Healing Thinking and Being
(Book manuscript by Rolf
Sattler)
Chapter 1
Ways of Thinking
“We think the world apart. What would it be like to think the world together?” (Parker Palmer)
“And we need to change our way of thinking if we wish to heal ourselves…which is one of the applications of yin-yang theory” (Kaare Bursell)
It
is important to make a distinction between thoughts and ways
of thinking that imply logic. Thoughts have content such as:
“I am relaxed”, “I am strong”, “I will be successful”, “Evil
cannot touch me”, etc. These examples are examples of
positive thinking, in which the content of thoughts is a
positive affirmation. Such affirmation can be healing, but if
it becomes stressful, it may interfere with healing
(see Health and Science).
Ways of
Thinking
Any content of a thought, whether positive or negative, is
expressed by a way of thinking, a logic. In this book the
emphasis is on ways of thinking, the logic. I will show that
changing our way of thinking, that is, the logic implied in
our thinking, can be healing, regardless of whether the
thoughts are positive or negative.
Many
people have an aversion to or dislike of logic. Yet they use
logic, often without being aware of it. If they developed
more awareness, they could avoid the harmful logic that is
commonly used and instead use healing logic.
Our ways
of thinking imply logic whether we are aware of it or not.
Thus, logic is unavoidable when we think. It also seems
largely unavoidable when we use language, although poetic
language may at times transcend logic at least to some
extent.
There are people, especially in some circles of the New Age
Movement, who have a strong anti-logical and anti-rational
tendency. But even people who reject logic use logic in the
very rejection of it. They say, for example, that using logic
is a hindrance to a profound understanding of life. Such a
statement is based on Aristotelian logic because it is an
answer to the question: Is logic a hindrance or not.
As I pointed out in the Introduction, Aristotle has had an
enormous influence on our culture. We have been conditioned
by his logic from the time we were born. Hence, we use it
most of the time, although we may not be aware of it. We use
it in everyday life, in many sciences, in law, in politics,
even in religion. Often it is thought that there is only one
kind of logic and that this logic is Aristotelian logic. This
is, however, a grave mistake. There are other kinds of logic
that have existed for thousands of years and that have been
further developed more recently by logicians and
mathematicians.
Before
turning to these other kinds of logic, let me add a few more
comments on our common logic. It is based on what is often
referred to as the laws of thought, which played a
fundamental role in Aristotle’s logic (Edwards, P. (ed.)
1967.The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 4,
pp. 414-417. New York: Macmillan; Arber, A.
1964. The
Mind and the Eye.
Cambridge University Press, p.82).
These so-called laws of thought are:
1.
The law of identity: A is A.
2. The law of contradiction (also called the law of
noncontradiction): A is
not both A and not-A.
3. The law of the excluded middle: A is either B or not-B, or
“everything is either A or not-A” (Edwards, P. (ed.)
1967.The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 4,
p. 414).
Beyond the Laws of Thought
Although the law of identity seems unquestionable, it is not.
For example, I am I, according to this law. But I am also the
Universe. Some mystics have said: I am God. Such statements
are based on subjective experience, but they are also
compatible with objective scientific evidence (see,
e.g., Hollick, M. 2006.
The Science of Oneness. A Worldview for the Twenty-first
Century. Winchester: O Books).
Similarly, the law of contradiction can be questioned. I can
be I (in the usual restrictive sense), but I can also be the
Universe, which is not-I (in the usual sense). Hence, I can
be not-I and I.
The law of the excluded middle is also very questionable. For
example, according to this law a man would be good or not
good. It is, however, obvious that most men, if not all, are
intermediate between good and not good. They may be very
close to good so that for practical reasons they may be
considered good, or they may be more or less removed from
good.
In the following chapters I shall give more examples that
illustrate the questionable status of the above laws of
thought. I will not conclude that these laws are useless. But
I want to point out their limited usefulness. If they are
taken for granted and used exclusively as is often the case,
they become harmful to the individual, society, and the
planet.
Logicians
have known for a long time that the so-called laws of thought
are limited “because no viable system of logic can be
constructed in which the principles of identity,
contradiction, and excluded middle would be the only axioms
(Edwards, P. (ed.) 1967.The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 4,
p. 414).
However,
the general public and even the majority of scientists have
remained unaware of this limitation and its harmful
consequences.
Alternatives to the so-called laws of
thought have been available for millennia. In ancient China
the Daoists developed Yin-Yang thinking. Figure 1 illustrates the difference
between Yin-Yang thinking and Aristotelian thinking based
on the laws of thought.
