Each and every human being on this earth has a unique thought process. No two persons can have an exact same, to the minutest of the details, view on any topic. Yes, one can agree with another on some ideas but how he/she actually feels inside and expresses his/her thoughts will be different from the other person. For all practical purposes, though, these minute differences don't really get in the way of people coming together to agree with each other.
How did we end up with so many thought processes? Was it a gradual process or this is how it was from the beginning? How do we know which thought process is right and which one is wrong?
Before we try to answer all these questions, lets take a step or may be many steps back. We will first go to the very beginning and start with a hypothesis and then try to deduce the answers to all these questions.
Let's start with an assumtion that the only absolute truth is "There is no right or wrong". Now, this automatically leads to 2 corollaries - "Everyone is right" and "Everyone is wrong". These are just the projections of the same absolute but reflections of each other. They always go hand in hand and maintain the absolute equilibrium.
Now if that is how it is supposed to be, where did it go all wrong for us? Lets try to answer this.
We will start with a hypothetical example and then move towards realistic deductions.
How did we end up with so many thought processes? Was it a gradual process or this is how it was from the beginning? How do we know which thought process is right and which one is wrong?
Before we try to answer all these questions, lets take a step or may be many steps back. We will first go to the very beginning and start with a hypothesis and then try to deduce the answers to all these questions.
Let's start with an assumtion that the only absolute truth is "There is no right or wrong". Now, this automatically leads to 2 corollaries - "Everyone is right" and "Everyone is wrong". These are just the projections of the same absolute but reflections of each other. They always go hand in hand and maintain the absolute equilibrium.
Now if that is how it is supposed to be, where did it go all wrong for us? Lets try to answer this.
"Right" comes along with a positive connotation and in our world, we are all about righteousness and if you would have noticed, every thought process of this world, barring few may be, lean towards being right. When we would have started, we would have started with the absolute but then straight away set our sails along the right path. Over time, (we believe) we would have learned a lot about the world and about ourselves and we would have found a lot of wrongs within the rights. On this path, nothing was supposed to be wrong but we labelled them wrong any way. This would still have been fine if we would have held on to the mirror of absolute truth keeping us aware that whatever wrong we see is nothing but a reflection of the right we believe in. But what did we do; we left it back at the very beginning itself. Inside (our minds), we are a mess but when seen from outside, the world is in equilibrium all the time. Someone really needs to show us the mirror right now. (We will need to time travel (across dimensions) for that but that is a topic of another discussion).
Now that we have talked a bit about the "right" and the "wrong", let's try to answer the question about the thought processes. How did we end up with so many unique thought processes? We will use the top-down meta-physical approach instead of the bottom-up empirical one because for the latter, its impossible to observe and understand so many thought processes even if one takes a very small sample space at a time.
Now that we have talked a bit about the "right" and the "wrong", let's try to answer the question about the thought processes. How did we end up with so many unique thought processes? We will use the top-down meta-physical approach instead of the bottom-up empirical one because for the latter, its impossible to observe and understand so many thought processes even if one takes a very small sample space at a time.
We will start with a hypothetical example and then move towards realistic deductions.
Say, we live in a binary world where there are only two thought processes - 0 and 1. And assuming they are equally appealing, we can agree that half of the people believe in 0 and half of the people believe in 1. And with the aberration, the people who believe in 0 feels that the people who believe in 1 are wrong and vice versa. So our world is divided into 2 halves. To bring this hypothesis close to reality, let's assume we were talking about males and females. You may argue that not all males and females feel that way and I will not debate on that topic now. But for your satisfaction, we will divide the world in 3 parts - the third one being this new category which will include both men and women.
Now let's say we have 5 religions in this world and people of all religions have different thought process. So based on similar deductions as above, we can divide our world into "three (from above) multiplied by five (religions) equals to 15" parts. And before you ask, I will add one more category who don't think this way. So now we have "fifteen plus one equals to 16" different thought processes.
Now further dividing into say, 100 countries, we have "Sixteen multiplied by hundred plus one equals to 1601" different thought processes. If we try to put this is a mathematical equation, we can say -
T = (T'm + 1) Tn + 1
where,
n - represents all know thought processes (assuming there are in total 'n' classifications)
m - represents all known thought processes except 'n'
T - total no. of thought processes.
