Sat 11 Apr, 2009 03:55 pm
What is Traditional Thinking?
If we added to traditional thinking the abstract idea of change our world becomes tremendously complex. The way we manage the complexity is that we create; we create by introducing generalizations plus other abstractions.
Philosopher, tycoon, philanthropist, author, and international political activist George Soros says in his book “The Age of Fallibility” that “Once it comes to generalizations, the more general they are, the more they simplify matters. This world is best conceived as a general equation in which the present is represented by one set of constants. Change the constants and the same equation will apply to all past and future situations…I shall call this the critical mode of thinking.”
Soros identifies the traditional mode of thinking with an ‘organic society’. He further identifies the critical mode of thinking with the ‘open society’. Each society must find a means to deal with factors that do not conform to the will of the members of that society. In a traditional society, even though it focuses primarily on phenomena that are generally static, nature can be obdurate.
In the traditional mode of thinking the central tenet is that things are as they have always been and the future will be likewise"thus they cannot be any other way. The status quo is fate and all we need do is learn that fate and to organize our lives in accordance. In such a world logic and argumentation has no place because there exists no alternatives.
When we examine the nature of epistemology--what can we know and how can we know it--in such a mode of thinking we quickly illuminate the advantages and drawbacks. In such a society there is no bifurcation between thought and concrete reality. There exists only the objective relationship between knower and known. The validity of traditional truth is unquestioned; there can be no distinction between ideas and reality.
Where a thing exists we give it a name. Without a name a thing does not exist. Only where abstraction exists do we give non-objects a name. In our modern reality we label many non-concrete things and thus arises the separation of reality and thoughts. The way things appear is the way things are; the traditional mode of thinking can penetrate no deeper.
The traditional mode of thinking does not explain the world by cause and effect but everything performs in accordance with its nature. Because there is no distinction between the natural and supernatural and between reality and thought there arise no contradictions. The spirit of the tree is as real as the branch of the tree; past, present, and future melt into one time. Thinking fails to distinguish between thought and reality, truth and falsehood, social and naturals laws. Such is the world of traditional thought and the world of mythological thought.
The traditional mode is very flexible as long as no alternatives are voiced, any new thing quickly becomes the traditional and as long as such a situation meets the needs of the people such a situation will continue to prevail.
To comprehend the traditional mode we must hold in abeyance our ingrained habits of thought, especially our abstract concept of the individual. In a changeless society all is the Whole, the individual does not exist.
The individual is an abstraction that does not exist whereas the Whole, which is in reality an abstraction, exists as a concrete concept for traditional thought. The unity expressed by the Whole is the unity much like an organism. The individuals in this society are like the organs of a creature; they cannot last if separated from the Whole. Society determines which function the individual plays in the society.
The term “organic society” is used often to label this form of culture. When all is peaceful with no significant voices placing forth an alternative then this organic society exists in peace. In this organic society a human slave is no different from any other chattel. In a feudal society the land is more important than the landlord who derives his privileges from the fact that he holds the land.
For 3000 years Egypt was an example such a society. This Egyptian society remained essentially unchanged until 50BC when Western society was led into a different mode of thinking by the Greeks and by Roman conquest.
Are you satisfied with the traditional mode of thinking?
I'm more into new age thinking. If it's brown flush it down; if it's yellow let it mellow. I'm just that kinda guy. Always thinking outside the traditional box. Give this dude a cube anytime.
I tried thinking, once. Complete waste of time. Now I just go through the motions.
Once more we have coberst lost in the forest of epistemology. If he actually understood the stuff he has plagarized he might realise that his self image of "coberst the critical thinker standing out from the crowd" is the epitome of his "abstract concept of the individual" he exhorts us to transcend ! Its "existence" is totally parasitic on the existence of the "whole" it moans about !
Once more we have coberst lost in the forest of epistemology. If he actually understood the stuff he has plagarized he might realise that his self image of "coberst the critical thinker standing out from the crowd" is the epitome of his "abstract concept of the individual" he exhorts us to transcend ! Its "existence" is totally parasitic on its idiosyncratic perception
of the existence of the "whole" it moans about !
The big problem for me is trying to comprehend the major step that is made by the human species when abstract concepts begin to form. It is this ability to do abstract thinking that differentiates humans from our non human ancestors.
i thought, therefore i was