Analog Thinking In a Binary World

 

Binary Thinking in an Analog World
 

 

You're probably noticed two versions of the title. Which way is it supposed to be?

That depends on how you want to look at it. One describes the problem. The other points to the solution.  

If someone tries to tell you that there are just two kinds of people in this world, don't believe them. Whatever those "two kinds" may be, they are almost always just two extremes of a range of possibilities. There is only one kind of person, although we come in different models, styles, shapes and sizes. Any character trait has is opposite, but almost everyone falls somewhere in between. All traits of personalities are potentially present in each of us to some degree. Every genius is part idiot; every idiot is part genius.
   There are two ways of looking at anything. They are:

Binary: Either this or that (much the same as either this or not-this)
    e.g..    He is a bad man. They are friendly people. She is not a welder.
    or     First this, then that
   
Analog: So much of this
    e..g.  more or this, less of that
    or      bigger than this, smaller than that

   Binary thinking is oppositional & impositional. Analog thinking is relational & integrational

   Characteristics are not yes or no, on or off sorts of things. They cannot be represented in a binary way, e.g... 1 = generous, 0 = stingy, but as a degree, fraction, percentage or proportion. The proportion is usually varying at that, depending upon circumstances or moods. This applies to both physical and spiritual (intellectual, emotional, and sensual) characteristics. So on the generous/stingy scale or any other measure of character such as introverted/extroverted or considerate/selfish,  the assessment  always ranges somewhere between no and yes, not definitely one or the other, but somewhere in between. If there are "just two kinds of people," they are both found within each one of us.

  This error of binary thinking occurs not only with regard to personality. It applies to our observations of the physical world as well. The physical world is described digitally. But what happens in it is life itself, which must first be described relationally. The understanding of anything new depends upon its resemblance to things already known.   Yet we tend to favor looking at everything in a digitally rigid way. In fact, we tend to build our institutions and societies that way, and it usually leads to compartmentalization, segregation, exclusion and conflict.

On the other hand, freedom without purpose\direction is chaotic and entropic. And therefore it doesn't always suit me.

We need to develop the habit of seeing from both sides, to find the truth that always lies somewhere in the middle.

(to be continued . . .)

 

 

This page, like most of the content on this site, is not finished, Perhaps it never will be. It is meant to be a collaborative work that keeps improving as you help.

If you would like to correct, add to or improve upon this page, or almost any of the other content on our site, there are two ways to do it:

The hard way: Submit a comment explaining what you want to do in the comment form below.

The easy way: Be a registered user, Then you can dig right in and do what you want. Some restrictions apply, of course. Unless we messed something up (again), the login / registration form appears at the top of each page except the home page.

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.