire for purity (and sanctity) does not stop at food; it can in some people be transferred onto abstract topics upon which a rationale can then be built block by block.

    This may look religious, a dogma built on a moral foundation, and it may be that the same people are involved in both doctrines, but it is not caused by religiosity. As Robert pointed out many Judeo-Christian religions not only accept suffering they positively embrace it. Indeed, St Paul in his letter to the Romans (5:3-4) said that “suffering produces endurance, endurance produces character and character produces hope.”

  7. Rob Long Reply

    Liam, whilst I enjoyed reading McGilchrist I didn’t warm to his binary view of the brain and mind. There is plenty of evidence to show that ‘thinking’ exists outside of the two hemispheres of the brain (eg. alimentary thinking New Scientists Dec 2012). Similarly, I find the Kahneman binary fast and slow unhelpful. The polarisation of thinking tends to forget the importance of the in-between. The black and white forgets the grey. It is the believer who interprets the agnostic as an atheist.
    I quite like the Jungian ‘archetype’ construct to understand religiosity, as it sustains the idea multiple coexisting archtypes and personas. I also like your use of worldview or Kuhn’s paradigm or sometimes, I find disposition helpful.

    I agree that religiosity doesn’t drive the thinking of the zero harm discourse but this doesn’t diminish the nature of the denial of suffering as a religious quest. I am convinced that most people on the zero harm trajectory are unaware of their own religious disposition even though they might scoff at the church or other beliefs. Maybe it is a sense of biological evolution that drives them but the practice and semiology is profoundly religious. I think Sidney’s link to salvation narrative captures well the nature of the quest to deny suffering embedded in zero harm language and discourse. I find it strange that in our private lives many in safety want to be profoundly secular and yet in safety life ridiculously religious.

  8. Liam Moran Reply

    I’m glad somebody enjoyed reading McGilchrist Robert, because I found it an awful struggle. I’m pretty sure there is a 20 page paper in there somewhere waiting to be set free. And his binary presentation of the mind, despite his occasional protestations to the contrary, almost made me throw the book at the wall a few times. Indeed, there were times when I began to wonder was he advocating jettisoning the left hemisphere entirely. Who needs abstract thought anyway?

    However, it is my understanding that his contention was, though only briefly referred to, that good reasoning does indeed require both hemispheres, that in most people most of the time a kind of dialectic effect takes place between the two world views producing a new reality. In fact, I am almost certain that there is a few pages in there somewhere devoted to the in-between that you refer to, but I haven’t the hart to wade through the mush to find them. In any case I imagine that the bell curve applies as much to this process as everything else, and that there are outliers on one extreme who exist almost exclusively on intuition, while on the other extreme there are those who are slaves to rationality.

    Although, if I recall correctly, it was McGilchrist’s assertion that the right hemisphere prepares the menu, so to speak, which the left hemisphere applies its form of reasoning to, before returning the thought to the right hemisphere to apply a final intuitive understanding. This can then break down in anyone at any time. So perhaps there is no left/right divide among people, just among thought processes.

    For instance, if the logical argument that ‘unless we set our goals at Zero we are setting out to hurt people’ is returned to the right hemisphere it gets binned, because we intuitively know that’s garbage, and we go again. But if it isn’t our left hemisphere which excels at denial and philosophy is left to defend it. And once we have expressed an opinion in favor of something, irrespective of our experience, then both hemispheres are committed.

    However I believe that the origin of the compulsion towards Zero Harm stems from an intuitive value, the same intuitive value that also makes religiosity appealing. Haidt calls this the Sanctity/Degradation moral foundation and, because it can be set high in some people and low in others, people range between fundamentalism and apathy.

    But, because our brains are essentially pattern recognizers, we can get the same experience as religion from a beautiful vista, an AC/DC concert or Zero Harm. It is, in my view a dogma built on the same foundation as religion, hence the similarity, but I don’t believe that it is a type of religiosity. I think that both Zero Harm and religiosity are typical, possibly archetypical, forms of Haidt’s Sanctity/Degradation value.

    In any case, Haidt proposes different evolutionary adaptations and different triggers, current and original, for each moral value and according to his thinking the Care/Harm value which, presumably, would be involved in alleviating suffering has different origins and different triggers to the Sanctity/Degradation value.

