Cant't let this pass 

Agreed that certain insights condense data and deflate the balloon. But I see that per saldo that these condensation kernels are insufficient to stop the inflatory process.

Obviously it's not a case of either/or - in SOME fields there is a great deal of simplification as theory is developed. This is different from, say, theology, which often consists of ever more complex attempts to explain away contradictions in the sacred texts.

This process would be stopped or reversed when one would know where to find the insights fitting with where one's at. For a tribal oriented person, this will be different from someone from an employee at Ford.

Are you really arguing for cultural and cognitive relativism ? In the latter case it would seem to undermine any claims you make, cf.

... they take a detached stance and simply report the epistemic customs and practices of different cultures, eschewing any impulse to endorse or criticize them. And this amounts, in Putnam's words, to "mental suicide". For, while particular norms of rationality will be entrenched within a particular culture, reason has an inalienable critical or transcendent function which can be used to criticize existing epistemic norms. Relativism can thus be accused of encouraging a certain kind of intellectual passivity.
...
Their philosophical relativism may incline them towards being more open-minded and tolerant than dyed-in-the-wool absolutists and objectivists. But they cannot avoid adopting specific standpoints, choosing between theories, and endorsing particular beliefs and values. At bottom, the debate over relativism is about whether it is possible for relativists to make these commitments consistently and sincerely.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/cog-rel.htm#SH5b

Ideally speaking, in an effort to deflate the balloon and thus anxiety and related, one should be able to find the proper condensation kernels.

What is meant by "proper" here ? Merely acceptable within a particular culture ?

I agree that for posters here Chomsky is a good choice. But for 99% of people I meet, read from and about and who are in key positions of decision making regarding our planet it would not be a good choice. Since their world view doesn't digest it. Too time consuming, too conflicting with their social embedding, self image, comfort zone - career path.

That's their loss, but, for a left-wing academic, Chomsy does have a massive general audience, e.g. :

"Funny" might not be the first word that springs to mind on mention of Noam Chomsky - but many of the best political comics are well aware of his work. The late, great comedian Bill Hicks even described himself as "Chomsky with dick jokes".

In case you're one of the few Guardian readers unacquainted with his workd, Noam Chomsky is not a comedian, but a 79-year-old anarchist/linguistics pioneer who has spent most of his professional life criticising the power structures of his native US and who is, according to a recent readers' poll in Prospect magazine, the world's foremost living intellectual.

But is Chomsky actually funny himself? Last year I attended an evening speech he gave in the town of Windsor on the US-Canada border. Although the lecture itself was dry and detailed, it struck me during the Q&A that Chomsky was successful not only at conveying his radical political message but also at raising belly laughs from his audience with dark-laced, insightful humour about his politics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/jan/21/chomskycracksmeup

But even when reading Chomsky, posters here and all others should situate his/their kernels. As time and culturally determined perspectives among many others, as chemical-electrical firing patterns above the neck, as defense patterns against fear of death, as manifestations of the -erroneous- subject - object division.

"Culturally determined" overstates it - if anyone is a radical critic of their own culture it is Chomsky, he is not "determined" by it. If he were, presumably the 99% you refer to above would have less problems with his work. Of course, he is culturally SITUATED and deals with problems of his time and with an emphasis on US politics, but "situated" is very different from "determined",  cf. ref to relativism above.

How is his work a "manifestation of the erroneous subject-object distinstion" ?

I must admit I'm begging the question here. Imo there are shortcuts, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wX_W1BB_0M  But efforts to bring these across so far have run aground, due to the overriding reliance on our  intellect here and everywhere.

To me the credit and economic debacle are manifestations of this reliance. As are all manifestations of injustice, environmental degradation.

The economic debacle had nothing to do with an "overriding reliance on intellect"; it came from a general FAILURE to subject a theory to rigorous intellectual examination - something which only a small number of people did in the years before the debacle. Unfortunately they were ignored by influential people who had excessive reespect for Greenspan's OPINION and he himself has admitted to an unfounded TRUST in the financial institutions not to engage in practices which could endanger their own existence.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.