Figure 1. The square to the left
illustrates Aristotelian thinking based on the laws of
thought, the Yin-Yang symbol to the right, Yin-Yang thinking.
If we call the black portion of the square A, then A is A
(the law of identity) and A is not not-A, the white portion
(the law of contradiction). And if we refer to the whole
square, then everything is either black or white (A or B,
which is not-A).
In contrast, in the Yin-Yang symbol, Yang, the black area,
includes Yin, the white dot. Therefore, if we call the black
half again A, A is A and not A (which negates the laws of
identity and contradiction). We also see that Yang gradually
merges with Yin and vice versa, which indicates fuzziness:
something may be Yang or Yin, A or B, to various degrees
(which negates the law of the excluded middle).
Figure 1 illustrates why Aristotelian logic based on the
so-called laws of thought can be harmful, whereas Yin-Yang
thinking can be healing. The laws of thought cut reality into
pieces, into opposites that are disconnected and may become
antagonistic and destructive. They create wounds. Yin and
Yang are also opposites, but they are connected. Through this
connection they can heal the split that has been created by
the laws of thought.
For example, if I say, “I am good and you are bad” and this
is understood in terms of the laws of thought, as it is
typical in our culture, I create a disconnection that may
lead to antagonism, conflict, and harm. If, however, I look
at this situation in terms of Yin-Yang, I understand that I
am also bad and you are also good, and in this way we are
connected in spite of our opposition. And this connection
heals the wound that has been created by the cut through the
laws of thought. Hermann Hesse, in his Siddhartha, understood
this situation very well when he wrote: “But the world
itself, being in and around us, is never one-sided. Never is
a man or a deed wholly Samsara or wholly Nirvana; never is a
man wholly a saint or a sinner (Hesse, H. 1951.
Siddhartha. New York: New Directions Publishing
Company, p. 113).
Besides Yin-Yang thinking, Buddhist and Jain logic also
transcend our common logic based on the so-called laws of
thought (see Chapter 3:
Both/and).
During the 20th
century logicians developed
sophisticated ways of thinking such as fuzzy logic and
both/and logic (see, e.g., Kosko, B. 1993.
Fuzzy Thinking.The New
Science of Fuzzy Logic. New York: Hyperion). These ways of
thinking transcend the laws of the excluded middle and
contradiction (see Chapter 2: Fuzzy
logic and Chapter
3:
Both/and logic).
Korzybski elaborated non-Aristotelian thinking that is based
on non-identity (see Chapter 4: Non-identity).
All of these logical innovations could greatly contribute to
the healing of wounds of our planet, society, and us. But
unfortunately they are barely known even among scientists,
and to the extent they are known, they are not much
appreciated and not much practiced. However, they have the
potential to transform the world, as I will try to show in
the following chapters.
Healing thinking is holistic thinking and holy thinking. It
is holistic because it transcends the fragmentation and
distortion inherent in Aristotelian logic based on the
so-called laws of thought. It is holy, sacred because it
points beyond the namable to the unnamable (see
Buddhist and Jain logic in Chapter 3 and Korzybski’s
non-identity in
Chapter 4).
Conclusions
This first part of this book (Chapters 1-4)
deals with ways of thinking, that is, logic. Logic structures
thought and relates thoughts to one another. In our culture
the commonly used logic is Aristotelian logic that is
predominantly based on the so-called laws of thought of
identity, contradiction, and the excluded middle. Exclusive
reliance on these so-called laws can have harmful
consequences. Therefore, this kind of thinking is potentially
harmful thinking. It is widespread in our society that often
takes the laws of thought for granted. Although it includes
these laws, healing thinking (that is, healing ways of
thinking or healing logic), transcends them. Thus,
Yin-Yang,
Jain and Buddhist logic include and transcend the so-called
laws of thought. Fuzzy logic includes and transcends the law
of the excluded middle. Both/and logic and the principle of
complementarity go beyond the law of contradiction. And
non-identity (that has been much emphasized by Korzybski)
surpasses the law of identity. Healing ways of thinking heal
the wounds inflicted by Aristotelian thinking, specifically
by the exclusive reliance on the so-called laws of thought,
because they connect what has been torn apart by these laws.
Continue with Chapter 2 on
Healing
Thinking through Fuzzy Logic or return to Table of Contents of this
book ms on Healing Thinking and
Being.
Home