 Gautama Siddhartha- the historical Buddha- famously refused to allow his disciples to write down his words in his lifetime (of course, they began writing down everything they could remember he said the moment he died, hence the Dhammapada, and the Pali Cannon, but nonetheless). He said, "When I point at the moon, do not mistake my finger for the moon." Because, he argued, words are tricky; they entrap and ensnare us. Although we think words reveal the truth, in fact they keep the truth hidden, because we think the word is the same as the thing it represents (its referent); we trick ourselves into believing truth is black and white, when in fact truth is often gray, complex, entangled, convoluted, even contradictory. But what does this have to do with binary thinking? And how does this have anything at all to do with mankind, politics, or civilization? Binary thinking, in its simplest form, is the tendency of human beings to think in terms of "either / or." In fact, the brain is hardwired for dichotomy: this & that; good & bad; right & wrong; mastery & slavery; liberty & tyranny; love & hate; light & dark; helpful & harmful; spiritual & physical; and on and on and on... Even the nature vs nurture argument is a bad argument, as anyone with even an elementary understanding of biology and psychology should know- and yet we continue to fall into the same old trap: "Either it's this or it's that, but it can't be both." And yet, in reality, almost nothing falls perfectly into this binary system of categorization- not even reality itself. For example: Men are men because of testosterone, and women are women because of estrogen, but it would be just as false to say that men do not have estrogen or that women do not have testosterone as it would be to say there was no difference at all. The reality is more complex: Men have higher quantities of testosterone and lower quantities of estrogen than women; conversely, women have higher quantities of estrogen and lower quantities of testosterone than men- but both sexes possess both hormones in different measures. Subtlety is important; reality is very rarely binary. Oversimplification kills nuance, which degrades communication and makes us all stupid. This is no more obvious than in politics. Ultimately, politics- in the local, non-military, intra-national sense- is the art of problem-solving at the societal level. And although religion may make us human, it is politics that saves us from savagery. Politics is the end of barbarism; it is the beginning of civilization. Literally, the word politics comes from the Greek polis (πόλις), meaning "city"- that is, civilization as opposed to savagery and barbarism. Law, markets, democracy- all of these only exist because of politics. Carl von Clausewitz once argued that war is the continuation of politics by other means. True enough. However, in order to be effective, non-military, intra-national politics cannot be thought of as a grand, ideological war between opposing factions. Because this is binary thinking, and leads to war, conflict, and rebellion: "Either he is for us or he is against us!" But in reality, all the members of the political body- that is, all the citizens of a particular nation- must be united, by culture and by language, in order to solve complex societal problems. Civilization, essentially, is mankind's conquest of natural savagery. It is politics that brings peace to human beings through mutual benefit; it is politics that prevents us from returning to tribalism, to small groups of blood-related families slaughtering each other for limited resources. But when we think in binary terms- that is, when we think that a person is something simply because he belongs to [insert whatever ridiculous category here]-, we oversimplify the human being; we make the human being into a caricature of humanity. Now he is not a complex person, with a complex set of ideas and experiences unique to him; instead, he is a mere representation of a category, a caricature of a caricature of a caricature... Modern politics is littered with simplistically binary thinking, resulting in opposing axioms that often contradict one another, perhaps depending on one's political affiliation: "Men are natural leaders;" "Men are violent and dangerous;" "Black men are stronger and more athletic;" "Black men are drug dealers and gang bangers;" "Women are victims;" "Women are better and more moral than men;" "Democrats are socialists;" "Republicans are racists and xenophobes;" "Liberals are weak;" "Conservatives are stupid;" The list goes on and on and on... None- precisely zero- of these attitudes are true in the general sense (that is, true as a complete statement). They are all caricatures of reality; they all reduce the human being to a vastly over-simplified category. This results in a distortion of behavior- especially on social media, which is the ultimate in dehumanization (the reduction of the human being to a simulation of humanity, literally represented via binary code). We see this everywhere on the internet; we divide up into our camps- on Twitter, on Facebook-, and hold one another in contempt, even though we pass one another on the street day after day with perfect civility. Binary thinking is not only dehumanizing; it wreaks havoc on civilization itself. Instead of solving problems, we waste our time fighting one another, and working towards the destruction of our political adversaries- never once reflecting on the fact that we cannot destroy half our nation without destroying the nation itself. Politics is no longer about problem-solving; it is about racking up points in order to win some stupid, childish game- a game without prize, trophy, or conclusion. This is destroying us. Ninety-percent of the population of any given culture are in agreement ninety-percent of the time, excluding nations that actually do exist in a state of civil war. That is what it means to share a culture, after all. And yet binary thinking has convinced us that we are not in agreement, that we stand entirely opposed to one another; to make matters worse, actual extremists to either side of whatever political aisle perpetuate the problem by representing through their extremism all the worst elements of their more moderate compatriots. The result: Citizens that hold one another in contempt for attitudes only held by five percent of the population of either side. This is not tenable. As technology expands in scope and strength, and as civilization grows more complex, we will be called upon to solve increasingly difficult problems. For instance, we will be called upon to solve problems pertaining to our environment. This is clearly a polarizing subject- and yet environmentalists on the political left and conservationists on the political right hate one another in spite the fact that they agree essentially on the critical point: We must protect the natural world. Nobody wants the air to be toxic, or for us to ruin the oceans with plastics- but we never address these common concerns because we are too busy arguing about a single, contentious issue: climate change. Why? Because we have fallen victim to binary thinking; because we have already determined that the solution is either / or. Dehumanization follows, and the descent of the polis into war, violence, and savagery. This cannot be allowed. We must stop viewing one another as caricatures of human beings. Each of us is complex, with complex ideas and experiences. There is no reason why we must agree on everything in order to respect one another; we can disagree while still respecting one another as citizens, and more importantly, as human beings. Nothing is more difficult, and yet nothing is more necessary. ~ Joshua van Asakinda
1 Comment
 The Five Questions is the fifth section of ZenTactics, but can be used along with the fourth section (the Four Domains) as a simplified protocol in and of itself. [NOTE: It would be best to be well-acquainted with the Four Domains before moving on to the Five Questions.] Assuming that we intend on developing ourselves 1. with a clear "why" in mind, and 2. in a balanced fashion- that is, according to the Four Domains-, we must be careful to chart our course with clarity. What that means is to always keep the goal in sight, to not deviate, to not allow ourselves to become distracted by trivialities. After all, most people fail for one of three reasons: Either they do not know what they want (they lack a "why"), or they fail to achieve efficiency (they remain unbalanced), or they fail to formulate a workable strategy (they allow themselves to quit, or to deviate from the path they have chosen). Another possibility, of course, is that they surround themselves with individuals that do not share their worldview- but this will not happen if they are clear on the other three points. So let us assume we have a "why;" furthermore, let us assume we have a balanced approach, that allows us to maximize our effectiveness in achieving our goals. What now? The Five Questions can help us to sustain focus and clarity so that we do not become distracted; the Five Questions are as follows:
We will consider each of these in turn, but must remember that our goal should always be to align all the aspects of our lives so that they all serve a singular purpose, which is the flourishing of each of us as individuals. The goal is lifestyle cohesion. Everything in the world today is fragmented; this results in us being torn in various directions simultaneously, which is not only exhausting but also a wildly ineffective environment for achieving success. We must consciously work against this trend in the modern world- towards simplicity and away from complexity. Now...
If we keep the Five Questions in mind, we should be able to remain focused on our objectives, which will result in better and more frequent success. ~ Joshua van Asakinda The Four Quarters is the fourth section of ZenTactics, but can be used along with the fifth section (the Five Questions) as a simplified protocol in and of itself. Some background theory may be in order... Although we tend to think of ourselves as unified individuals, the truth is much more complex than that: We are not a unified identity; we are a collection of somewhat-related sub-routines, which all run quasi-independently under the banner of each individual's identity- his "I." For our purposes, we will consider this "I" to be our sense of unified identity, which is itself an amalgamation of "the id" or "the ego," and what I refer to as "the eidolon," and which is more limited in scope than what we will refer to here as "the true self" (the goal of psychology is not to reveal this true self but rather to create this true self, because its creation is neither easy nor inevitable). Thus, "the I" is something like a mask or persona, which is itself constructed of the aforementioned aspects:
[NOTE: Freud spoke of the id, the ego, and the super-ego. I purposely refer to the eidolon rather than the super-ego in order to be clear that the eidolon represents an ideal, and is not a construction of social convention, as Freud seemed sometimes to imply. Thus, the eidolon is akin to a Jungian archetype; it is neither merely a moral construct nor merely a social construct.] Now, although each of these has a purpose, still each must be constrained by all others. So the goal is balance; the purpose of the Four Quarters is to ensure this balance. And we accomplish this by cultivating our inner potential in four directions simultaneously: the Tribal, the Personal, the Professional, and the Psycho-spiritual:
When we plan out our lives (plans that will almost certainly have to be adjusted over time, yet we cannot proceed into the unknown with no direction whatsoever), we must take into account all four of these domains. If we do not do this, we become monsters of a particular aspect, and this will inevitably result in the long-term erosion of agency, efficacy, and efficiency. But why? Because each aspect of personality relies on each other aspect of personality. For example, let us say that we have health problems: If we do not develop our Tribal aspect, we will feel isolated and alienated, and this will destroy our motivation; if we do not develop our Professional aspect, perhaps we will not have either the time or the money to dedicate ourselves to a beneficial program of health; if we do not develop our Psycho-spiritual aspect, whatever benefit we gain from our plans will feel hollow and without meaning. For another example, let us say that we want to reach the next level in business: If we do not develop our Tribal aspect, it will be difficult to network or to build the connections necessary to succeed; if we do not develop our Personal aspect, perhaps our health will fail, which will result in sub-optimal performance at both the mental level and at the physical level; if we do not develop our Psycho-spiritual aspect, again, whatever benefit we gain from our plans will feel hollow and without meaning. These are just two examples, but of course any number of examples could be imagined. What is really critical in personal development- and what the vast majority of personal development systems fail to take into account- is the critical importance of balance to the human being. We are not singular beings; rather, it is almost as though we are many individual beings trying (often ineffectively) to work together as one. Therefore, we must consciously direct this four-fold development. If we do not, the failures of one domain will destroy our sense of balance, and this will wreak havoc on our desire to optimize the other three domains. ~ Joshua van Asakinda |
AuthorJoshua van Asakinda is a master-level psychological consultant, and the creator of ZenTactics, Heroic Theory, & Zenshida'i Silat-Serak. Archives
April 2021
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed