Roots of binary thinking-Aristotle logic of excluded middle
Aristotle law of excluded middle states that for a proposition there are
only two outcomes and these two outcomes are mutually exclusive and there is no
third outcome between these two outcome. This is referred to as bivalent
system. This binary categories can be good/evil, true/false and self/other.
This may be useful in simplifying management of practical situations but if the binary
categories are freezed than it excludes the options of any creativity or
diversity. This law eliminates the possibilities of things being mutually
dependent, interrelated and interpenetrated. The mutual exclusivism of two
classes promotes exclusivistic mindset such as Class B has no relation with
Class A and vice-versa. This law stands in contrast with the intertwined nature
of relationships in dharmic systems. Thus, this law encourages to think in
terms of isolatable categories, defined rules, unambiguous outcomes. There is
no room for uncertainity in the classes which may evolve out of change of time,
place and circumstances and thus uncertain conditions are not properly
accounted in the binary classes which leads to improper cognition of the
phenomena/process involved. Not only that, the uncertainity is viewed as a
threat which needs to be eradicated either by destruction or by complete
elimination. Whereas in dharmic traditions, reality is happily celebrated as
complex and no single proposition can fully describe the nature of reality
fully. The description of reality according to dharmic traditions can be
approached from different levels based on state of one’s consciousness. The
binary categories of difference itself can be of various kinds-negation,
approximation, absence, difference, reduction/dimunition,
badness/unworthiness/tamas and opposite/contradiction. Recent developments in
physics and mathematics are far more compatible with dharmic logic that
strictly Aristotelian models. Chaos and
uncertainity exists along with the order and it provides room for creativity
and dynamism. Aristotelian models tend to promote linear, sequential thinking
where as dharmic traditions promote multidimensional, non-sequential thinking.
Therefore with the advent of quantum mechanics, it was difficult for Aristotelian
models to relate with the situations like semiconductors, lasers and other
devices but dharmic logic is comfortable
with quantum mechanics. Creativity thrives on the dynamic relationships between
fixed templates and spontaneity. There is lot of emphasis on contextual
sensitivity in Ayurveda. The same medicine is poison in some cases act as cure
for certain situations. Different plants and foods contain distinct juices
which are harmful when taken pure but mixing and cooking them make them useful.
The presence of uncertainity allows for change in situational and contextual
sensitivity. The dharmic ethics therefore allows for therefore contextual as
opposed to codified, rigid , monolithic, book centric ethics of the west.
Dharmic culture is like Sanskrit grammar which is contextual in its emphasis. Various
taxonomies of season, landscape, times, gunas, tastes, characters, emotions,
rasas, are basic to thought work of Bharatiya medicine, poetry, cooking etc. Context
free thinking lends itself to binary categories and logic. This itself is seed
to the idea of centralized control which eliminates the need for local
customizations based on local context and circumstances. Aristotelian logic
also stems from the narratives in biblical literatures which mentions of the
opposites in which the first option in each pair is absolutely and exclusively
valid, whereas the second option is dangerous. The examples are God and Satan,
believer and Heathen, heaven and hell. Finally, for the Aristotelian model order and chaos as
two mutually exclusive and irreconcilable categories.
Reference.
1. Rajiv Malhotra (2011), "Being Different", Harper Collins India.
Comments
Post a Comment