Critical Thinkers - Getting To Genius?

In thinking about critical thinking observe and understand the following statements/axioms. Do they make sense? Why are they important to each other? See if the following two quotations resonate as two parts of something very connected.

"Without speculation there is no good and original thinking." - Charles Darwin There are certain identifiable parameters in the general science of the universe. They are known as Genetic Algorithms. "These genetic algorithms 'evolve' solutions to problems that resist linear thinking by generating populations of different solutions and then testing those solutions against 'programmed constraints'." - Lee Smolin

Not understanding something is often to admit defeat. So we don’t like to admit that. We often nod - suggesting that we understand and then at some point later – NAKED! – we are exposed. The two thoughts above will be very apposite if, like me you work to discern fact from context, ideas from dynamic situations and patterns from seeming chaos. It's an evolving process.

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. Facts and theories are not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in midair pending the outcome." - Stephen Jay Gould

We often get confused and dazzled by our choices when confronted with any challenge to our ego. Whether to say we don't understand - or we would like more explanation - or we just admit it's going to be a journey of appreciation - a passage.

So it is with our ability to think.

There is something obvious and yet vital to appreciate about how we each think. The evolution of it. To reach a mastery in anything takes time and effort. You can see, touch and read and talk and ponder about stuff all you like. It won't just click. You do it when asked to, told to and when you know you should. It just won't stick. It can be very superficial. The obscurity of it can drag you down. Bits of it will frustrate enormously.

But you just don't really get it fully until you are rightly ready. When that final chunk of awakening to the whole beauty of it dawns. When you are ready and the understanding washes over you - it can take your breath away.

Posted via email from Just Thinking!

Literally Symbolic. Part 2

There should not be symbolism versus literality. They should co-exist. A hybrid.

We love the 'ages' thing. 

The Steam Age, The Industrial Age, the Knowledge Age. We evolve as a species like this. We go, albeit consciously, for a new era, because it’s new. We flock like lemmings to an unnatural and extreme positioning. Led by a frenzied media or populist chant. A new and acceptable positioning. "I'm so literal." - "I'm truly symbolic." We focus on the extreme of it for a while before eventually moving off towards the next paradigm. Bored.

Literal? Symbolic? Where do you sit?

The symbolic is a more metaphoric, more representative idea. The literal is about a very clear and non-negotiable definition of something. Much less room for interpretation. The issue with this is plain to see. 

On the case for the literal: Us humans can go a couple of ways – we either get all caught up when someone is literal and become very defensive – or we would accept it and give thanks for the clarity. 

On the case for the symbolic: A purely symbolic position can engender frustration that our translation of someone's symbolism wasn’t in fact what we had expected. Or we might indeed use it deliberately to encourage a different perspective - because we have evoked the creative idea

If we had a somewhat more symbolic or hybrid age would might we develop a more conscious society, more able to accept wider and less definitive/dogmatic literality? If we had a more literal age would we be sure not to have any doubt about everything that was codified as such. I know where I would prefer to live. 

When it comes to thinking and making big decisions for our species we are just the same. 

In the west we manage things in three main ways. Politics, Media and Business. These are the three big systems we typically work within. You could add religion. They condition us to think either more literally when it suits them or more symbolically when it suits them. Think about it. Whatever suits the argument at the time. But crucially we would have to balance both if we were to get anywhere. There are merits to both. Armed with an acceptance of both, more sane and valuable outcomes would be achieved.

Symbolically Literal A perfect paradox?

The capability of symbolism to convey a deeper idea is hugely valuable. The vital importance of true definition and literality when and where required - all in balance - a supremely valuable tool for the 21st Century. Taking things literally is to see a one dimensional view of the thing. To add a symbolic dimension is to immeasurably broaden the story. Increasing the emotional bond and developing an energetic humanity for the thing.

To have a balance between symbolism and the literal is the holy grail. Get it?

Posted via email from Just Thinking!

Symbolically Literal. Part 1

I find that flying is a great time to write - appropriately distant - yet just connected enough.

I write all the time - parking ideas, fragments and 'nuggets' in a variety of oddly-named folders. 'Interesting But', 'Yes, Maybe', 'See how you feel', Don't Ever Fly Again', 'Idiot', 'No-One Will Read It Anyway' - you know the kind of thing. Mostly it's stuff that will never see the light of day. Like the following. - 

"In this - the 21st Century - we need the symbolic to take up its rightful place alongside the literal. Why do people so often just fall into one or other category?" 

I probably should have left it in the folder marked 'Doh!' - but the idea continues to pre-occupy me.

What was I thinking?

Well, I know this isn't a new thought - 

"The 'literally' blinding ambition for western civilization (so called) has outlasted its welcome. The single-minded pursuit of money, profit and growth. It has been an economic imperative. Tangible returns at all cost. Greed. Literally. Disgustingly so. Interest shown only in the facts and figures - only what can be counted. Where only the left side of the brain rules. We've lived in the domain of the accountant - worse – the financier for far too long."

Recently the world has woken up a little - needing a change from this condition. It has spoken up a bit. Not enough in many peoples opinion - but we now see at least some shoots of reason. Reasonable folk and on-line activists seeking additional sense, meaning and purpose beyond the literal. 

The banking crisis and the distrust of governments around the world has caused us to question everything. Thankfully. Beyond simple growth at all cost - slaves to shareholder return. These things are now increasingly recognised as a 'by product' of something else, something symbolising trust and belief – profit is an outcome not a strategy.

Literally - no longer good enough.

To know how something works (or is built) is not the whole picture. It may be literally correct but it misses its true meaning by a long shot. It lacks the symbolic virtue or grand design and purpose of itself. The people working in the financial systems lost sight of the vital and symbolic position that they had held. For many in government they also have lost the symbolic reasons that they exist. To see how things operate under the hood is necessary of course - but to appreciate its whole – the value, the importance and quality of it - that is now crucial. 

In business it is proven beyond doubt that a bigger ideal, a clear mission and a shared vision (all symbolic) hold the secrets required to win. Today we are rightly far more concerned about the 'whole' story. The bigger picture and context from which meaning can be taken. To isolate the literal (and value that alone) was convenient for the financiers and governments of the 20th Century. 

In the 21st, to measure just what is tangible – to value only that - has become certain death.

Fact is we humans love to go to the extremes don’t we. 

We oscillate like crazy and we jump on bandwagons. Don’t ask me why, that’s a whole other question. We waver constantly and we do so in extreme cycles and over centuries. If we observe earlier societies, Romans and Greeks, Mayans and Egyptians for example, we would recognize and value a bit more symbolism - they were some of the most creative societies on Earth. 

But we muddle along. 

We are mostly literal – and then – we are uneasily symbolic when it suits – wars mostly. It takes time for any real shifts. It's imperceptible but we can do it. Fashion and all that. However I can't seem to find a time in recent history when we might say we had a conscious balance.

Problem is we just aren't good at riding any two seemingly opposing themes at once – anything where there is a continuum there comes a point when there is a versus. Then we beat each other for being one or the other. We lack the ability to consume and manage both in equal or fair shares. This means we are somewhat binary when it comes to the shadow side of things, the opposing - the seemingly paradox. 

There should not be symbolism versus literality. They should co-exist. A hybrid.

To be continued…

Posted via email from Just Thinking!