T'm - total no. of thought processes for all permutations & combinations till m classifications
Tn - total no. of thought processes for n
We can clearly see that when we just considered 3 different classifications (with conservative numbers) together, we ended up with 1601 different thought processes. If we go further, we have rich & poor, rural & urban, young & old, castes, races, languages and many more. And if we apply the above formula for all possible classifications, we will end up with an endless number of thought processes.
I will end this post at this point not only because its already too long but also because it raises some more questions in my mind that I need to go back and think about.
I will end this post at this point not only because its already too long but also because it raises some more questions in my mind that I need to go back and think about.
According to me our thought process works like this. their are few things which according to us should conform to everybody. And few things we give liberty to other people to have their own choice. But that's very limited. From things as simple as what somebody wears. or the the way they talk. We are judgemental about everything. Its very difficult to accept somebody who is different from the kind of people we are surrounded with whole time basically comprising of our peers and families.
ReplyDeleteMy basic thought is you could be opinionated about somebody's choices but the trick is not to label them. You should not straightaway classify them in categories. And not obsess over someones behaviour or anything.
Let me try to answer the questions raised in the post as per my understanding
ReplyDelete----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we end up with so many thought processes?
Thought process of an individuals is the result of it's experiences, beliefs and cultural influences. So, anyone's thought processes are in constant state of evolution. With time, as complexity of life has increased and every individual has more and more exposure to the world, branching out of thoughts is inevitable.
2. Was it a gradual process or this is how it was from the beginning?
It has always been a continuous process, which has caught speed to unmanageable pace now owing to technology.
As a result, nowadays, One is not in harmony with a view, or an idea for long enough to dissect it, analyse it, understand it and then build on the same.
3. How do we know which thought process is right and which one is wrong?
Each process can be viewed as right or wrong when the context of it's visualization and analysis is 'narrow' in essence. Person to Person may see it as right or wrong.
As the scope of any thought or idea is widened, the notion whether it is 'good' or 'bad' tends to coalesce and converge across individuals. So, the judgement passed on a thought from the perspective of an individual is very likely to be wrong, as it is self centered in nature and does not take account of the overall systemic impact of propagation of that idea.
A few crude example, expanding scope of viewing/analysis as we move from one example to another.
The idea of failing a person in an exam in an exam is wrong or bad when looked at by the person who is failing. But the same is good from the broader standpoint as it leads to meritocracy in society and hence enhances overall productivity.
Consider the idea of a local insurgency in a geographical area of a Nation state. A small group justifies it saying that it is the only way, or it is payback for past atrocities. Authorities view it as nuisance because it leads to conflict, insecurity, lower growth, and wastage of society's resources. So, zoom out and think from a larger perspective, and address the idea from a viewpoint that is a union of the context of conflicting parties. The "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" in South Africa is a very good modern day example.
A meteor strike wiping out dinosaurs from the planet may be viewed as wrong or bad by the collective society of dinosaurs. But the same can be viewed as right from a planetary evolutionary stand point as it gave impetus to a more intelligent and resilient species, homo sapiens.
So, I believe for all of our purposes, our barometer of analysis must be our planetary ecosystem, the natural survival of species and the overall survival construct.
In that space, whatever thought or idea leads to better livelihood and survival for all, leads to harmony, promotes knowledge and scientific understanding, promotes cohesive cultures and traditions, reduces conflict and violence, is the "right" idea. Whenever different entities have different views on a thought or idea, broaden the scope, move out and look at the issue again.
Post has a line...
"Let's start with an assumption that the only absolute truth is "There is no right or wrong"."
This very sentence underscores the point that any construct of an idea or thought is context based. The context assumed in the post is essentially of extreme abstractness. A thought or idea cannot be both 'right' and 'wrong' at the same time within the same context. The moment one decides to stick to this kind of broad assumption, one ventures to the extreme of abstract philosophical thought, which is dangerous from the point of view of survival and propagation of life/species as we know it. So, it does not really fit the 'barometer' as I explained above.
Hoping the comment is understood :)