    And, in all the debates I have had (I lead a sad life, I know) with Zero Harm aficionados, I have never once come across the Care/Harm value; it has simply never even been mentioned. Indeed, I just had a quick look at your book and out of the 10 quotes you use to illustrate the Zero Harm argument only one could, in my view, be attributed to the Care/Harm foundation, whereas, most can be attributed to a quest for purity, perfection… sanctity.

    1. Rob Long Reply

      I think you are right Liam and certainly right about the sanctity/degradation issue. Again, another binary construct that distorts reality. Indeed, Benner argues that any binary/dualist ontology always confuses and distorts reality. Similarly important in understanding ZH and safety as a religion. A study of soteriology wouldn’t go astray but with the safety fixation on engineering that’s not likely. The global safety mantra of zero vision is now complete ( I think it is that STEM knowledge that helps safety become blind to its own theology.
      As far as ZH goes, I don’t think many understand the nature of semiotics, semantics or semiosis and the unconscious so, safety thinks ZH is just a set of words without archtypical force and for most ZH crusaders ZH represents a meaningless set of words they redefine to suit their anthropological assumptions. None have even begun to think critically about or deconstruct the hidden trajectory or cultural formation of such language in the collective unconscious, Safety has no capacity to do such. Indeed, such goal thinking and the fixation with measurement is essential to the binary discourse. I think unless a sense of dialectic is understood then whatever words they replace it with essentially become the same thing. There is much better language and discourse to capture the complexity and paradox of human being and risk.
      Good pick up on the care-harm dialectic, I think you would like Mary Douglas ‘Risk and Blame’ and her discussion related to defilement/taboo and risk. I don’t see anywhere anyone articulating the idea that work in safety is about care and helping. All this spin of professionalism is just a mask for more of the same. I am writing about this in my next book at present on ‘Fallibility and Risk’. BTW, if you want any of my other books just email me. Best regards. Rob

      1. Liam Moran Reply

        Look forward to the new book Robert. Will email as soon as it’s out. Couldn’t agree more that unless a sense of dialectic is understood then whatever words they replace ZH with (and there’s no sign of that happening yet) will essentially become the same thing. It’s built into the system; a feature not a bug. However, if a fine balance is to be achieved between risk, reward and loss, fallibility and reliability, rigidity and resilience, then, in my opinion, it might be useful to consider that in nature fine processing is conducted with opponent processors.

  9. Mark Donnelly Reply

    If zero vision is not achievable, then neither is any promotion of maturity, excellence or any other goal that if fails reduces back to something one cannot believe in.

    I like Liams comments

  10. Hugh O'Neill Reply

    I am very late to this conversation, but consider myself privileged even so. There do indeed appear to be parallels between religiosity and safety (indeed I resemble these remarks) and I often use biblical allusions like “Ten Commandments” etc. But in a secular world, I sometimes think of the devout G.K Chesterton’s remark that when a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn’t believe in Nothing, he believes in Anything. Zealotry is the same in whichever sphere. Talking of spheres and hemispheres, I would strongly commend watching neiroscientist Jill Bolte-Taylor’s TED “A Stroke of Insight” for an understanding of the conversation between our left and right brains. As a pilot, I am often aware of this conversation, until the decision is made (I feel like a 3rd party sometimes, though its all in my head 😉

  11. Elias Reply

    Attributing the popularity of a concept to a story? Like attributing human error to an accident? When our society increases complexity, what happens? Not only our brain, but also our schools teach us to think in objects. Leaving out prayer and reflection. Now, once those objects seem to be a problem space…we find we have to adapt. Old days were different. Less education. Less certainty. But also less technological compleixty. Our brain does not like complexity because it means more adaptation, what does this say about the rise of certain concepts as ‘zero vision’? It is a product of an ideology, a rationalistic mode of life. Now, interesting about enlightenment (and Protestantism), is that it grew in a time in which mechanization of the world became reality and possibility. Might this have caused a form of mechanization of the mind? Less contemplation and interiorizing the external world and the way one perceives it to be? Before that time, church fathers read and contemplated and referred to God in their knowledge. Displacing God for the world means that knowledge is no longer read in the right frame, the reference ‘baseline’ shifted because of the external complexities that were (as our mind works, it tries to keep things as ‘object’) internalized. It’s sad that many scholars, and Dekker does this as well, are unable to distinguish between error as in ‘mistake’, and ‘sin’… which is delibarate (in)action that goes against conscience. Many conflate these two words, a pitty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *