4.
LOGIC
The term ‘Logic’ will not be used here in the meaning given to it in Western
Philosophy, but it will be applied to all matters connected with correct and
efficient thinking, not merely in acquiring knowledge, but in all actions and
in the processes of living, though this would include all the different types
of logic which have been studied and constructed for different purposes as
special cases. Islam does not present a detailed thesis on this subject but
gives us certain guidelines upon which such systems can be based.
Human welfare and progress depends on the
development of correct thinking, correct motivation and correct action. Correct
means that which is objective, accords with reality and allows us to adjust to it, and this is understood in the formula ‘that which
conforms with Allah’. These three factors interact and are inter-dependant.
Thinking will be incorrect if the motivation and actions are incorrect and vice
versa. We can also think about each of these, act according to them or be
motivated by them. But thinking about ethics is not moral behaviour, correct
motivation is. Thinking about a skill is not the skill, it lies in the action.
Thinking about logic is not the same thing as thinking logically. We must not
only think but also want to and behave logically. Values are not the same as
facts, and neither of them are the same as meaning. These considerations are
part of Logic.
The Western view of Logic appears to be rather
restricted. It refers to verbal thinking, and even that according to certain
rules, and only to knowledge seeking activity, not to social interactions or
industry and craft, which are also part of life. Thinking is isolated as a
separate and independent function which leads to a compartmentalisation and
disintegration of man. The thinking faculty, however, is not independent of
motives and action and thinking is required in all aspects of life, does take
place in other ways, and there are also many other forms of thinking besides
reasoning. Some people think in patterns or movements and in terms of objects,
shapes or feelings. Western logic appears to have a negative function in that
it recognises that thinking is usually defective and rules have to be created
to detect and remove these defects. The process of thinking is, in fact, much
more complex and sophisticated than these rules would suggest. The rules,
themselves are subject to the limitations of the mind, and as yet no system of
logic has been constructed which cannot be criticised. It is doubtful whether
scientists and other thinkers ever arrive at their conclusions by rules such as
these, though they need to test them by these rules. This may well remove
inconsistencies and errors but it may also remove much that is perfectly valid.
It tends to be mechanical and can, therefore, be
carried out by machines such as computers, and produces a mechanistic view of
the world, not because it is so but because the thinking process requires it.
Given certain premises, the common factor is abstracted as the inference. The
premises may, therefore, be regarded as the cause and the inference as the
effect. Human thinking, however, is goal orientated which is the reverse of
this. It requires three things:- purpose, data and
techniques. the last reconcile the other two and often
modify both. We have an aim in mind and search, select and organise the data to
achieve it. It is not, therefore, surprising that different philosophers and
scientists arrive at different conclusions, unless the goals and conditions of
experiment and observation are strictly controlled and limited. If thinking is
to be objective, then goal orientated thinking requires the existence and
acceptance of a set of objective values. The desire to know, understand, adjust
to and serve Reality is such built-in values. All other goals must serve these.
It is evident also that from this point of view there is no distinction between
knowledge seeking activity, social organisation or industry; the wholeness of
man is retained; and the facts of his interaction with his fellows and his
dependence on the cosmos are incorporated.
Western Logic usually contains certain fundamental
Axioms. These Axioms do not describe the basic laws of thought but rather give
us rules. They tell us how we ought to think. They are value judgements for which
there is no justification at all. These Axioms are:-
A is
A, Not both A and not-A, Either A or not-A.
We can dismiss the idea that A, any concept, much
less the object for which it stands, is or always should be, always under all
circumstances the same thing. The properties by means of which an object is
known depend on its relationship with other things. Therefore, it will have
different properties in different contexts and relationships. We know the
object to be the same only because of its continuity in time and space. An atom
of hydrogen is not the same when combined with oxygen to form water as it is
when combined with sulphur to form Hydrogen Sulphide. The same applies to
concepts in different contexts, and to thinking human beings. A person seen in
the place of his work is different when seen at home or with friends. And so
on. We can also describe examples of things which are, from certain points of
view, A (having a set of specific characteristics) and from another, not-A. It
is not true for instance, that light is either corpuscular or not corpuscular.
It is both wave-like and corpuscular or neither. It all depends on the context.
Nor do things have to be, for instance, either white or not white. There are a
great number of whites which have slight traces of other colours. If A = B and
B = C, then according to formal logic A = C. However, if one inch on a wooden
ruler is equal to one inch on a metal ruler in a warm and humid place, and if
we then take the metal ruler to measure a length of plastic in a cold place and
mark off one inch on it, then we will find that one inch on the wooden ruler is
not equal to one inch on the plastic. The point is that formal logic applies to
nothing real.
The following verbal argument is valid in pure
formal logic:-
“All dadas are goblegooks”. “This kofl is a
dada”. “Therefore, this kofl is a goblegook.”
Here, the argument is constructed so that “kofl” is a member of the class “dada” which is a member of
the class “goblegook”. Therefore, “kofl” is contained in the class “goblegook”.
The inference follows necessarily. It has a verbal truth. That is a first stage
in establishing a truth. But the argument can only have meaning if the terms
refer to sets of characteristics that have been experienced by people. Then the
argument holds experiential truth. This is a second stage. This,
however is not enough to have objective truth. It has to be shown that the set
of characteristics belongs to something that has an existence apart from the
observers and describes the object fully and is not just a selection or an
abstraction. This is the third stage. There is, however, also a fourth stage.
Objects do exist in interaction with other things and change according to
various processes. They have to be seen within a context. The contexts in which
things are described vary and can be more or less comprehensive.
There is an illusion involved in supposing that a
statement, premise or proposition can be impersonally true or false. In fact,
what can be true or false in that it corresponds to an experience or to
something real that is experienced, is how a person understands the statement. This may be quite different from how someone else
understands it. Words like other things are interpreted within a context of
experiences and the experience of words is not the same thing as the experience
of physical or social events. Words have to be associated with the things or
events that they refer to. In general it is necessary that people should share
the same environment and engage in the same activities and have the same
motives when the same words are being used.
Thinking depends on psychological, sociological
and physiological factors. It is absurd to suppose otherwise. It depends on the
structures and mechanisms of our minds, on temperament, on the concepts,
language, fashions, ideological contexts and frameworks of reference, interests
and assumptions we obtain due to our upbringing, education and social
interactions and on the limits of our sense organs and the kind of activities
we indulge in, since these elicit reactions from the environment, thereby
giving us experiences. In fact, we never see objects but we have experiences of
them. We build up a picture of the object by increasing the number of different
experiences about the object. But usually we select only a limited number of
these according to our interest, and a different set according to different
interests.
The reason why Western logic is purely
intellectual is because of the dichotomy between mind and matter which was made
in Greek and Roman thinking, probably because of the practice of slavery which
divided the slaves, doing the physical work, and the masters doing the mental
work. In this dichotomy the third linking factor, namely feelings, (emotions,
empathy and sympathy etc) were atrophied. A kind of trinity was, therefore,
created. This dichotomy was later adopted by the Christian Church and still
influences Western civilisation in all kinds of ways, in Industry, Politics and
Science. In particular it is responsible for the Principle of Objectivity in
Science. Islam, on the other hand, is based on Unity.
An Islamic view is something as follows:-
Man was originally made perfect. Therefore, he has
the potentiality of thinking correctly. The human brain or mind has been
created by Allah (or formed by Nature through a process of evolution) to
process experiences in appropriate ways to enable him to adjust to the world,
ultimately to Reality or Allah. He does not know the real world, but only the
results of this processing, and he is, in fact, himself a product of it, not
only because the way he think of himself but because experiences and actions
modify him. Thus knowledge has no meaning apart from this adjustment and the
nature of a person is describable in terms of how well he has adjusted.
Objectivity is, therefore, understood in relation to human evolution. It cannot
be otherwise, since those who think in better ways will dominate or replace
those who do not.
His thinking, however, has been corrupted owing to
several factors:-
1. Interference in the intellectual functioning by
elements coming from other faculties, from the emotions, instincts and the
motor faculty.
2. Attachments to sense data, hypnosis, fixations,
environmental and social conditioning, addictions.
3. Habits and automatisms.
4. Fantasies created by wishful thinking and
self-interest.
5, Selectivity and rationalisations based on likes
and dislikes caused by selfishness, greed, pride, vanity, lust, prejudice and
so on.
6, Perception and memory are corrupted by
exaggeration, distortion, merging, separation, suppression, invention,
reduction.
7. Incorrect conceptualisation due to wrong
frameworks of reference.
8. Abstraction of things from their proper
contexts.
9. Guesswork based on insufficient data, and
incorrect associations, insufficient discrimination, mistakes in observation,
superficiality.
10. The separation of thinking, feeling and
action. The data of experience form memories in all three areas, or have these
three aspects. But human beings have learnt to think one thing, feel another
and do something still different. Hypocrisy has become a way of life.
11. Repression and distortion of experiences,
impulses and ideas; the deliberate cultivation of unconsciousness. This is
aided by refusal to see selected items or the use of diversionary behaviour.
The use of alcohol and drugs, and the seeking of excitement or alternative
focuses for attention have this purpose.
12, Owing to all these factors human consciousness
has disintegrated, become unstable and narrowed down. The conscious mind is
severely restricted and can only hold and process a limited number of ideas at
any time. Most of the processing is done in the sub or unconscious mind and we
become aware of only some of its results. If attention was deliberately
focussed on experiences, and they were properly digested and assimilated so
that they, like food, became part of us, then the greater processing power of
the unconscious mind could be brought to bear on every problem. But this is the
cultivation of intuition and faith rather than reasoning.
Whereas motives are certainly required for
thinking as for action, it should be the love of truth and reality rather than
the love of self, subjects or objects. Actions, too, must be correct since they
not only affect the reactions of the objects upon which our perception depends
but also affect our motives. The assumptions, on which thinking is based,
themselves require examination. The techniques necessary for correct thinking
are those which remove the mentioned obstructions in order to cultivate true
objectivity. The ego has to be placed under control. Objective thinking is not
possible unless the motives are purified, (59:9) the ‘rust’ on the mirror of
consciousness is removed (83:14), and consciousness is freed from the shackles
of habit and conditioning (76:4). Rational thinking is not so much about
procedures as of inherent intelligence, insight and discrimination. The formal
procedures are used mainly, like the formal law, to counteract psychological
defects. It is not likely that a person will be guided by a logical procedure
if he has some other motives. He is more likely to use the logical procedures
to try to establish his own prejudices or to convince others.(2:6-18).
He can do this by selecting an appropriate set of premises. Others, using
another set of premises can reach other conclusions.
Most thinking, though by no means all, is done by
means of words. There is little doubt that Islam gives a prominent place to the
word. The supremacy of Adam over the angels lay in the fact that he knew the
names of things, and that these were taught to him by Allah Himself. The
Prophet was taught through words. The Universe itself was created by the Word
of Allah. That is to say the structure of the Universe is similar to that of a
language. Human beings create the world they see by means of their language.
The word ‘Logic’ is itself derived from ‘Logos’ meaning ‘word’. But it is
necessary to point out that there is a difference between the natural language
which these ideas refer to and human language which is subject to the
limitations of the human mind, and produces ambiguities and contradictions in
meaning. A human language is objective in proportion to which it conforms to
nature and not the other way round. The present state of thinking reverses this
requirement. It tries to fit phenomena into pre-defined concepts, categories
and thought patterns.
“Would you
wrangle with me over names which you have given, you and your fathers, for
which no warrant from Allah has been revealed?” 7:71
It is observable that the intellectuals, those who
pride themselves on their capacity for thinking, generally live, as it were, in
a world of abstractions and tend to have a much more highly developed ego than
others. They often tend, therefore, to think even less correctly than men of
action whose thinking must necessarily be constantly tested against real
situations. They are also most efficient at rationalisation. On the other hand
the latter are too busy to think sufficiently profoundly and comprehensively,
and must rely on the former to provide them with a theoretical basis for their
actions. In this division and separation of functions the importance of the
cultivation of correct motivation has largely remained unrecognised, and has,
therefore, been neglected. A class of managers has certainly arisen who ought
to be dealing in motivations, but their interest is also either intellectual or
practical. The point to be made is that those who concentrate their attention
on only one of these three faculties tend to be entirely incapable of dealing
with the others. They become uncoordinated and unbalanced.
The word, Philosophy (The love of knowledge) was
once used to refer to rational thinking about the nature of the world and life.
But Philosophy did not insist on deliberate observation, the gathering of data,
calculation, experimentation and verification, nor did it depend on the love,
empathy and interaction with nature, nor on inspiration and revelation. It is
not, therefore, regarded with much respect in Islam. Since the advent of
science, which does, indeed, consult nature, Philosophy is mostly understood as
meaning Logic in the formal sense. Whereas Science deals in facts, religion in
values, philosophy should deal in meanings, and therefore, with concepts and
how to relate them. Socrates appears to have understood this.
Thinking, however, is not done merely about facts,
but also about meaning and values. It is done not only about thoughts but also
about actions and feelings. There are in general two kinds of thinking which
appear to be related to the left and right hemisphere of the brain, namely
lingual and structural. The two ought to be combined.
----------<O>----------
The following selection from the Quran can be
regarded as the foundation for the thesis in this chapter. A great number of
others are also relevant. The problem is to understand their essence apart from
their form.
“Allah, He
is Reality, and that which they invoke besides Him is the False.” 31:30
“Allah, He
is the manifest Truth.” 24:25
“Confound
not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth.”” 2:42
“And when
it is said unto them: Follow that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We
follow that wherein we found our fathers. What! Even though their fathers were
wholly unintelligent and had no guidance?” 2:170
“Ye did not
hide yourselves lest your ears and your eyes and your skins should testify
against you, but ye deemed that Allah knew not much of what ye did. That, your
thoughts which ye did think about your Lord, hath ruined you; and ye find
yourselves among the lost.” 41:22-23
“Most
people follow naught but conjecture. Assuredly conjecture can by no means take
the place of truth.” 10:37
“Accursed
be the conjecturers who are careless in an abyss” 51:10
“And the
similitude of the two parties is as the blind and the deaf on the one hand and
the seer and the hearer on the other. Are they equal in similitude?” 11:24
“O man!
Follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the
hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these it will be asked (to
give an account).” 17:36
“... and
obey not him whose heart We have made heedless of Our
remembrance, who follows his own lust and whose case has been abandoned.” 18:29
“Have they
not traveled in the land, and have they hearts
wherewith to feel and ears wherewith to hear? For indeed, it is not the eyes
that grow blind, but it is the hearts which are within their bosoms, that grow
blind.” 22:46
“And who
goes further astray than he who follows his own lust without guidance from
Allah. Lo! Allah guides not wrongdoing folk.” 28: 50
“Nay, but
those who do wrong follow their own lusts without knowledge.” 30:29
“And whoso
is saved from his avarice - such are they who are successful.” 59:9
“And whoso
is saved from his own greed, such are the successful.”
64:16
“It (the
Quran) is naught else than a reminder to creation.” 68:52 & 81:27
“Lo!. We have created everything by measure.”” 54:49
“O ye who believe! Why say ye that which ye do not? It is most
hateful in the sight of Allah that ye say that which ye do not.” 61:3
“The
likeness of those who are entrusted with the Law of Moses, yet apply it not, is
as the likeness of the ass carrying books. “ 62:5
“They say
(in paradise): This was what was given us before, and it is given to them in
resemblance. Lo! Allah disdains not to coin the similitude even of a gnat.”
2:25-26
“He it is
who produces creation, then reproduces it, and it is
easier for Him. His is the sublime similitude in the heavens and in the earth.”
30:27
----------<O>----------
In Islam, Logic begins with the Principle of
Unity, Tawhid. This means not only the Unity of Existence, but also the Unity
of experience and thought.
The implication is:-
(a) That all things are part of a greater Whole.
(b) That the Whole is more than the sum of its parts.
(c) That the parts derive from and are dependant on the whole.
Three kinds of thinking arise from this:-
(a) The relationship from the whole to the parts.
This gives rise to deductive and analytical reasoning.
(b) The relationship from the parts to the whole.
This gives rise to the inductive and synthetic reasoning.
(c) The relationship between the parts. This
produces relational thinking.
In general scientific reasoning is analytical and
deductive. But scientific progress depends on the construction of hypothesis
and theories which connect together a great number of facts into wholes. This
requires induction and synthesis. It consists of leaps of Intuition,
inspiration or revelation. Having constructed a hypothesis, deductive reason is
used to derive certain ideas which can be tested by observation and experiment.
The more these are confirmed the more the hypothesis is likely to be correct.
The truth of it can never be regarded as completely certain. If we know that
“All men are mortal.” Then we know that “This man is mortal” by deduction since
“This man” is included in “All men”. But if we know “this man is mortal”, “that
man is mortal” , “the next man is mortal” and so on,
we can never arrive at the certainty that “All men are mortal” since this
requires knowledge of all men. One way of overcoming this problem is by
defining “man” as including “mortal”. The certainty is established by the
definition. If then we find someone who is not mortal, we cannot call him “man”
and must apply some other term. Sometimes when the hypothesis does not work,
another hypothesis is invented to explain this discrepancy. Thus an elaborate
structure is gradually built up which works, but it is conceivable that some
other structure may have done just as well or better. For instance, we have Newton’s theory of Gravity which requires a force to act between
all material bodies, the intensity of which varies directly with mass and
inversely with distance between them. On the other hand we have Einstein’s
theory of Gravity where gravitational mass and inertial mass are one and the
same thing and gravity is regarded as a curvature of something called
space-time. Clearly the two theories are incompatible and cannot possibly be
taken as a true description of reality. They are merely descriptive devices
applying to certain aspects of it.
The intelligent and natural thing to do, however,
would be not to define terms strictly, but to allow the concept to grow as
experience about a thing grows. We would then find that the word ‘man’ for
instance, expands to include a great number of characteristics, some
contradicting others, and that there is a great amount of variation between
different individuals. There is, therefore, a distinction between the
collective name and the individuals. The western logical approach to this is
that the class is described by a set of characteristics which is common to all
and we distinguish the individuals by another set of characteristics. But this
is unrealistic since there is no object corresponding to a class so defined.
The word ‘man’ becomes an abstraction. Yet there is certainly an object, corresponding
to ‘man’ since all human beings are related and derive from a single source.
And there is no absolute distinction between one individual and another which
the above procedure would suggest. What is, in fact happening, is that we are
using analogies. We do not allow the concept or thought to determine experience
as in Western logic, but allow experience to determine thought. This is
objectivity and integral to the notion of ‘Surrender’.
Thus we see that thinking depends on three
things:-
(a) Observation or experience. (b) Verbal
definitions (c) Consciousness or insight (intuition, inspiration and revelation
are different degrees of it). Inspiration arises from data falling into a
self-consistent order with all outer (derived through the senses) as well as
inner (the information contained in physiological processes) experiences in the
sub-conscious mind. It depends, therefore, on the degree of integration.
Note that neither observation nor insight are rational faculties. Inspiration occurs only when
the efforts of the rational mind have been suspended, and a state of passivity
arises. If thinking is to be correct each of these has to be cultivated by
different methods.
Thus a distinction is made in the Quran between:-
Ilm-ul-Yaqin, knowledge of Certainty, the verbal or
rational truth. (Quran 102:5),
Ain-ul-Yaqin, eye of certainty, experiential or empirical truth. (Quran 102:7)
Haqq-ul-Yaqin, truth of certainty, Absolute or
categorical truth. (Quran 69:51)
These distinctions are also seen in the following:-
“Moses said to his household: verily, beyond all
doubt I have seen a fire. I will bring you tidings of it or I will bring you a
flaming brand that ye may warm yourselves.” 27:7
Fire refers to the transforming truth (fire is
used to transform in cooking and in industry). Moses saw it (ain-ul-yaqin), he will bring tidings
of it (ilm-ul-yaqin), or bring a flaming brand (haqq-ul-yaqin).
The distinction between the three kinds of
knowledge can be explained by comparing people who have heard and talk about
China with those who have actually seen China, and then with those who are, in
fact, Chinese. Obviously, the same distinction must be applied to any other
kind of knowledge, including religious knowledge. Note, however, that the
Chinaman does not necessarily know about china, and may have seen little of
china. It follows that:-
1. A distinction exists between things as they are, the experience of them and the knowledge of the
experience. The experience of the object is not the same thing as the object,
and the description of the experience is not the same thing as the experience.
We may, therefore, make a distinction between Consciousness, Understanding and
Knowledge, or between gnosis, knowing and information. We distinguish ‘knowing
something’ from ‘knowing about something’ and “knowing of thinking”. Whereas
information refers to purely intellectual knowledge, something which does not
modify our actions, knowing refers to something which modifies our behaviour.
Gnosis, however, depends on and modifies our being. These distinctions
correspond to the distinctions made between the Quran (which comes from Allah),
the Hadith (which is based on the Prophet) and the Tafsir (exegesis) which may
be regarded as including all which the learned followers have contributed.
2. The word ‘Truth’, we see refers to conscious or
direct knowledge. Religion is concerned with this truth, and its purpose is to
ultimately lead us to it. It is clear, therefore, that the Islamic view differs
considerably from conventional logic where ‘truth’ is understood at the lowest
level, ilm-ul-Yaqin. It is defined in terms of names
and verbal propositions. In Islam ‘truth’ is not established by rational or
verbal arguments and not even by experience, but in terms of realities, the
structure and order by which things exist. And this implies that the
experiences should be integrated into the psyche of the person in a consistent
manner. Thinking cannot be based on formal definitions and rules
created by the mind, but is analogical in nature where one real thing is
described by comparing it with another real thing.
3. Since certainty has been mentioned, we should
also distinguish it from possibility or probability on the one hand, and
occurrence on the other. That is, things which are not necessary or regarded as
possibilities within a known set of rules, can nevertheless, occur.
4. Truth is ultimate defined in terms of Allah and
His Attributes. The implication is that we need a framework of reference first
in order to be able to interpret our experiences correctly. It is these which
provide the facts. Facts change if the framework of reference changes. The
Quran makes a distinction between the True and the False, but it also refers to
Opinions and Allegories. They are neither true nor false, or both true and
false depending on how we understand them. Most of the statements made by
science fall into the category of opinion that have various amounts of
usefulness and probabilities of being true - they are theories not truths.
5. There is a distinction between what we discover
by experiential means, by thinking and by inspiration. Thus there are three
methods of obtaining knowledge. Western science and philosophy accepts only two
criteria of knowledge, the empirical and the tautological - sense data and a
logical procedure where the inference can only explicitly contain what is
already implicit in the premises and no more. In fact, it is now well known
that we can see what does not exist; not see what does exist; that different
people see different things in the same situation; that given an object or
event we select features - we can exaggerate some, diminish others, distort and
re-arrange them. We do this according to our motives and interests. We can
misinterpret experiences. There are hallucinations and illusions. Apart from
this our actions elicit reactions which also give us data. These actions also
depend on our motives, attitudes and ways of doing things. Every school boy
knows that when he performs an experiment the results rarely accord with those
described by the text book. The text book merely describes an average and
ignores the variations.
6. As for logical procedures, this depends on the
concepts used and the way they are connected. The concepts are understood and
defined differently by different people; they can be created by a different
combination of features and different kinds of analysis and synthesis, and
people select different ones and combine them together differently. All this is
again driven by past experiences, assumptions inculcated by the culture,
motives and actions. A logical argument is linear, but the truth of an idea
depends on the way it fits into an organisation or structure. It must have
multiple links.
7. We also need a correct lingual or conceptual
system to describe, convey and think about these experiences. The language must
be correct and the concepts and grammar must correspond to real things. In so
far as we do not have complete knowledge about an object and this knowledge
keeps changing, then the concepts cannot be exact either but allow for such
changes. The three categories are also connected with three ways of dealing
with information.
(a) The linear or sequential. (b) The simultaneous
(c) The structured or ordered. This may contain symmetries, regularities or repetitions
with variations.
The
sequential can be seen in logical arguments, procedures, techniques, and
routines. Human beings and Computers can be programmed to do this. They can (a)
sort out and list (b) compute (c) elaborate e.g. they can carry out the same
sequence on and on, thus predicting from trends. But it is well known even by
mathematicians that not all the things they deal with fall into these
categories.
The
simultaneous is seen in perception. It can make a single synthetic picture, see
multiple things or see associations and relationships.
The structured requires intelligence,
comprehension and insight. It requires adaptability, creativity and an ability for abstraction. It can put together two entirely
different things by means of a third, rearrange or see a pattern within a
chaos. The making and use of tools is a simple example. There is no formal
logical connection between the situation A, the tool B and the aim C if, for,
instance one wishes to get from the floor to the roof
by means of a ladder. One has to be able to visualise all three together. Hence inner sight. Things are seen according to their
consistency with respect to the whole. Purpose is required and that which is
significant with respect to it is extracted.
8. And we need the properly functioning
psychological equipment. This requires correct actions, motives and thoughts.
Science, for instance depends on what objects and their aspect the scientist is
interested in, what his aims are, and on the ability to measure and manipulating
things.
9. It may also be observed that a mere
intellectual belief is useless since it has no effect on the real world. It is
valuable only when it informs motives and action. It follows that ultimately
what we regard as truth is a matter of faith. It is supposed that Religion is
based on faith and science on reason and this makes them wholly distinct. The
fact, however is that we need three things to conduct life in an intelligent
conscious manner:- (a) motives, (b) information and
(c) skills and these correspond to, but are not identical with the distinction
between the spiritual, mental and physical aspects of man. This third factor
concerns all practical activities that require sensory data that come through
interaction with things in our environment. In fact, all three -Religion,
Science and Technology- require all three faculties. Without data that comes
from experience neither science nor religion can exist. But people differ in
the amount, type and quality of data they have. Reason refers to information
processing. Reasoning certainly takes place in Religion and Industry as well as
in science. But obviously it depends on how much information one has, its type
and quality, how it is selected, interpreted and organised. This is not
independent of (a) assumptions, (b) motives and (c) abilities. Science is
progressive in that it searches and collects data and processes it continually.
This causes ideas based on it to change. At no time can it be said that its
conclusions are certainly true. They have different probabilities of being true
and are relatively true with respect to the set of data to which they relate.
The same can also be said about religion where the formulation and
understanding of the doctrines change as experience of the religious discipline
increases and deepens. Unless one believes something it cannot be regarded as
true. You cannot say: “It is not true but I believe it.”
or “It is true but I do not believe it.” Nor can motives or actions be based on
things not believed. However, there are different kinds and degrees of belief.
People do believe different things and these beliefs often contradict each
other and many contradict experience and observation. Beliefs can be false, but
they can also be partially true and overlap each other. Beliefs can differ
without contradicting each other if they relate to different parts or aspects
of a whole. How can we distinguish between one kind of
belief from another?
A distinction has to be made between (a) belief,
(b) knowing and (c) faith. Belief refers to an idea, knowing
refers to an experience and faith refers to a state of being.
True faith must have the following features:-
(a) That an idea is consistent with the system of experiences. The truth
value of an idea depends on the number of links it makes and the size and
quality of the system into which it fits. It is an inner consistency in the
mind. However, it is possible, and it is usually the case, to have several
self-consistent systems in the mind that remain wholly or partially separate from
each other. They constitute partial truths and may be illusions or even
fantasies. They cause a person to be internally disintegrated. The truth of
these systems, therefore, depends on their consistency with the whole of the
system of experiences
(b) Human nature consists of three things:- (i) inherent genetically determined factors, (ii)
experiences in contact with the physical, social and cultural environment of
which they may or may not be conscious to various degrees and (iii) the amount
and direction of the deliberate conscious efforts they make. Their actions
elicit responses that provide data and they invent techniques for action and
thought. There are, therefore, three possible psychological systems – the
inherent, the experiential and volitional. Whereas human beings contain a
built-in system of Truth, it is perfectly possible for them to produce systems
that overlay, contradict and even suppress the inherent system. On the other
hand these other systems can be used for the growth of the inherent system.
Faith can be regarded as referring to the consistency with inherent truth and
the degree of inner integration of the person.
(c) Faith, therefore, can refer to an idea that has significance for the
individual. It relates the individual to the world. It
refers to the confidence a person has in something such that his actions,
behaviour and life are based on it.
(c) Faith arises not from reasoning but from interaction and experience. It
enables the individual to live harmoniously with reality and to develop.
(d) Human beings are not merely passive observers, but exist for action.
They are Vicegerents and transform the world and themselves. They are part of
the cosmic process of change. Faith creates facts. We can distinguish between
faiths according to whether and how much harmful or beneficial facts it creates.
10. Consider the following diagrams.
The one could be seen as a view of steps going
down stairs or as a view of the underside of steps going up. The other can be
seen either as a vase or as two faces facing each other. In either case we
cannot see both at the same time. Some people can see only one point of view.
Others may undergo a kind of conversion experience which suddenly allows them
to see the other point of view.
----------<O>----------
If we accept the principle of Tawhid (Unity), then
rational thinking should take the following form:-
There is a
fundamental Unity. We will denote this by “X”.
If we wish
to start thinking about experience, the first thing we have to do is to isolate
some item, “A”, the subject, about which thinking is done. But if we accept
Tawhid, then by the act of isolation we have created an artificial world, an
illusion. We must, therefore, negate this isolation by finding a relating
factor, “B”. The meaning of the terms “A” and “B” are relative to each other
and to “X”
We now have
a triad A-B-X. We can call this type of thinking Transcendental Thinking.
Its verbal form is:- “ An
item, ‘A’ has a relationship, ‘B’ with Life, Experience or Reality in general,
X.”
Not many people think consciously in this way,
that is, in terms of the totality of experience, though it is probably carried
out in the unconscious mind. For most people it is necessary to isolate another
item, “C” to which “A” is to be related. The picture is built up by relating
“A” to items “C1”, “C2”, “C3”, ..... etc. The meaning of the terms “A”, “B” and “C” are relative
to each other.
The triad A- B - C represents Atomic Thinking.
It is
verbalised in the form:- “ An item, ‘A’ has a
relationship, ‘B’, to an item, ‘C’.”
It is obvious, however, that by means of another isolation we have again created an artificial or
illusory world. The item, “C” is a substitute for “X” and is itself related to
it by some other factor. It is also clear that the relationship A-B-C is a snap
shot at a particular time and situation. At some other time there may well be a
change in the relationship, “B”, or an item to which it is related by “B”. If
we wish to think in more than in an “atomic” fashion, that is, about events in
a greater context and in a more generalised fashion, then we need a factor,
“D”, the conditions in which the relationship takes
place. The factor “D” should represent the context in which the relationship
exists, that is, the wholeness of experience, “X”, including the observer and
his actions. It negates the isolation of “C”. The meaning of the terms is
relative to “D”.
We now have A - B - C - D. This is Formal Thinking.
Its verbalised form is:- “ An item, ‘A’ has a
relationship, ‘B’, to an item, ‘C’ under a set of conditions’ ‘D.”
Generally speaking the factor, “D” is
ignored because it is assumed by the people in conversation that they are
speaking about the same conditions or field. This, unfortunately, is often a
mistake. If “D” is ignored but is constant, then we get “Determinism”. Or
conversely, if we assume Determinism, then we will only look for relationships
where “A” varies with “C”, directly or inversely. The assumption will reappear
in the conclusion. If, “D” is ignored but is variable, then we get “Chance”. But we may get different combination of
Determinism and Chance.
The condition or context “D” determines the number
of alternatives “x” that exist in the situation. The constraint, compulsion or
determination “y” is inversely proportional to the number of alternatives. For
instance, if we throw dice than the number of alternative ways in which it can
come to rest with any particular face up is 6. So the constraint on that event
happening is 1/6. If the number of alternatives is one, then the constraint is
1/1=1. Note, however, that the alternatives might not be equal and that the
dice can come to rest with the other surfaces facing in numerous directions.
These differences can also be quantified. So calculations will depend on how
much detail we want.
Several consequences follow from this way of
thinking.
1. If “A” is related to “C” then “C” is related to
“A”, but the relationship “Ba” (i.e. “B” to “A”) and
“Bc” (i.e. “B” to “C”) is not the same. However,
there will be a relationship between “Ba” and “Bc”. This may be given by:- Ba - Bb - Bc.
2. The factors “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” are
themselves wholes which can be further analysed in the same way.
3. If the individual wishes to be objective, he
will separate himself from the whole and then describe his relationship with
it. Thus “A” represents the person, and he has the relationship, “B” with “X”.
This is formulated as “ Man has the relationship of
Vicegerent to Allah.”. A two way relationship is implied from “A” to “X” and
from “X” to “A”, so that “Ba” and “Bx” are also related. This relationship is unfortunately
overlooked and renders thinking unrealistic. It makes the difference between
Islamic and non-Islamic thinking.
4. If the individual wishes to study something, he
will also have to isolate an object of attention. Thus, “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”
represent the Observer, the Observation, the Object observed, and the
Conditions under which this relationship is set up. It might be a Laboratory,
an Office, a Field, a Factory, a Conference,
5. It is possible to place the emphasis of thought
on any one of the above factors. But it should not be forgotten that each
factor has meaning only with respect to the others.
6. Another thing we must do, if we are to think
correctly, is to distinguish between the True, the Good, the Useful, the
Beautiful, and the Unitary,
It is necessary to know whether the intention
behind a statement relates to one of these values. Truth relates to the
consistency with experience; the Good refers to the function of a thing with
respect to the whole of which it is a part; Usefulness refers to the part and
means appropriateness in fulfilling a purpose; Beauty implies harmony between
the observer, observation and the thing observed. A statement of fact is not
the same as a statement of values. Nor is an opinion about something the same
as knowledge about it. When someone says that “A has a relationship, B, to C,”
he may not be talking about what he knows but rather about what he wishes. We
may then argue about whether that wish is good or not, or how much good or bad
there is in it. The statement may imply an instruction either to oneself or
others. In that case we may argue about how useful it is, and for what purpose.
A scientific statement is often an instruction. It implies that it is useful to
think in such and such a way. The same is true of religious statements. But we
have to establish in either case what purpose it is useful for. The same
statement may have several aspects. A mathematical formula, for instance, is
also constructed to be symmetrical or elegant. A statement may be constructed
in a Unitary manner to include all these aspects. If
we are speaking about knowledge in the real sense, that is, as that which
enables us to live and develop then the four values are one and the same thing.
7. Since we regard “A” in isolation as being an
illusion, we discard the fundamental axioms of Greek and Western Logic, namely
that (a) “A is A”, (b) ”Either A or not-A”, (c) “Not
both A and not-A”.
The Axiom of Identity, “A is A”
can be stated in our terminology thus: - ‘A’ has the relationship of identity
with ‘A’. To discard it is to say, for instance, that we cannot make the
following statements:- “Light (understood as a
wave-form) is always light (understood as a wave-form)”. “Light is corpuscular
in nature. It cannot be both corpuscular and not corpuscular (i.e. a
wave-form).” “It must be either corpuscular or not corpuscular”. What we can
say is that:- “Light appears corpuscular under such
conditions, and Light appears wave like under such other conditions”.
8. Since all items are isolated from the totality
then there will be some kind of relationship between one thing and any other
thing whatever. But we only isolate items and observe the relationships which
have significance or importance to us. It is also only such items and
relationships to which we give names. If this significance changes then what we
observe also changes. The significance of something for us may change when (a)
we or our interests change or
(b) when the object changes, or (c) when the relationship
changes, changes in distance for instance.
What usually interests us is the immediate cause
of something. But it is not true that a cause, A, will have an affect, B. What
actually happens is that a factor, A acts on another
factor, B to produce an effect, C. The effect, therefore, depends on both A and
B, and will vary with either. If the factor, A acts on B1, B2, B3 etc, it may
produce effects C1, C2, C3 etc. C1 may interact with C2 etc to produce effects
D1, D2 etc. And so on. There is a relationship of Coincidence between D1, D2
etc But this is not a matter of chance. We may regard
it as chance because our interest was directed only to a particular cause or
effect.
9. When we put together two items, then the
relationship between them is a matter of observation or insight. The
relationship is implicit in such a combination. This may or not be explicitly
stated. It is not, for instance, necessary to argue:-
“All trees have leaves. This is a tree. Therefore, it has leaves.” Here, we
have merely substituted “This tree” for “All trees”, because the latter
contains the former. In fact the argument is only possible because the concept
“tree” includes the concept “leaves”, and when we see “this tree” we form an
analogy in our minds between this tree and others. We ought to discover what
the relationship between the leaves and the tree is, and under what conditions.
In the winter when the tree loses its leaves, does it cease to be a tree?
Whereas the leaves could not have come into existence without the tree, yet
when they have fallen off, they exist apart from the tree. But are they the
same? Obviously the leaf on the tree is alive and growing, and the one on the
ground is dead and disintegrating. Should we have different words to refer to
such entirely different things? If we use the same word then either we are
speaking about a superficial resemblance or the word includes references to
some complex and little understood process. If, however, we do not mistake
words for realities we will not be bound by such intricacies.
Reasoning, in Islam, is regarded as being based on
comparisons. It is, therefore Analogical in nature. It is known as “measuring”,
that is one thing by another. The justification for this is as follows:-
The human mind works by comparing things,
isolating the similarities and differences. When different things are compared
we again find some similarities and other differences. And as we continue to do
this we not only analyse but also synthesise. Similarities allow us to
construct concepts and classes. When we
see differences we try to find links between them. We compare things more
accurately by measuring which consists of using the same unit a number of
times. This, too, is analogical in nature. This unit need not be a single
dimension such as length or duration, but may be a pattern. Differences and
similarities may lie at different levels. For instance, the ratio 2/3 is the
same as the ratio 6/9 or 12/18, but the numbers are certainly all different.
Again in the series 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 etc the difference is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc, but
the differences in this last series is exactly the same, i.e. 1. Not just
numbers but also qualities and types of order can be arranged in such a series.
These classes and concepts, in turn, belong to still higher classes and
concepts, and so on until we have something including everything. Therefore,
all things are similar in some respects and different in other respects.
Everything arises by differentiation from a single original unity. The series
not only links things together but can be extended indefinitely. The purpose of
this kind of conceptualisation, ordering and series making is to give us
understanding rather than mere information. The numbers or objects in isolation
or without order give us no understanding. But it is not possible to describe
the whole of something by means of the parameters that distinguish the parts.
Thus Allah remains indescribable, but
“He it is
who begins the process of creation, then repeats it;
for Him it is easy. He is the Sublime Similitude in the heavens and earth, for
He is the Mighty, the Wise” 30:27
The implication is that there is an archetypal or
universal pattern which is repeated as we go down the levels of creation. The
phrase “As above so below” is well known and descends from very ancient times.
Analogical thinking also requires research. It
consists of the following principles:-
(a) A thing has different aspects according to its
various relationships.
(b) The same thing can be used as an analogy to
describe an aspect of many other things, but not their whole nature.
(c) Several different things can be used as
analogies to describe a single thing (objects, processes, relations,
characteristics etc) because of its different aspects.
(d) There will be some kind of relationship,
direct or indirect, between all things, so that anything can be used as an
analogy for anything else to various extents.
(e) A process or pattern at a lower level may be
used as an analogy for one at a higher level, or vice versa.
(f) It is possible to understand what is normally
outside our experience by the use of similitudes or analogies from things
within experience.
----------<O>----------
Western logic depends on
classification on the basis of certain common characteristics. If something is
true about one object in the class with respect to these characteristics then
it is regarded as true about all the other objects in that class. This neglects
their differences as well as the fact that all the characteristics of the
object are interlinked. It is not always possible to isolate the class
characteristics. The object under consideration is not a real object. It is
created by the definitions which describe it.
One form of conventional Logic
reduces all argument to triads in the following manner:-
A statement or proposition,
consists of three parts, a subject, a predicate and a connector. It takes two
statements which have some term in common, and then derives from these a third
statement as the inference. e.g.
(i)
‘All Europeans’ ‘are’ ‘white’.
(ii) ‘David’ ‘is’
‘a European’.
(iii) Therefore, ‘David’ ‘is’ ‘white’.
Thus we have 3 triads, the third being derived
from first two. Apart from the connectors, there are three terms in which the
middle term ‘European’ connects the other two. It is explicit in the premises
but becomes hidden in the conclusion. It is necessary to emphasize this
structure as we shall return to it. It is basic to the structure of experience
itself. Since ‘a European’ is included in ‘All Europeans’, and ‘David’ is
identified with ‘a European’, then we merely have to substitute ‘David’ for
‘All Europeans’ in the first statement to obtain the conclusion. Note that if
we wish to reach a particular conclusion we only need to select the appropriate
premises. We can also define our terms in such a way as to fit into this
format. There are, for instance, black, brown and yellow people living in
Europe, but the word European has been defined to include only those who are
white, and even this term covers a variety of shades. The David we are talking
about changes with time. He was a baby, then becomes
an adult and an old man and his character changes. He may have gone to Africa And become
rather brown.
We can avoid all these problems by defining
our terms tentatively, and leaving it to observation to establish the
connection. Our idea of what “European”, “David”, “is” and “white” means can
then be built up gradually by all the relationships which these concepts form
in the real world. We avoid both the rigidity of a generalization and the
unreal abstraction of the formal concept. We have to transfer our awareness of
what the words stand for from purely physical structures and shapes to patterns
of behaviour and relationship. And we will have to have a social agreement that
what our senses provide is not itself the truth but signs of it, in the same
way as the word is not the object but a sign standing for it. Above all it
should be agreed that the truth of something refers to it’s relationships with
everything else and this we do not know. We are seldom aware of the
relationship which something has with even the totality of our limited
experiences. In so far as there is no agreement on these matters people mean
quite different things when they assert that something is true or false.
Arguments and conflicts of opinion are valueless and futile.
Several things can be said about
arguments such as the above:-
1. Firstly, A great number of
relationships can be found between two terms other than class inclusion. One
may be greater than another, prior to another, more important in some way than
the other. They may have cause effect relationships; one may be the opposite of
the other; the variation in one may cause variation in another. The connection
between them may be given to the senses, or be due to the way the terms are
defined, or due to the way consciousness organizes them. We can, therefore,
speak separately about relationship in general. Nowadays it is usual to use the
word “ implies” to refer to all these relationships.
I.e. A implies B.
2. Secondly, we can call this
kind of argument linear because only the connection between two terms is being
considered. The whole of nature is being described by combinations of such
units. Nature, however, shows variations and patterns. This requires more than
two terms. Supposing we have a relationship, ‘X’ between ‘A’ and ‘B’, and
another different relationship, ‘Y’ between ‘B’ and ‘C’, then the relationship
between ‘X’ and ‘Y’ will create a non-linear relationship between ‘A’, ‘B’ and
‘C’. This will produce quite a different description of nature. We could
multiply the number of terms, to add ever more complexity. We could also
describe things at different levels examining the relationship between
relationships and the relationships between these, and so on. But this complexity
could always be reduced to such triads.
3. Thirdly, thinking usually
takes place in three stages. We gather sense data, then we interpret it by
association with other memories, and then we organize it into patterns. We make
models of the landscape. The interpretation itself has three aspects, a motor,
an emotional and an intellectual. That is, the data is associated with actions,
with feelings, motives and interests, and with other sense data. A deliberate
critical look at each of these stages is required. The isolation of merely the
intellectual content is unrealistic and perverts knowledge.
4. Fourthly, it is falsely
assumed that it is possible for a verbal proposition to correspond exactly to
an objective condition or even to an experience of an objective condition. Nor
is it true that any proposition we make excludes subjective factors. The act
and procedures of observation may have effects on the result of observation.
Many propositions can be made
which are neither true nor false, but may be instructions or proposals or
merely statements about how things appear to be or work rather than are. There
is no point in excluding these from logic since they also give us information.
A proposition need not be ether true or false but can have different combinations
of each in between. Propositions can be true under certain conditions and for
some people according to how they understand them and false under other
conditions and for other people. A proposition does not have to mean the same
thing or be true when conditions or contexts change. The truth of something
depends on whether it fits in a consistent manner into the wholeness of a
person’s experiences. It is objective in this sense, but since this depends on
the person, truth is a subjective experience. Nothing is true for a person who
has not understood and integrated it. It is important to note that though this
resembles the rational or scientific attitude of scepticism there is a big
difference. The scientist tells us “Do not believe anything you have not observed
or tested yourself” . Hence doubt is regarded as a
virtue. Apart from the fact that he speaks only about sensory perception rather
than experiences of all kinds, observations and experiences can be wrong.
Beliefs based on these do not have a value. Doubt does not produce knowledge
but only uncertainty which is no basis for life. Nor does it produce any change
in the individual himself. Isolated bits of observation merely lead to the
disintegration of the mind. The Islamic view is that the data must be
assimilated to produce an inner unity.
When a Unit is analyzed into two
parts or aspects, the basic form of analysis, then the product of the analysis
cannot be the same as the original since the original did not have parts. Two
half planks of wood cannot be used for the same purpose as a whole one. The
same applies when we put things together to make something else. We must,
therefore, always add a third factor which accounts for the unity, some
reconciling factor.
The limitations of conventional
systems of logic are now being discovered during scientific researches into the
fundamental properties of matter. They certainly exist when we study religion
or crafts, commerce or art where thinking is also required.
5. Consider the following
statements:-
“Every day there are funerals.
Every day there are weddings.”
These are not logical premises in
the conventional sense, yet they produce a certain inference which cannot be
adequately described in a single statement. Sadness and joy are both parts of
the day. The inference here is reached in the same way as in logic. Both
require insight. A person who lacks in this will not be able to make any sense
of them in either case.
Consider statements such as the
following:-
“Whoso does
right, it is only for the benefit of his own soul that he does right, and whoso
errs , errs only to its harm.” 17: 15
“Whatever
good befalls you, O man, it is from Allah, and whatever ill befalls you it is
from yourself.” 4:79
These can be regarded as
establishing definitions for the words “right” and “wrong”. They are related to
the “soul”, by the relationship “benefit” and “harm”. And “good” and “evil” are
related to Allah or man by the relationship of initiation. But this
relationship exists within the context of the world to which the relationship
refers and not to a different one. It refers to the inner psychological world
of experience. On the other hand the verses may be regarded as telling us the
effects of “right” and “wrong” (in the first verse) and the causes (in the
second verse) of “good” and “evil”. Either we have to assume that “right” and
“wrong”, “good” and “evil” have some separate meaning, or that the notions of
“cause” and “effect” refer to the relationship defined by the verses. If the
first of these assumptions is made it is then possible to establish by
observation whether or not the relationship is true. But an examination of the
Quran does not reveal that “right” and “wrong”, “good” and ‘evil” have been
defined in this way. The relationship of “cause” and “effect” are part of the
meaning of the terms.
Indeed, when ever a person makes
a statement about anything it should be seen as a statement not about an
external fact at all, but about how he thinks about or experiences it. We
cannot know anything except according to how it affects us. It is usually
assumed that we cannot normally experience another person’s experiences, but
there is reason to doubt this. There are both direct and indirect effects. In
so far as brains and minds are similar there may be a transfer by induction.
Indirectly, as there is an association between external events and inner
states, the same external events will produce similar internal states in
different people. Nevertheless, it remains true that each can only know their
own experiences. If someone, therefore, says that such and such is the case,
then provided he means what he says and is not deliberately lying, then there
is no argument; it is as he says. But it is obviously different for another. And
each must recognize this fact. The only distinction to be made is that between
a more comprehensive and a less comprehensive viewpoint. An argument is useless
but a discussion may lead to the expansion of awareness.
“And argue
not with the People of the Book unless it be by means that are better (than
disputation), save with such as do wrong.” 29:46
“You have
charge of your own souls. He who errs cannot injure you if you are rightly
guided.” 5:105
“Only those
can accept who hear.” 6:36
The thinking based on such an
attitude is quite different from that which follows from regarding concepts as
referring to or being identical with something existing outside. The
consequences of this in action, perception and inner stresses are quite
different. The philosophical difficulties which people have had in producing a
consistent view of good and evil then disappears.
Consider the
following:-
“And the
Jews will not be pleased with you, nor will the Christians, until you follow
their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah Himself is
sufficient Guidance.” 2:120
The implication here is that the
creed of the Jews and the Christians was established by revelation from God. If
this is what justifies their creeds then this also justifies the Islamic creed.
Revelation is what all religions have in common. It is the revelation which
justifies the belief and creates the creed, not the other way round. Belief in
the creed does not produce revelation or religion. It also implies that there
is no value in following an external creed, since it is a verbal statement
subject to various interpretations and corruptions, but that the value lies in
following a revelation, a psychological event.
The argument here is
multi-dimensional. Its elements are inter-related in a kind of network, The argument is presented in a most compact manner. It
defines the terms by relating them. The terms used have been given meanings
with respect to each other, and with certain kinds of experiences and social
phenomena. It would be very difficult and ponderous to create a linear
horizontal formal logical argument out of this. As it stands it allows a
progressive vertical examination in depth.
The noteworthy points are as
follows:- The argument does not depend on defined
rules of thinking. It does not depend upon the formal definition of words. It
depends on the understanding of one real situation and applying it to another
similar situation. By doing this it becomes more objective in that it avoids
human inventions altogether. It takes an object, event, situation or pattern
not for and by itself but as a type, so that by examining and describing it we
can apply it to other things seen as belonging to the same type. The Similitude
is a fundamental notion in the Quran. This kind of thinking is called
“Measuring” It should be noted that the word “measuring” has a much more
comprehensive meaning in Islam than it has in western mathematics.
----------<O>----------
The Limits of Logic
A short description of the
methods of thought will now be given in order to illustrate their power and
limitations.
Human beings can think about the
world, gather information, manipulate this, act accordingly and change the
world. How is this possible? The problem is this:- The
perception of an object is not the same as the object itself. There is a chain
of events between the human mind and the external world. The object itself
modifies light for instance, or it radiates some kind of influence itself, and
this is transmitted to the sense organ, then through the nervous system to the
brain. There must be a correspondence between the object, what it radiates, and
between that and the effects on the sense organ, and between that and the nerve
impulses, between that and the effects on the brain, and between that and the
conscious image. The reverse must also be true since we can create things. What
is more we also create symbols for experiences in
words and graphs and we can map or translate one set of symbols into another as
into books and computers.
The solution to the problem lies in this.
Human beings, like any other organism are (1) created by the same forces which
exist in the rest of the Universe. (2) they have
arisen by a long process of adaptation and evolution in contact with the world.
This has caused a process of selection in weeding out those faculties which
were not useful in adaptation to the world. (3) The fertilized ovum has some
kind of diffuse sensitivity which differentiates into the special senses by
concentrating this sensitivity in certain directions only because they give it
an advantage in particular environments. The general sensitivity probably still
exists but is obscured by the strength of the special organs. When these are
damaged it becomes possible to develop other senses.
We must, therefore, suppose that
there are certain inbuilt forms and processes by means of which we see the
world. These were called “a priori” ideas by the Philosopher Kant as opposed to
the “a posteriori” ideas provide by the data of
experience. He also distinguished between “analytical” and “synthetic” ideas,
those which can be analyzed and give no more information than contained in the
whole such as the meanings in a concept and those which gave information when
combined with others and, therefore, required empirical investigation. If we combine
these we get four types. Such things as the axioms of logic are a priori and
analytical. The question is:- are there a priori
synthetic ideas? He thought that notions such as quality, quantity,
relationships and modality were built into the mind, so that we see them not
because they exist in the outer world, but because the mind is built to arrange
the data of experience that way. The nature of the observer is, therefore, part
of the experience. There was, therefore, a Mental World which was not accessible
to rational or scientific investigation. This idea was as revolutionary as the
Copernican revolution in Astronomy where it was shown that the observed motion
of the planets is partly caused by the motion of the observers on earth. If this was allowed
for, then the motion of the planets including this earth could be seen as going
around the sun and not round the earth. He also thought that space and time
were a priori synthetic ideas. But since then the notion of time and space have
changed owing to Relativity Theory. This appears to describe the world better
by regarding Space-Time as a medium in which things take place. Indeed, Gravity
is regarded as a warp in Space-time which creates all the galaxies, stars and
planets. But Kant’s idea has recently returned in Quantum Physics.
All these theories, however,
describe a world which is not the same as common experience. We do not see this
planet going round the sun, nor can we visualize the relativity or quantum
worlds. It seems that we have adapted only to a particular section of the
universe, namely this planet and to a world between the very small and the very
large. It may, therefore, be supposed that these inherent tendencies only apply
to this world. However, this planet is only a particular restricted case of a
more general underlying state. And this must have created the particular case.
This in turn must belong as a particular case to an even more general case.
Adaptation to this world would also imply adaptation to the greater world and
still greater and more fundamental world. It is possible for man to ascend up
the ladder from which he descended by getting rid of the restrictions which the
lower levels impose. If this were not the case then science could not have
understood the Copernican world nor that of Relativity
or Quantum physics.
It is also an article of faith in all
religions that the real or divine world is other than that which we normally experience.
We cannot, therefore, reject it on the grounds that it seems unreasonable from
our limited stand point. Note that the advances in science take place by leaps
of insight or inspiration similar to the ones experienced by the Prophets and
mystics upon whom Religion depends as science depends on such scientists.
It follows that correct thinking
is a link between the (a) acquired data, (b) the present processing of this
data in the mind and (c) inherent factors. Thus when we form or are given an
idea we accept it if it feels right because it fits into the reservoir of
experienced data, our pattern of thought as well as connecting to deeper
inherent patterns. The term faith should be used only when it connects with
inherent patterns. We must distinguish between:- (1)
Knowledge inherent in us. (2) knowledge acquired by us
(a) through the outer senses, (b) through inner sensation of our physiological
processes (c) through direct changes in the brain. (3) Knowledge resulting from
our efforts, manipulation of this data by association, analysis, synthesis,
reasoning etc.
We must distinguish between (1)
intuitive thinking. (2) reasoning and (3) associative
thinking.
1. Intuitive thinking -
The normal method by which we
live is this:- We acquire data and this forms certain
patterns in our minds according to the inner mental laws at a number of levels.
Sensation provides us with characteristics from a limited range of a much
larger range of impulses (e.g. the visible spectrum is a small part of the
whole electromagnetic spectrum). We organize this data to various levels. The
object we see is a bundle of such characteristics. On the other hand it is by
the relationship between objects and by comparing them that we recognize
characteristics. We abstract what is common and this leaves that which is
different. We end up with a smaller set of characteristics than the number of
total events and these can be described by different combinations of the same
characteristics. We analyze, associate and synthesize. All three processes take
place together and are inter-dependent. To reconstruct the world, we need three
things:- the data, the rules by which things are
associated, the over all consistency or pattern of the rules. The rule may only
be one derived from the frequency with which certain things are associated in
our experience. We form a world view or a theory applying to some part of
experience. This is not a logical process but an intuitive one and the word
inspiration is often used for it when it enters consciousness. It depends on
the nature or level of consciousness. We apply and test these patterns
constantly and modify them. Trouble begins when the capacity for adaptation
atrophies owing to fixations resulting from emotional factors or habits. We do
not reject the hypothesis because it is falsified by a single event. What
happens is that events strengthen or weaken the hypothesis by reinforcement or
contradiction. It is a statistical matter but one in which both frequency
(extensity) and the strength (intensity) of the experience must be taken into
consideration as well as the number of links it makes with other data
(cotensity). There may be several patterns in the mind dealing with different
situations and these may gradually form a super pattern to include them all.
This will depend on the quality of the consciousness. People may differ owing
to (a) differences in inherent factors, (b) data provided by experiences, and
(c) quality or comprehensiveness of their consciousness. A datum is meaningless
by itself. Normally it has to be related to other experiences, the wholeness of
the system of experiences and to the observer. These three form a greater
wholeness. Science is a deliberate, concentrated way of doing all this for
particular purposes. It is not different from what occurs quite naturally
except that it tries to leave out the relationship with the observer. This we
shall see is a mistake.
2. Reasoning
Reasoning is done in four ways:- Inductive, Deductive, Mathematical and Causal. Reasoning
has many forms, but the ones considered in Logic and science are those
concerned with thinking in a language. This is formal, being based on certain
rules created by people. It depends on description, definitions of concepts,
inter-relationships between these and rules of grammar. These are not the same
thing as the objects and their inter-relationships and behaviour. People,
however, may reason in terms of images or actions. This is much more direct
reasoning since the images come from experience. There is also a type of reasoning
which comes from the perception of patterns and order, their relationships and
behaviour. We should, therefore, distinguish between:-
(a) Natural reason, (b)
Formal or lingual reasoning (c) Transcendental reasoning.
Here we will consider only formal reasoning.
The other two have been dealt with elsewhere.
(a) Inductive reasoning is
of the type:- “Man A is mortal. Man B is mortal. Man C
is mortal and so on. No case of a man who is not mortal has been found.
Therefore, All men are mortal.” But we cannot know all men that exist or will
exist. Therefore, the induction is not certain but has a probability
proportional to the number of repetitions. It can only be falsified if we know
some other factor which will change the situation. It is, therefore, clear that
such an induction cannot exist in isolation. The sun has risen for thousands of
years, therefore, it will always rise. From this we
deduce that it will rise tomorrow. However, the earth may stop spinning or the
sun may explode, or some thing may obscure the sun. Gravity we are told always
causes things to fall to the ground. But birds fly and planets orbit the sun
instead of falling into it. So we have to invent or discover something which
prevents this happening. These events are not regarded as falsifying the theory
of gravity. Why not?
One way of overcoming the problem
is to use definitions. The word Man includes the notion of mortality. If then
we find an immortal man then he will not be a man. We overcome the difficulty
of induction by using concepts rather than appealing to external reality. This
is the way Gravity and other forces are defined. They cannot be falsified.
Different induction can be obtained by selecting different sets of events or
objects. These may over lap (e.g. All objects that are
round. All objects that are white) However, the set itself is defined by what
is common to them. Therefore, the induction is the result of the way the set is
defined. It is perfectly possible to select different sets to reach different
inductions.
Science is mostly induction. An
observation or experiment has to be confirmed by repetition. But attempts also
ought to be made to falsify the induction by finding contradictions. When these
are found the theory should be modified. Often, however, things are described
by statistics. This should have three categories:-the proportion which is
repeated, the proportion that is contradicted, and the proportion that is
neither repeated nor contradicted. It could be that contradiction can be
explained by some other factor and does not require abandoning the theory.
However, scientific theories come into fashion or go out of fashion. This is a
matter of interest and significance and depends on social conditions in which
knowledge is only one item. These conditions can be described by the
statistical frequency of various characteristics. It is also possible that one
theory replaces another because it explains a greater number of events than
another. Science depends also on whether the correct questions have been asked,
what questions have been asked, where the answers are sought, how and what
experiments have been done, what instruments physical or mathematical are
available, the nature of the conceptual system used, and the general direction
of social interest.
Another method is to arrive at an
induction through inspiration. Deductions are then made from it. And these are
tested by observation and experiment. The greater the number of confirmed
deductions the greater is the probability that the induction is correct. But if
the deductions are not correct, it is still possible to find some other
explanation for the difference between the deduction and the observation. Since
birds do not fall to the ground due to Gravity then there are aerodynamic
forces which prevent this.
Consider the following argument:- We have a simple industrial company. It has several
departments. Each has many workers organized and controlled by a manager.
At Level 1 the manager decides to
count all the members of his department. He does so in two ways:- He counts all workers and defines this as a Type A group.
If he includes himself then he has a Type B group. He does this in order to
satisfy those who think that the manager should be part of his department as
well as those who think that the manager should be aloof and control the
department. It could, however, be that the manager is both aloof and involved,
as in the case of God, but the way the terms are defined does not allow this.
At Level 2, the managers
themselves are controlled by a Managing Director. He is also a manager. He
wants to count all the managers and he applies the definitions of Level 1. But
he meets a dilemma. All the managers under him together should form a Type A group. But this cannot be so because it should include the
Managing Director since he is a manager also. But this would make it into a
Type B group. He cannot, therefore, create a Type A
group. The list he makes is neither Type A nor Type B.
Again, if we define a good
manager as being one who controls all managers of a Type A
group, then the Managing Director should also control himself since he is a
manager. But if we include him then he does not meet the definition of a good
manager because that would create a type B group.
We get the same kind of
difficulties if we consider a catalogue of catalogues of Type A (one that excludes itself). It cannot include or exclude
itself. This difficulty is avoided if it is a catalogue of Type B catalogues.
It must then include itself.
Obviously, we have got into a
verbal confusion by not differentiating between levels. The Managing Director
is not an ordinary manager. To put it in another way a set of all objects is
not an object. The Universe considered as a set of objects cannot be an object.
If we say A= “All things have causes”, we cannot conclude that the Universe, as
a set of all things has a cause, quite apart from the fact that we cannot be
certain the proposition A is true. An object must be more than a collection of
parts owing to its organization. We could, of course, define an object as
something as having a cause. In that case we can define that which has no
cause, something self-existent, as God. We would then have to prove that the
Universe is an object, otherwise it would be God.
Suppose the Managing Director argues
as follows:- The Department is an object because it
has workers with a manager controlling it. The Company is also an object for
similar reasons. He can now certainly create lists of Type A and B. Notice also
that we do not get into the same difficulties if the Managing Director makes a
list of Type B by including himself. All objects, including the Universe, would
then, according to the above argument, have a cause.
Consider the following argument:- “This person has parents. Each of these parents have parents. These also have parents. All persons together
constitute mankind. Therefore, mankind has parents.”
Is this an absurd result? If we
regard mankind as a set of all human beings then it is. It follows that we
cannot make a statement about the whole of a set from what we know about the
members of the set. But suppose that we also know that mankind is an organism, which like the multiplicity of cells in a
person, grow from a single pair. Then it does make sense.
There are many such statements
involving “self-reference”. A story is told something as follows:- There was a computer called Fred which became famous
because whenever a statement was fed into it, it was able to give an answer as
to whether the statement was true or false. Then came
a person who knew about the limits of logic and fed it with the statement,
“Fred cannot prove this statement to be true.” The computer blew up.
We may draw several very
important conclusions:-
(1) What applies to the parts
does not apply to the whole.
(2) A distinction of level has to
be made. The Managing Director is not an ordinary manager and the catalogue of
catalogues is not the same thing as a catalogue of books. Level 2 is affected
by both Level 1 and Level 3, the worker and Managing Director in this case.
(3) Either/or arguments have a
limited value.
(4) A third category Type C
should be added which takes into consideration the organization caused in this
case by the relationship between worker and manager, as distinct from a set or
collection.
(5) The argument has two aspects
one of which works and the other does not.
(6) Ultimately, the only valid
argument is the one which includes itself. It describes a whole, and the parts
are not viable without it. The opposite is not true.
(7) Arguments such as these
involve self-reference. These are the ones which cause the difficulties and are
ignored by science. Yet most of life involves them. Indeed, knowledge itself is
a relationship between the knower and the things he knows.
But we could argue as follows:- “The Phenomenon P1 exists, P2 exists, P3 exists…”.
“Therefore, X, the totality of all phenomena, exists.”. “ The whole, X must
contain at least all the phenomena that we are aware of.”. “We are aware of K,
less than X.” “Therefore, there is an unknown area U = X - K.” “We can increase
our knowledge.” “Therefore, K can expand within X reducing U proportionally
until K coincides with X.”
It is supposed that Science gives
us objective knowledge. Therefore, it is supposed there is an agreement or
consensus between scientists as to what is true. Conversely, the agreement
between scientists ensures objectivity. But these suppositions are contradicted
by the fact that there are many controversies between scientists and that which
is regarded as truth changes from time to time. In fact, theories are
constructed by scientists and though they must be confirmed by experimental
results, we only have partial knowledge at any one time. This means that even
if the theory is confirmed many times it could be falsified in future by some
new fact. A large amount of science is done using statistics. There is no
certainty but various amounts of probabilities between 0 to 1.
(a) First the data of observation
have to be perceived, selected and interpreted according to a conceptual
system. One has to work out what the probability of getting evidence of the
truth.
(b) The data collected is
organized to form a theory. There may be several different theories depending
what data are selected, what importance they are given and how they are
organized.
(c) The theory is tested. The
greater the number of times it is affirmed the greater the probability that it
is true or will remain true and the greater the number of times it is negated
the less the probability that it is true. But other theories can be made to
explain the negatives or positives.
(d) It is necessary to assess
what the probability of getting evidence is if the theory is true compared to
the probability of getting evidence if the theory is false. This gives the
Likelihood Ratio, LR. Suppose it is 2, then the belief in the theory doubles.
But the question is:- Doubles from what? The original
belief depends on several psychological factors:- (i) the frequency of experience which may be accidental
depending on the environment in which one has lived, (ii) the actions and
behaviour of the person that create the reactions, (iii) the strength of the
impression made owing to interest or significance, (iv) the amount of
systematisation that experience has undergone such that the experience is
reinforced by multiple connections.
It follows that in all these
respects science alone cannot attain objectivity. This is because different
scientists have different belief systems, evaluate facts differently and
consensus is not reached. Even where consensus exists it is only because they
have the same conceptual system and procedures and the same training and
conduct their observation and experiments under the same conditions. The
objective world is known only by its effects on the mind which translates it
according to its nature and that is what we know. Furthermore, we translate the
experience into concepts and descriptions.
(b) Deductive reasoning is
of the form, “A is B. B is C. Therefore, A is C.” This argument depends on
certain basic rules, called axioms, which are regarded as self evident. The
argument depends on defining A, B and C strictly, so that in each statement A,
B and C are the same as in the others. But in the real world objects do not
conform to human definitions. Some axioms turn out not to be self-evident. One
axiom is that “Something, A cannot be both A and not-A.” But a photon can be
either a particle or a wave. Thus the axiom is false. These axioms, obviously
also apply to the ordinary limited world of human experience on this planet and
to their language and not to the real world. Religions have constantly told us
that there is a greater real world beyond the one of every day life, and that
the latter is an illusion caused by our limitations. Euclid’s geometry was based on an axiom which
stated that through any point we could draw a line parallel to another line.
But Einstein’s theory of Relativity requires a curved space where this axiom is
not true. Since this Theory describes reality better then this Euclid’s axiom must be abandoned.
Many Philosophers have tried, as
now Scientists try to do by constructing a Grand Unified Theory which will
explain everything, to create a system from which everything can be deduced.
The deduction would follow necessarily. This system would, however, then have to have the status of God because it would not
itself depend on anything. However, it would be a very limited God, because it
would not be able to alter anything since the deductions follow by absolute
necessity. In order to construct such a theory, however, it was necessary to
pre-suppose a set of axioms or rules which could not themselves
be deduced. Note also that a theory is a description. Something else is needed
to make it into a fact which governs real events.
Examination shows that (1) It was generally impossible from these axioms to establish
that the axioms were themselves consistent and will not give rise to
contradictions. (2) If such a consistency were assumed, then there would be a
number of statements within the system which could not be proved. The system
would be incomplete. (3) There was, therefore, no way of proving the truth of
the whole. It would follow that the whole would always have some kind of
uncertainty. This is, of course, compatible with the notion of Allah.
We conclude that this kind of
formal thinking has very limited value. In fact no system of Logic has yet been
formulated which does not contain anomalies and self-contradictions. It is
entirely possible to construct a number of theories to explain the same set of
events or to select a different set of events to construct different sets of
theories. We ought to think in terms of experiences and realities rather than
words and descriptions. It is also evident that there are three levels at which
thinking can take place. (1) At the level of sets of things. (2) At the level
of the inter-relationships between members of a set and between sets. All these
relationships taken together do not make a set but a system. (3) At a level of
the wholeness of an organized object. This wholeness, owing to its organization
must be regarded as distinct from the parts of which it is composed. This
object may also be a member of a set having relationships with other sets.
But, consider the following
argument:-
A
= “There is at least one true statement”
B
= “A is false.”
Since B is a statement then if A
is false then B is false. The statement must, therefore, be true. It follows
that C = “A is true.” is also true. This argument will not work if A is applied
to more than one statement, because if it was false for two, it could still be
true for one. But as it is, it leaves open the question of whether other
statements are true. They may be or not. These other statements are not,
therefore, the same as this one, except for C = “A is true”. This can be taken
to refer to God in the form A = ”There is at least one
thing that exists”. If this did not exist then the statement B = ”Y does not exist” would also not exist. Therefore A
exists and C = ”A exists” exists. But other things may
or may not exist. But the existence of A could be derived from X in the same
way as B is derived from A. A = ”There is at least one
real thing, X to which a true statement refers”. If this is false then B = “A
is false” is also false. Therefore, C = “A is true” is true. Therefore, X
exists, the affirmation of X exists and the statement confirming it is true. We
could, if we wished, understand these as Allah, His Word, and Creation which
confirms it. Obviously the second is validated by the first and the third by
the second. There is nothing necessary about the existence of the Universe.
Such a necessity comes only from above it. However, this takes us beyond
logical thinking.
A distinction should be made
between the Absolute and the Relative. The Absolute refers to a self-consistent
wholeness which exists independently. The Relative is understood in relation to
the Absolute, being distinct from it because it concerns the relationship
between things. A= ”All knowable things are relative.”
Therefore B = “Relativity is known relative to something.” We define this
something as Absolute. Therefore, C = “The Absolute cannot be known”. But we distinguish between Reality and
Knowledge and Description. They do not imply each other.
Consider also the following:-
A
= ”The class (or system) of all sets of ideas must
include itself.”
B
= ”No rational idea is a member of a set containing
itself.”
C
= ”Therefore, no rational idea can be A.”
It is, therefore, only possible
to reach A by super-rational means, a flash of insight which we will call
inspiration. It follows also that any idea which is consistent with the whole
requires inspiration. And this is exactly what all Scientists report. This
appears to be connected with the nature of knowledge. Three kinds of
consciousness can be described:- waking consciousness,
self-consciousness, objective consciousness. Waking consciousness is able to
gather sense data but no deliberate processing is done. Some self-consciousness
is required in order to know that one knows or to do deliberate active
observation and calculation. But objective consciousness is a direct link with
the field of interest and requires the suspension of thinking activity. It
requires a passive state and the idea comes in its wholeness as a revelation.
Deduction has the following
characteristics:-
(i) The
deduction follows necessarily from the premises. It cannot be otherwise. It is
fully determined. This does not conform to nature but to the way words are
defined.
(ii) It requires the previous
existence of a synthetic idea which might have been obtained from induction,
deduction or inspiration.
(iii) A distinction must be made
between what is implicit and what is explicit. It is not possible to obtain
more information by deduction than exists in the premises. But it is implicit
in the premises and explicit in the inference. Thus, it happens that a person
who has a great number of experiences in his mind suddenly discovers that he
has knowledge which he did not previously know he had. Sub-conscious deduction
has taken place. Apparently new knowledge can also be obtained consciously by
deduction.
(iv) Different sets of premises can be selected to reach
different conclusions. If an argument consists of a sequence, then the
selection of premises determines the direction of the argument, or conversely,
the selected direction determines the choice of premises. This accounts for
differences of even rational opinion and conflicts between them. It is not,
however, possible for such differences to exist if the same set of premises
exists in the contestants. But this group will come into conflict with some
other groups who have a different set of premises. The only solution is that
all have the total number of all premises. This is an attribute of God.
(c) Mathematical reasoning,
though based on logic is more refined and precise. It avoids the limited
alternatives between true or false, either this or that, not both black and
white. It can assign a range of numbers to shades of grey between black and
white. The reason why mathematics works is because the Universe is constructed
from discrete things, of objects, atoms, quanta and these can be enumerated.
The rules which connect the numbers are inherent in them and machines can be
constructed to follow these rules. It, therefore, becomes possible to use
computers to make calculations and to simulate the physical world. Though
numbers are certainly concepts they arise directly from interaction with the
world. An object is assigned the number one. We define 2 as 1+1, and 3 as
1+1+1. Then logic tells us that 3= 2+1 because we can replace 2 with 1+1. And
this can be tested by experience. Multiplication is merely a more sophisticated
way of doing additions. 3x2 means that we have to add 3 twice (3+3) or 2 three
times (2+2+2). Other mathematical operations work in the same way. When ever a
quantity such as a unit of length or time is defined by man, these tend to be
quite arbitrary. The relationship between such quantities has to be established
by experimentation so that we again have agreement with nature. This is not the
case in Formal Logic. Sometimes there is failure to do this in mathematics and
we get bizarre results.
It may, of course, be the case,
that the discernment of separate objects is due to the limits of our powers of
perception. We cannot see the forces connecting objects. But this must also be
a property of the objects in that a change occurs at the borders (which may not
be abrupt but gradual, fuzzy or uncertain to various degrees). An observation
or experience must always be a relationship between the nature of the object
and the nature of the observer.
However, mathematical operations
are symmetrical, but nature is not. Though 7+6=13 is the same as 13=7+6 in
mathematics, if we apply this to natural process we will get false results. It
does not necessarily follow that 13 can be analyzed into 7+6. It could be an
infinite number of other sums - 1+12, 2+11, and 1.5+11.5 and so on.
Numbers and other mathematical
entities such as lines, planes, vectors etc are the highest abstraction the
mind makes from the physical world. These entities are
obviously not material things nor are they simply mental constructs. They exist
at the interface of mind and matter. Mathematics cannot be subjective since all
mathematicians can see the same truth, cannot construct it freely but must
apply strict rules of calculation, and it leads to discoveries not known
before. All mathematicians believe that they are dealing with objective truths.
Yet the entities are certainly mental concepts. The mind, however, has
developed by adjustment to Reality by the process of evolution and experience.
And reality is nested. That is, it is stratified from the Universal to the
particular through a series of steps such that the higher control the lower, and the lower levels must also contain the higher. It
is, therefore, possible for the mind to climb back up the ladder towards what
is more universal.
Not all mathematical problems
have a solution as has been demonstrated by Gödel and Turin and others. Some have more than one
equally probable solution. This may be because Nature itself restricts what is
possible and what is not. Consider the quantity Pi (the relation between the
circumference and diameter of a circle). If given in decimals this gives us
3.1415926...etc, an endless (infinite) series of numbers which is completely
random. If we did not know that it is derived from Pi we could not tell from
this series that it stands for anything, though once we know Pi we can derive
it by the use of simple arithmetical rules. However, though Pi yields an
infinite series, the materials on which the circle is drawn are not continuous.
They are made up of discrete particles separate from one another. There can be
no circles in the material world, only in the mind. Therefore, this infinity
merely implies that there is an area of uncertainty somewhere which sets a limits to the certainty. It is because of these limits
that the discernment of number is possible in the first place. All this goes to
show that if we find randomness in nature as Physicists do at the quantum level
and in what are called Chaotic or turbulent systems then they cannot derive the
rules which might be behind them merely by observation. Knowledge is required
first before calculation can be made. Some Mathematical geniuses have in fact
constructed Mathematical Theorems which took others a long time to prove or are
as yet unproved, but they never the less work. This points
to the fact that the mind can also operate at a level higher than reason,
though it usually operates at a level lower than reason. Indeed, all new
insights in Mathematics and Science which revolutionize them come from this
higher faculty just as in Religion.
(d) Causal reasoning connects things
which are dissimilar with each other. If A is connected with C then there must
be a factor B, something which conveys information, which does so. The rising
sun is a relationship between sun and earth and caused by the rotation of the
earth. B may be part of A which passes into C. It may be the result of the
interaction of A and C or the cause of it. Whenever there is a change in state,
from A to C, we require a cause B to explain it. A Law of nature is a description
of regularity or constancy underlying changes. It reconciles the change with
constancy. Change and constancy are themselves a contrast requiring a cause to
explain them. This need for an explanation to restore the homogeneity or unity
is built into our consciousness. We are not aware of homogeneity or constancy.
We need a stimulus which consists of a contrast. We can, however, create a
contrast by altering our state of consciousness or redirecting attention. We
also create a contrast by the fact that we have desires and urges when these
are unsatisfied. Sin or the Capacity to sin which flouts an existing order
could, therefore, be regarded as a pre-requisite to knowledge and learning. It
causes pain, while reconciliation causes pleasure. These two drive evolution.
The question is - Does nature
require causes? The Laws of motion formulated by Newton assume that change requires a cause. But
recent experiments in sub-atomic Physics indicate that events may occur
spontaneously and randomly without cause. Indeed, the Quran tells us that God
can do as He pleases and requires no cause. These experiments, therefore,
confirm this assertion. Where then do the observed regularities come from? They
too must be regarded as observable because they are in contrast to randomness.
Physicists tell us that though events are unpredictable at the sub-atomic
level, en mass they produce statistical regularities. But this cannot be the
case unless something constrains the randomness. The physicist tells us that
order springs from randomness spontaneously. But this is no argument. It is
merely an observation that it does so, not an explanation for it. It is,
therefore, Mental necessity, which requires that there
should be a cause and that this is ultimately Allah. However, many physicists
appear to be satisfied that there is no ultimate cause. Yet the same
experiments show that it is the observer who causes the information wave to
collapse into a particle, from uncertainty to certainty. At least the particles
must restrict each other, and this requires some force even more fundamental
than the one’s known. It could be that the state of uncertainty is not
observable for observers. They have been built by evolution or the laws of
nature to see only certainties since this enables adaptation. Uncertainty
causes insecurity and leads to the seeking of security and certainty. Sometimes
ideas are invented to create it, but when they do not conform with reality, they cause disaster. The realm of uncertainty
and unpredictability is what is called Allah. And the realm of certainty is
only a small part of it.
Causal logic leads to an infinite
regress. What is the cause of A? It is B. What is the cause of B? It is C. And
the cause of that is D. And so on to Infinity or to N, where N is caused by A and this gets one into an infinite loop. Scientists do not
like Infinite series because they are not manageable. They prefer to stop at
some point. One way of avoiding them is to argue that a set or system of events
A is explainable by some greater system or Law, B, which is explainable by a
still greater system or more comprehensive Law, C and so on. But the steps are
not infinite. We come to God and stop. We may of course stop before that, but
then the explanation is not complete and we cut off the desire to know what the
cause of the last step is. We may, of course wonder what the cause of God is,
and then what the cause of that is, and so on ad infinitum. But we place the
cut off point on the step before God and regard everything above that as a
Mystery, God and Infinite. The advantage of this is that if our knowledge
should advance further up the ladder then we can raise the cut off point.
Knowledge, as it were, is extracted from God or we have penetrated further into
the mystery of God. There is no need to deny God or the Mystery of Existence, nor to cover ones ignorance with arrogance.
Aristotle distinguished between
four kinds of cause:- Material, Formal, Efficient and
Final. Consider a house. It consists of certain materials, it has a certain
structure, it is constructed by a certain process and it has a purpose with
respect to man. The Quran also distinguishes between the Causal Attributes of
God as Originating, Form-giving, Evolving, Sustaining, Regulating, Maintaining,
and Purpose. Purpose relates the object to a higher system. Unfortunately,
modern science makes no such distinction and ignores some of them, though it is
clear that they are distinct and valid.
A distinction has to be made
between three things which are regarded as Given:-
(i)
Phenomena - these may be objects, events or conditions. There are initial and
final conditions and these refer to the environment in which things exist. It
is necessary to realize not all these refer to material things. There are large
objects and organisms, animals, trees, smaller ones such as cells and crystals,
molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles which cannot be defined by both position
and momentum, photons of light and electromagnetic radiations having no mass,
quarks, fields such as gravitational ones, quantum fields. The notion of matter
becomes ever more vague and indistinct. We have notions such as energy, motion,
Information, order, systems, laws, theories. We have numbers, lines, squares,
dimensions, space, duration, centers of gravity, specific
heat, nations, citizenship, property, poverty, music, novels, logic, ideas,
dreams, memories, feelings, sensations and so on. We cannot deny reality to any
of these. However, they are experiences and cannot refer to inexperienced
objects.
(ii) Laws - These are regarded as
simple, universal, absolute (they are non-material, affect materials but are
not affected by materials), eternal, omnipresent, omniscient (they detect
everything to which they apply), Precise and Just (applying to all things impartially
with well-defined and proportional consequences). No one would say that they
are unreal, and yet they have been given the qualities of the Divine. Yet
according to modern Physics they were created in the Big Bang. They are,
therefore, only relatively Eternal and Absolute and must arise from a higher
principle. They are also mutually self-consistent and must form a higher
system. Whereas there are an enormous number of phenomena, there are only a few
Laws and they relate one phenomena to another. Thus
the enormous variety is reduced or condensed. Once the Law is known we can
deduce the events as following necessarily, but not without also knowing
something else, namely initial conditions. Laws are not, therefore, sufficient
to explain the Universe. There must be a set of initial conditions on which
they operate to produce a set of final conditions. The scientist controls the
initial conditions in his laboratory as far as possible and then studies the
final conditions to determine what the Law is. He cannot, however, control all
the conditions in nature. This makes his conclusions rather limited. However,
it enables him to construct machines or systems where similar conditions can be
maintained.
Scientists are trying to find the
Law of all Laws, the Unified Theory of Everything. But if they do, the question
is how it came out of Chaos or Nothing. It cannot have created itself as we
have seen above, it requires initial conditions on which to operate and because
it leads to necessary results, it cannot explain randomness also found in the
Universe. Though, it could be regarded as a scientific description of God, it
differs from the religious idea of God, namely that He is free to do anything
He likes. This god cannot help doing what he does because his nature dictates
it. In fact such a Unified Theory can only be one of many because,
as we have seen the whole cannot be logically described by means of notions
which derive from the parts. We cannot decide between them and they may all be
true though applying to different aspects. Uncertainty about the whole at the
macroscopic level remains as it remains also at the fundamental microscopic
level. The notion of God applies to the greater whole.
These Laws cannot be seen through
the senses and yet they are regarded as objective. They are only seen by the
mind because of the interaction between things. However, the description of a
Law is not the same thing as the Law and the description may change as science
advances. But a description is in the mind also. We may, therefore, suppose
that these Laws are partly objective and partly subjective. The question is:
What gives them life so that they actually control matter and energy?
(iii) A third category is Order,
Organization, Systems. This refers to an overall unity from which the parts are
controlled to various degrees. An organized wholeness produces characteristics
which do not exist in the parts or the sum of the parts. Something else
emerges. These new characteristics may, therefore, be regarded as a new creation.
Examples are life, the faculties of the mind and consciousness. (Here we
distinguish between mind which refers to thoughts, feelings and voluntary
actions from consciousness. The word spirit should be used which also includes
will and conscience, but it is a word which scientists and others abhor and
religious people misunderstand.) Though their emergence is taken for granted
they are certainly mysterious and they require a cause. One way of explaining
them is to regard them as distillations or actualizations from what existed as
a potentiality before. The Universe may then be seen in three ways (a) as a
process of increasing self-realization or (b) as cycle of descent and ascent or
(c) as a steady state in which evolution and involution are both taking place
at the same time. or (d) as a process of distillation
where the subtler spiritual matter is being squeezed out from the coarser, dead
matter.
An organization may belong to a
higher one or contain lesser ones. The Laws themselves are organized and derive
from an organization and so do the materials and other phenomena. This over-all
unity is seen by consciousness but not by the mind which can only see
relationships. It is necessary to make this distinction since this unity is
part of the definition of Consciousness (con = together, sciousness
= awareness). Thought can go on without consciousness as anyone can verify.
This is why the discovery of a Law or Theory requires Inspiration not mental
activity. Mental activity is only required to make the calculations and test
the Theory. Such testing is required in order to eliminate faulty inspiration
which may have been contaminated by lower impulses coming from prejudice,
habit, pride, greed and self-seeking motives. There is no justification for
thinking that this order is not an independent reality apart from the materials
in which it is found. For instance, the materials of which a person is made are
constantly entering and leaving him. This order cannot, therefore, be a
property of those materials. A form of order such as a piece of music can be
put on paper, copied, placed on a computer and multiplied. But destruction of
the paper or computer program does not destroy it.
When organizations are studied
they ought to be studied as a triad, namely the object as a whole, its
relationship with the System to which it belongs and its relationship with the
lower system of which it is composed.
The Universe contains not only
Order but also Chaos. These terms are understood with respect to each other.
Between them they create Complexity which is understood with reference to
Simplicity. Complexity may apply to either, or to a mixture of the two.
Order can be studied according to
quantity, quality or relationships.
(a) All scientific advances can
be described as Compression. A Theory compresses a multiplicity of events into
a Theory, Law of formulae. Consider a simple pattern:-
0101010101. We can describe it by compression to 01 with 5 repetitions. If we
have a completely random sequence then we cannot compress it. The description
is as long as the sequence. Both are said to be Simple.
Given the Law of Gravity and some
initial conditions such as the position of planets, we can work out the
positions of the planets at any time in the pat or future. But this requires a
lot of work. The information is already contained in these Laws and the initial
conditions and requires nothing else but work to extract. This work could be
regarded as equivalent to the work which the planets must do to get to those position.
(b) A simple rule or set of rules
can be applied to certain initial conditions to create final conditions. If the
same rule or rules are applied to these, then we get another final condition.
We can apply the same rules again. We get ever more complexity including order
and disorder. The number of times these rules are re-applied gives the Depth.
The evolution of life on earth requires only the re-application of the same
simple rules of mutation and selection. It is the Depth which causes all its
richness.
If by applying certain rules we
come to certain final results, then if we find conditions which resemble the
final results then it is more likely that they arose from similar rules if the
initial conditions are the same, or that they arose from similar initial conditions
if the rules are the same. But we also need to know the depth. The same final
conditions can be explained by different rules (or Laws, Theories) if the
initial conditions are not known, and by different initial conditions. The same
considerations apply to the prediction of final conditions and to the rules. It
is not, therefore, necessary that a particular theory is the only possible one.
(c) A combination of rules will
produce even more complexity. The greater the number of these rules the more
difficult is the calculation. We cannot tell from the complexity whether it is
chaotic or whether and what rules apply. But it is only after we have found the
rules then we may be able to make sense of the chaos but not necessarily. There
is a limit to the complexity we can understand. Inspiration is required first
before calculations can be made.
The rules may themselves be
combined by rules, and these by other rules. Consider the following series of
numbers:-
1 1 1 1 1
1 2
3 4 5 6
1 2
4 7 11 16 22
1 2
4 8 15 26 42 64
1 2 4 8
16 31 57 99 163
The first line provides the rule
for the second, i.e. add 1. And the second gives rules for the third and so on.
The sequence on the last line becomes more and more complex. We could work
backwards from level to level if we arranged the numbers as given above. But in
nature they are jumbled. What if the rule at level 1 is 0 -1 0
+1 etc or 2 4 8 16 or some thing else. In the above pyramid the first
line has no rule, it simply means that the same number
generates the series on the second level, like God. If this first line is
completely chaotic then no order could emerge. But we might be able by examining
the last line to select various sets of numbers to produce order. But this
would be quite impossible to do if our mind was disordered as it would be
because we are an entity in the last line.
Science depends on gathering
facts, examining the relationship between them and systematization. It depends
on investigation, observation, experimentation (the deliberate arrangement of
events in order to elicit facts). But all this depends on (i)
what and how it is investigated and under what conditions. (i)
It depends on the abilities of the scientist and also on his previous system of
ideas or framework of reference, and on his interest. (iii) It depends on the
instruments and techniques available and the organization and on the
availability of finance. Thus the system of ideas we call science is dependent
on (i) nature but also on (ii) the observer and (iii)
the social context.
If all things have causes then
the Laws must also have causes, particularly as the Laws of Physics are
regarded as having arisen in the Big Bang and disappearing in Black Holes. But
the whole, as we have seen, cannot be described by means of notions derived
from the parts. We have uncertainty at the level of the great whole as we also
have at the level of the very small. Suppose, therefore, that these Laws arise
from random unpredictable events and are a special case within the totality of
possibilities, the only part which gives rise to us and we can observe and
understand because it is regular and ordered. Then the total number of such
possibilities is also real and we can define this as God. The Laws arise from
God. Indeed, the notion of God is understood in religions as implying that He
can do as He likes but also that He determines events to be regular. This
implies both randomness and the restriction of it. Experiments in
Thermodynamics, we shall see in a later chapter, show this to be precisely the
situation, the emergence of both chaos and order.
3. Associative thinking -
If some event or experience A is
associated with some other event or experience B in time, space or quality then
the frequency with which this happens strengthens the association in the mind.
We do not need to find any causal link between A and B. This allows us to adapt
to local conditions because all local conditions are distinguished from one
another by the frequency with which different events happen. The structure of
cities and its roads, customs and so on differ from one another. We adapt to
these to various degrees. When these change we become disorientated until the
new associations are strong enough. These elements fuse together to form an
overall pattern which affects the way we see things. Clearly this faculty is as
important as reasoning and intuition. If we have within memory a system of
associations consisting of elements a1, b1, c1, d1, e1, then if experience
presents us with similar elements a2, b2, c2, d2 we
also expect the presence of e2. Sometimes we invent or hallucinate or seek it.
The system in memory may only be a template according to which we arrange new
experiences.
----------<O>----------
We have seen that the world we
see depends on our state of consciousness. The world seen by animals is not the
same as that seen by man, nor is the world seen by a person half asleep the
same as that seen by a man fully awake. The world seen by those who examine
things minutely such as scientists is not the same as that seen by
non-scientists. Consciousness means the amount of data which can be held
together in awareness at the same time, the ability to discriminate and
perceive inter-relationships and overall patterns. It varies in intensity,
stability and degree of integration. What is more, different people seek
different kinds of data for attention and systematize them differently.
Therefore, the world seen by politicians, economists, business men, artists,
military men, philosophers and religious saints are all different. We know full
well that there are also many levels of consciousness. Some future being may
have a level of consciousness as far above ours as ours is above that of the
ape. It is also entirely possible that all entities possess consciousness to
various degrees, even stones, though at a much lower level. It is, therefore,
obvious that the Real World consists of several levels (perhaps the 7 Heavens),
each of which corresponds to a level of consciousness. A higher level
incorporates the lower, and a lower is a subset of the higher. Since the Being of an entity can be defined in terms of the degree of
its consciousness, its knowledge depends on its Being.
These levels of consciousness
depend on three things:-
(a) Our physiological equipment
e.g. the capacity to receive sensory information, internal and external, which
varies both in quantity and quality between different individuals and species.
There are 7 external senses - sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, kinesthesia (muscle or the sense of weight) and orientation
in space. Inner senses include awareness of inner physiological states,
feelings and thoughts. There is originally a General Sense. The sense organs
must be regarded as specialized to concentrate awareness in certain fields
only. Their strength obscures the general sense. But damage to sense organs
allows the general sense to be re-utilized and redirected. The capacity for
sensation is not unconnected with the instincts and behaviour of the organism.
These three arise from the need of the organism to survive in, and adjust to,
particular environments. This provides us with raw data or facts. We need not
be conscious of these. We extend our capacity for sensation only partially
through instruments.
(b) The mental capacity to record
the information, associate and interpret it - they are meanings rather than
facts. That which we call facts are already interpretations. We are not
normally conscious of our thought processes. This requires self-consciousness,
without which no possibility for correct judgment exists. All kinds of
mechanisms have been discovered by psychologists which
manipulate mental processes. Things are meaningless in isolation. we have to relate them to each other. There are all kinds of
relationships - of time, space, similarity, causation, sequences of quality,
between parts and wholes, classes, purposes.
(c) The power to synthesize and
integrate it into a unitary wholeness - something which we have defined as a
spiritual faculty which gives rise to insight, inspiration and revelation. Each
item has to be seen in its context with respect to the whole and this provides
us with values. This power manifests as consciousness, conscience and will
which correspond to the three mental faculties for thought, feeling and action
There are in general three
questions which can be asked about anything - what, how and why. The answers
appear to be connected with these levels.
Mental processing proceeds
through several levels thus : sensation, percepts,
concepts, ideas, systems, multi-systems, integration of all inner and outer
experiences. Consciousness normally remains concentrated at the level of
percepts. The higher levels exist at the sub-conscious or unconscious levels.
Logical thinking is done at the level of concepts and requires concentrated
attention. An idea of something consists of several interlinked concepts and
may be presented in science as a formula. A system consists of a structure of
many interlinked ideas such as a science. Few people can hold it in their
consciousness as a unit. But the human mind contains several systems linked
together to various extents, and forms an over all pattern. Though this multi-system
exists in the sub-conscious mind it still affects conscious behaviour and
sometimes emerges as intuitions and dreams. Finally, we must postulate the
existence of a level where all experiences from the external world as well as
those coming from all levels of our biological, chemical and electrical
processes form an integrated unity. We are, after all, a system of information.
It may be possible for consciousness to penetrate to this level.
We have three major mental
faculties - for thought, feeling and action and all are involved in everything
we do. Thinking is also an activity, and depends on (a) assumptions, frameworks
of reference or conceptual systems. (b) motives or
interests - we search for, perceive, interpret and organize data according to
our interests or motives and (c) actions which elicit reactions from the
environment and these provide us with data. Variations in any of these will
cause a variation in the world we see. As there is interaction between these
faculties, each will affect the others and cause changes in them. Nor do human
beings exist in isolation. They interact and affect each others behaviour to
different degrees. A culture so produced is not a uniform thing, but contains
many sub-cultures. What we see often depends on what kinds of questions we ask
and whether we possess empathy and put ourselves into a state of receptivity or
resonance to particular kinds of events and influences.
Agreement between different
people is only obtained when these three coincide owing to education and
training which provide the same framework and habits of thinking, the same
environmental, social and cultural conditions, and the same kinds of
activities, in a laboratory for instance. Human beings, of course, also have
something in common by virtue of the fact that they are human, but there are a
considerable amount of differences between them.
There are differences of opinion as to what is
true, even within the same discipline. Few people, as the history of thought,
including those of religion, science and politics, shows, are able to break out
of their traditions or understand those of another. In so far as these opinions
are held sincerely, we must suppose that all have partial knowledge,
and that to different degrees. Logical or self-consistent thinking cannot
itself provide us with truth. We need:-
(a) To examine the assumptions,
models or framework of thought we use. Science, religion and other systems
provide us with different sets for different purposes and connected with
different kinds of activities.
(b) Experiential data. Deliberate
investigation and experiment, though certainly better than accidental
experiences, is insufficient because it is still biased in certain directions
and limited by the motives, skills and capacities of the observers.
(c) the
motives must be correct. There should be love of Truth rather than greed for
wealth, prestige or power, or the desire to establish some prejudice. This
requirement is overcome partially in two ways - by discussion and argument.
Discussion insures that the prejudices of an individual can be neutralized by
others. Some kind of standard procedure has to be set up to which everyone
agrees and by which the truth of statements will be judged. There are three
such procedures, namely logic, experiment, and the language and concepts in
which the statement should be made..
(d) The cultivation of awareness
or consciousness, insight and the ability to understand and integrate - the
development of one’s Being. This is clearly a
religious pursuit, where the Principle of Objectivity is stated as the “Search
for God” and this involves thought, feeling as well as action.
An experience of something is not
the same thing as the real object, though it should correspond to it. A verbal
description is not the same thing as the experience of something, though it
should convey an experience. Each contains less information than the next. Both
science and religion have gone beyond what can be normally experienced. They
recognize the existence of an objective, real world. The word “truth” refers to
the correspondence of experience to reality. A description cannot be true by itself, Experience must be added to it to give it meaning
and life. Words can be used to refer to material objects, events,
relationships, structures or functions. The word “table”, for instance, need
not mean a particular object or even a particular shape, but may refer to
anything which is used by people for the same purpose, or something in nature
which has a flat surface on which things can stand. A great amount of
misunderstanding and controversy results because different people use the same
word in different senses even though each uses logically valid arguments. But
an experience, as illusion and hallucinations indicate, need not be true either.
It must bestow an increased ability to adjust to reality. There is a difference
between information, understanding and consciousness.
Logical reasoning depend on a set of premises, the relationship between which
allows us to draw inferences. A premise is a relationship between experiences.
We have a great number of experiences, E, which we recognize as separate. this depends on our powers of discrimination. We call this
the data. The number of data is a sub-set of all possible data, A, which is a
subset of all possible objects, O. The number of possible relationships between
these data, R is far greater than the number of data A. But it is a sub-set of
all the possible relationships between objects, X. But when we employ reasoning
we select only a certain restricted set of relationships or premises, S. This
is a subset of R which is a subset of X. It follows that different people can
select different sets of premises to reach different conclusions. Or wishing to
reach different conclusions they can select different sets of premises to do
this. It all depends on their interests, desires, body of experiences or
conscious state at a particular time.
Formal Logic is like a machine.
If we put rubbish into it then we get rubbish out of it. e.g.
Tatka implies gobbly.
Booboo implies tatka. Therefore, booboo implies gobbly. We could, of course, give these names to certain
aspects of experience. But we would still have to ascertain that there is a
necessary connection between tatka and gobbly and between booboo and tatka
in order to reach the conclusion. These connections lie beyond experience since
they determine that the experience will be connected. We might as well
ascertain that there is such a connection between booboo and gobbly.
Consider the following statements:-
A door half open is a door half
closed. If we multiply the two sides of an equation by two the equation is
still valid. Therefore, a door fully open is a door fully closed.
This gap can be spanned by a 6
foot plank. Two 3 foot lengths equal a 6 foot length. Therefore, this gap can
be spanned by two 3 foot planks.
Drinking large quantities of
whiskey and orange juice causes drunkenness. So does brandy and orange juice,
rum and orange juice, vodka and orange juice. The common ingredient is orange
juice. Therefore, orange juice is the cause of drunkenness.
This glass is half full,
wonderful. Not at all, this glass is half empty, terrible.
There is an unemployment rate of
40% in this country, and this a problem requiring a solution. On the contrary,
we have a rate of 60% employment and this is very good.
In these arguments value
judgments intervene. But suppose we remove these value judgments since they do
not belong to logic. These statistics now become quite meaningless. It is no
longer worth making the effort to collect them and no such information could
exist.
I was alive
ten years ago, nine years ago, eight years ago, seven years ago etc. Therefore,
statistically speaking, the chances of me being alive next year are constantly
increasing. By the time I am a hundred years old the chances of my living
another year will have approached certainty, while the chances of my dying will
have steadily grown towards zero, If 100 experiments show that A is connected
with B, will this always be the case everywhere?
An object X has characteristics
A, B, C and D. Therefore, the object has characteristic A. The characteristic A
can be analyzed into a1, a2, a3 etc. “a3” is always associated with F which
causes P. Therefore, X has characteristic F and causes P. Not so! The object X
has characteristic B. This can be analyzed into b1, b2,
b3 etc. “b2” is always associated with G which causes Q. Therefore, X has
characteristic G and causes Q.
The characteristics F and G may
be incompatible (e.g.. gentleness and aggression, or
mental and material). Thus incompatible conclusions can be reached by different
people according to which premises they choose. Indeed, they can choose the
conclusions first and construct a logical argument to prove it by selecting
appropriate premises. This is quite a common practice even in science.
A political system or a religion
may be described by characteristics a, b, c, d, f, g, h, i,
j, k, l. etc. The word Democracy implies characteristics a, b, c, d, e, f and the
word Communism implies characteristics e, f, g, h, i,
j. The political system in country A has characteristics c, d, e, f, g. Since it has c. d, e and f, it is a democracy. Not so,
since it has e, f and g, therefore, it is communist. The political system in
country B has characteristics a, c, i, and j. It,
too, is either democratic or communist according to point of view. Therefore,
country A may ally itself with B under a Democratic Union or under a Communist
Union or they may oppose each other, all on logical grounds. Most religious,
political and philosophical controversies are of this kind. When terms are
strictly defined in this way they do not, in fact, stand for any material
reality. They are abstractions and we can describe a material reality as consisting
of different proportions of these abstractions.
If you need to establish that
something has a characteristic denoted by the number 6, you could do this by
choosing 1+5 or 2+4 or 3+3 - that is, you can select the appropriate data to
arrive at the conclusion. This choice is not a logical process. Different
people could also choose from the series of numbers 1 to 10, say 2+6 to arrive
at 7, or 2+7 to arrive at 9, or 3+6 to arrive at 9 or 3+4 to arrive at 7. Here
we see that though some of the facts chosen are common to several people they
arrive at different conclusions because they have also chosen different facts.
Scientific arguments are often of
the following form:- If an object A, say a cat, is similar to another object B,
say another cat, then if by a study we can find a logical connection between A
and characteristics a1, a2, a3, etc, then we infer that B also has those
characteristics. But this is not a valid argument because it is by the
characteristics that we know A and B. We would have to study B to determine its
characteristics and this is not a logical process. The characteristics of B may
be b1, b2, b3 etc. and though these may be similar to a1, a2, a3 etc, there may
also be some which are not similar. A and B, or their
characteristics may be similar in some respects but dissimilar in others. In
fact, the relationship between A and B is one of analogy, not identity.
A distinction is made between
mind and matter since mind refers to the observer and matter refers to the
object observed. A thing cannot be both A and B in logic. The characteristic of
the mind is that it can manipulate its contents and the characteristic of
matter is that its behaviour is determined by external forces. It is,
therefore, supposed by some people that something is objectively true only if
it refers to something outside the mind and this can be corroborated by other
minds. Others point out that we cannot know anything except through the mind. A
colour, for instance, is in our minds. If it is caused by an electromagnetic
radiation of a certain frequency, then this, too, is an experience of a
different kind. It is not possible to be certain that there is anything outside
our minds at all, including the experiences and statements of other people.
Therefore, the mind is the fundamental truth and matter is only an idea in it.
But other people’s minds are also outside the observer’s mind. We see people P
and the object described O outside ourselves, and we also see the object O
outside these people P. We ourselves I, are an object in our minds just as P
is. We conclude that O is also outside us I. We must, therefore admit that both
mind and matter exist.
On the other hand a thought or
feeling is as much a mental experience as a material object. If both exist then
we have the problem of how they can be connected. We have the problem of
dualism. If we regard only material things as real and deny that the mind has
an independent existence, then the conclusions reached by the mind must be
determined by external forces. It is then irrelevant whether the ideas are true
or not. This applies to all ideas including the distinction between mind and
matter, and whether mind or matter is considered the fundamental reality. If,
however, only the mind is real then we must explain how it is that it
experiences the restraints which create the regularities. These must be imposed
from outside. This problem is solved if in any two interacting entities each is
regarded as the observer with respect to the other as object. There is no
distinction between mind and matter. they are merely
different properties of phenomena.
The distinction between mind and
matter in philosophy may be seen as a reflection of the distinction between
heaven and earth in religion. Both are regarded as real and yet there is no
dualism since both are creations of God. They interact. Moreover, there are
seven levels in each. This could be understood in relative terms - Each lower
level is earth with respect to the next higher level, and is heaven with
respect to the next lower level.
After a more or less static
period, Mathematics began to make progress when it was found by Cantor that
Infinities (defined as a number greater than any conceivable number) was a
mathematically useful idea. It occurred in such ideas as the series of numbers,
parallel lines which meet at infinity, sets of things, the number of points in
a space etc. But the use of this concept gave ambiguous or paradoxical results
such as the set of all sets which both included and excluded itself
described by Russell. Thus we could have three results:-
statements which were false, true or undecidable. It was, therefore, decided,
in order to obtain precision, to describe a Formal System by means of rules
which would get rid of the “undecidable” but which would be consistent and
complete. But the mathematician Gödel showed that it was not possible to be
both complete and consistent. We are,
therefore, back with ultimate Infinities and their verbal undecidability.
Consistency ultimately requires that all the procedures flow from a single
proposition, idea or system, and completeness requires that this proposition be
the most fundamental and all-comprehensive one. Turin discovered that machines could be built
to simulate human logical and mathematical processes, and created the first
mechanical computer, the Turin machine. The argument below is a modified
form of Gödel’s and Turin’s arguments as given by Roger Penrose
(”Shadows of the Mind”).
In general computers require data
(n) to which is applied some procedure (p). A whole family of computations may
be denoted by C(n) i.e. C(1), C(2), C(3) etc.
But some procedures do not give
us solutions - e.g. “Find the odd number which is the sum of two odd numbers or
the sum of two even numbers”. The computer will add all the two odd numbers in
turn and if the result is divisible by two, it will reject this and continue
with the next pair, 1+3, 2+2, 3+5, 4+4, 5+7 and so on.
If there is no solution, the computer will go on forever printing “False”; but
if there is, the computer will stop. We cannot, of course, wait to see if it
does go on forever. However, human insight tells us that an even number is
defined as a sum of two odds, or as a number divisible
by two which cannot possibly apply to an odd number. The third and only other
alternative is that the odd number can be obtained by the addition of one odd
number to an even number. We can see this without calculation.
Suppose we invent a procedure (q)
to find out if a particular computation C(m) has no
solution. Here (m) is clearly a special case of (n); (q) is a special case of
(p); C(m) is a special case of C(n). Therefore, if the
general rule is correct then the special case of it must also be correct. We program
the computer to print “False” and continue if C(n) has
a solution, but if it has no solution the computer is to print “True” and stop.
But suppose we want to find out
if the general rule itself is correct. We have C1(n), C2(n), C3(n) and so on. All these together can be
written Cx(n)
where x is any number denoting any logical procedure whatever and n denotes any
kind of data on which it works. The computer process or logical procedure can
be denoted by L(x,n). Then
(1) If L(x,n) stops calculating (it prints “True”) if Cx(n) goes on forever (is False i.e. has no solution). It prints “False” if Cx(n)
stops. (is True i.e. has a solution).
Now suppose x=n, i.e. it is one
of the series of procedures C1(n), C2(n) etc. In other
words, we include the general case among the particular cases. Then L(n,n) will stop (True) if Cn(n) goes on (False). Suppose that the particular
procedure referred to is Ck(n), then
(2) L(n,n)=Ck(n).
Then because n=k, Ck(n) becomes Ck(k), and the relevant Logical process can be
denoted by L(k,k).
(3) L(k,k) = Ck(k).
But if n=k (remember that n
stands for any value, in this case, k) then
(4) If L(k,k) stops (is True) then Ck(k) does not (is False)
If we substitute statement (3) in
(4), we get
(5) If Ck(k)
stops (is True) then Ck(k) does not (is False)
and
(6) If L(k,k) stops (is True) then L(k,k)
does not (is False).
We end up with contradictions. In effect
our logic shows that:-
(1) the computer
does not stop, for if it does it does not - the procedure Ck(k) cannot give us
a solution.
(2) Even if the computer does not
stop, L(k,k) cannot tell us
that it does not stop. The answer is always that there is no solution whether
or not there is one.
(3) Even if we know that
something has no solution, the logical procedure cannot tell us this.
We conclude that:-
(1) Knowledge (including
awareness, understanding and thinking) and logical procedure or computation are two different things. The former requires
consciousness, and the latter can be done by physical machines such as
computers.
(2) What applies to parts does
not apply to the whole. The parts are, of course, also wholes which might have
parts. Let us call the whole “System A” or S(a), the parts belonging to or
derived from it “System B” or S(b) and the parts or derivatives of these parts
“System C” or S(c). We have to consider three systems because the middle one, S(b) has a dual role. It may act as S(a)
in relation to S(c) but as S(c) in relation to S(a). Any object or process may
now be studied by itself, with respect to a higher system from which it is
derived or with respect to the lower system derived from it.
(3) If the whole cannot be known
from a consideration of the parts, then we cannot logically know what other
parts that whole may have. There is an area of ignorance which can only be
dispelled by non-logical methods.
(4) Logical procedures are
inadequate and logicians are not using a completely valid procedure to arrive at
the truth because they have not examined the assumptions or procedures lying
behind them. We cannot tell whether there are one or more of such
transcendental or supra-rational procedures in S(a),
whether they are complex, random, sound, consistent, complete, computable or
knowable. The belief or confidence in a logical procedure implies that there is
a hidden procedure from which that procedure was deterministically obtained.
But since it was unknown, there could be no proof for this confidence. In fact,
confidence in logical procedures depends on illogical or super-logical
processes.
(5) If S(a)
is not known then (a) items in S(b) must be doubtful and unreliable. (b) there may be other items which are not known but may be
known to other beings, and different beings may know different ones. (c) the items in S(b) may be inconsistent.
(6) We can define a logical
belief or understanding as a logical deduction of an item in S(b)
from S(a). It is then impossible that the individual who thinks using S(b) can ever arrive at a logical belief or understanding of
S(a), since this is not such a deduction. Consciousness cannot logically
understand itself; no person can acquire logical belief in himself;
nor can the logician justify his logic. It also follows that we cannot
logically arrive at belief in Allah, but given Allah we can arrive at rational
beliefs and understanding of the Laws of the Universe. However, there are
obviously other kinds of belief, both sub-rational and super-rational. A
supra-rational belief applies to S(b) which can be
perceived as depending on S(a). A sub-rational belief arises when there is no
logical connection between S(b) and S(c), but there
may be causal ones coming from S(c).
(7) Contradictions are liable to
arise because different people base their beliefs or arguments on S(a), S(b), S(c) or different items in them. This may cause
the difference between scientists, or between philosophers or any other people.
Therefore, to arrive at a consensus, there has to be agreement on certain rules
of procedure. This is not a logical processes.
Agreement between people may depend on unconscious or implicit rather than
conscious, rational or explicit rules derived from the discipline they are
following.
(8) If knowledge refers to S(b) then S(a), the process by which knowledge is obtained,
is unknowable. However, it may be possible to know it indirectly by studying
how others come by knowledge. This, however, is not the same thing as being
aware of one’s source of Knowledge.
(9) It is not necessary to believe
that S(b) is true in order to believe that “S(c) follows from S(b)” or even to
believe that some item in S(c) is true, since it could be argued that S(c), or
an item in it, could be derived from S1(b) or S2(b). However, it will be
necessary to believe that something in S(a) is true
which stands for all possible S(b) systems. This could be regarded as proof of
Allah.
(10) There are no dichotomies
beyond the purely verbal - things are not either true or false or both true and
false, at the level of wholes. This is probably why religions speak about
things in symbolic, not literal language.
(11) Computers and human logic
can only work according to strict procedures, rules or laws, but human beings
can also create procedures and laws which require a faculty beyond reason. This
faculty consists of seeing the wholeness of something which is not merely the
sum of the parts. This the computer or reason cannot
do. Unless computers can be constructed which are capable of forming concepts
of their own, it is not possible for computers to replace human being.
(12) There is a difference
between the application of a logical procedure and the way that procedure
arises. The results do not follow logically from the application and the
application does not follow from the method by which the procedure is created.
(13) Reason depends on asking
questions. This is not a logical procedure. Not all questions have answers.
(14) The Universe and Knowledge
cannot be explained solely by deterministic laws which are logical necessities.
The distinction between law and faith, the mechanical and the conscious, the
externally determined and internally determined is well known to religions and
is a fact about existence and knowledge.
We can see statements which refer
to the whole of a set as a case of “self-referral”. A statement such as “This
statement is false.” cannot be true or false, for if it is true it is false,
and if it is false it is true. A logical statement must, therefore, refer to
something external to the subject under consideration. The contradiction in the
above argument would probably disappear if we also recognized a third factor,
the conditions or context in which the rules and data operated. In Euclidean
Space it is true that parallel lines meet at infinity, but this is not the case
in Einstein’s Space-Time. It could also be that other beings have different
ways of thinking.
Logical thinking appears to
consist of the analysis of a situation into simple statements which must be
either true or false. A computer consists of thousands of little switches which
can be only in one of two mutually exclusive states - on or off. The brain too,
appears to consist of nerve connections which either transmit an impulse or do
not. Government departments and other agencies, sometimes even schools and
scientific surveys, tend to produce question forms requiring the citizen to
answer only yes or no. The computer can then be used to process the
information. But we all know that questions cannot always be answered in this
way - the answer may be both or neither yes or no. Researches in the fine
structure of matter show that nature is not like this either - there is a range
of probabilities. The same is true about the fine structure of brain cells and
electronic events in the brain. If we ask a series of individual questions,
then the answer to some might be “yes” and to others it might be “no”. But if
we ask it about he whole set, then clearly it cannot be either “yes” or “no” or
both to various degrees. The question may refer to something complex and the
perception of this is not a matter of logic at all.
Gödel thought that the mind must
be separate from the physical brain and took the mystic view. He thought that
theoretically a machine, based on a set of rules, S(a),
could be created to simulate human logical thinking. Turing, who constructed a
computer, took the materialist view, that the mind is an attribute of the
brain, an epi-phenomena and,
therefore, computers or robots have intelligence, understanding and
consciousness. He thought that intelligence was equivalent to fallibility
(proneness to make errors). This is probably also why a mutation which causes
change and evolution is regarded as an error in the strict replication of genes
rather than an inherent adaptative characteristic of
organisms.
From the scientific view point
there have been several suggested ways by which these higher procedures could
arise in human beings, and that these could be discovered and mathematically
defined:- that they may have arisen through the process of natural selection;
that they may have been induced by experience, education and culture; that they
are an effect of deterministic chaos in the electrical impulses; or of quantum
events in the brain; or due to the complexity of the brains neural connections
and behaviour. However, Philosophy and Mathematics are normally purely academic
subjects which cannot be regarded as having given human beings any evolutional
advantages in the past, and no characteristics can be
acquired which do not exist as inherent potentialities. On the other hand a
number of organs and faculties, e.g. the eye, developed before any use was
found for them. The only explanation science has for this is that they arose by
chance mutations. It may, however, be that human beings have increased
adaptability and versatility rather than fixed characteristics, so that the
same characteristic can be used for a number of different purposes. This may be
connected with a certain amount of built-in randomness or flexibility which
makes trial and error and experimentation possible. Success is reinforced and
failures eroded. The notion of “free will” comes from this.
The religious view is that the
mind is stratified into perhaps 7 levels. There are reflex processes, inherent
instinctive ones, conditioned ones, emotionally induced ones, rational ones,
and above this those which derive from the nature of the mind itself as created
by Allah, and finally those which derive from the presence of the Spirit. No
distinction is made between mind and matter, since both are aspects of the same
thing. There is increasing freedom and power up this series. Though each level
is capable of functioning independently, it can also be affected by the
previous and later levels. The inert material things are at one end of the
series and Allah at the other end. A person, therefore, functions in accordance
with which, how much and what proportion of these forces operate in him.
Science proceeds by dividing the
world into small pieces, examining these and putting then together again - by
analysis and re-synthesis. But the end result cannot be the same as the
beginning. The world of science cannot be the same world in which we live. A
scientific description is as much a construct as say a motor car, also created
by analysis and re-synthesis - it is a technology. Its purpose is to overcome
our limitations through instruments not through personal development. These
small pieces are analyzed into elements which are measurable. In the Laboratory
it is arranged that all these elements are kept constant except two, so that
one can study how one varies when the other is varied. Thus, when studying a
gas, the pressure is kept constant and the variation of volume is studied as
the temperature changes. This gives us a simple linear equation. Next,
temperature may be kept constant and variation of volume is studied as pressure
is varied. we get another linear equation. But we note
that in nature these elements are not constant - the laboratory conditions are
human constructs. They all vary with one another and affect each other. The
system is also affected by other systems existing outside it. To describe the
whole requires what are called non-linear or quadratic equations. These have
more than one solution and it is not possible to decide between them except by
observation. It is not, therefore, the case that a mathematical description is
fully determined. Note also that these experiments depend entirely on what we
think the variables are. No allowance has been made in this case for chemical
changes or for the effects of electrical or magnetic effects or for gravity or
some as yet unknown factor X. To ignore such a factor appears to be the height
of conceit. A more accurate result could be obtained if such a factor were to
be recognized and this could include all the other factors which have been
ignored, in this case, chemical, electrical and other environmental effects. We
could then continue to investigate X.
----------<O>----------
There is little doubt that a
major world problem, which brings about not only conflicts between individuals
and nations, but also disables most people from adjusting correctly to life,
the environment, their situation at work or study and with the various
situations where their judgment is required, is the incapability of thinking
efficiently and effectively. It is something which needs to be taught urgently
in schools and colleges as a fundamental subject. He who knows how to think
correctly can acquire all other knowledge much more easily. The world of ideas
with which the modern man is bombarded consists mostly of errors and fantasies.
Philosophers of
the past and even today, and many other people who imitate the techniques of
the philosophers, have, by the use of reason alone, arrived at many conflicting
conclusions. They
continue to argue and refute each other while supporting their own opinions. It
seems strange that they have not, by the use of the same logic, come to the
conclusion that, if different opinions can be reached by the same methods, then
these methods, and the conclusions and opinions based on them, must be suspect
or cannot be absolute truths. If someone bases his beliefs and convictions on
such logical arguments, then it must be assumed either that others who also
base contradictory beliefs and opinions on the same logical process, must also
be correct, or that if the others are incorrect then it is equally likely that
they, too, are incorrect. Thus,
1, New systems
of logic have been tried. In particular it was found necessary to both gather
the data and test the conclusions by experiment and observation. Nature was
recognized as the ultimate arbiter and judge. This makes the distinction
between philosophy and science.
2. Mathematics replaced logic.
Though mathematics can be considered as a much more refined form of logic which
allows greater discrimination and precision than is contained in the logical
dichotomies such as black and white, yet attempts to reduce mathematics to
logic and vice versa have failed. It remains true,
however, that mathematics rests on definitions. If “one” is defined as 1, “two”
as 1+1, “three” as 1+1+1, and so on, then to say that “one + two = three” is to
say that 1+ (1+1)= (1+1+1). This is a tautology. It is, however, only true of
lingual definitions not about nature. Whenever there is a difference between
this kind of reasoning and observed facts then mathematical thinking requires
the addition of a new factor, a constant or coefficient, defined as that which
makes the difference.
3. Strict procedures had to be
created and these had to be open to inspection and criticisms by colleagues.
That which should have been achieved by the self-criticism of the individual is
done by an external method. It neutralizes the various prejudices and expands
the experiences in relation to which things are judged. We may say that a
political factor has been introduced into science. The truth depends on the
consensus of opinion. The fact, however, remains that whole communities are
subject to limitations by their common experiences, attitudes and ideas. Ten
blind men, or those wearing red spectacles cannot see
what one sighted person not so hampered can.
4. Steps were taken to ensure
that terms were strictly defined and agreed upon.
Only what was available for
common repeatable observation could be admitted. Only external, material,
sensory data was allowed since these were common to all observers. The concepts
used should be measurable. Everything else was not only neglected but often
regarded as unreal. Nothing which fell outside the chosen terms could be
considered, even if it was material and measurable. The terms were defined with
respect to each other forming a closed system. It was forbidden to invent new
terms unless absolutely necessary. This ensured consistency, but did not
guarantee that some other term would not provide a better explanation. Thus, a
distinction arose between different sciences each of which required a different
set of concepts. Nature was artificially divided into compartments. There was
no guarantee that the sciences collectively covered the whole of nature.
Though these changes certainly
constitute an improvement on the previous position, yet they are still open to
criticism.
1, Nature is fluid and changeable
with fuzzy borders, and all things are inter-dependant, interact and related
with other things. When terms are strictly defined they tend to be unreal and
abstract. A logically exact term tends to be objectively inexact.
2, We
know also that people differ in their capacities for observation and
discrimination. Sensory experiences are just as subjective as thoughts and
feelings.
3, The
construction of one system of thought excludes other equally possible systems.
And this contradicts nature where systems are always forming and dissolving.
4, It is
still possible to select premises, starting points or facts in order to
establish a previously chosen conclusion. And the fact is created by the
concept. The reason for this is that every experience or percept is seen as an
isolated item, not as part of a whole to which it is related. It is, therefore,
possible to chose different sets of features to be
included in the concept.
5, These
systems assume that human thinking is done in a vacuum, in isolation from the
rest of life. Life is a unity and part of the world. Life consists of solving
problems. Problems arise because of an opposition between inner strivings,
desires and needs on the one hand, and outer or environmental conditions on the
other. This opposition provides the stimulus. The stimulus activates us. The
activity of the organism is designed to provide the solution. The solution
consists of reconciliation, a return to the state of stability. Thinking and
striving for knowledge is part of this process, as is the development of
appropriate skills of action and the creation of social relationships. These
three interact and are usually inter-dependent. But there is an opposition also
between knowledge (requiring receptivity) and action (causing changes in the
environment). This, too, presents a problem which must be solved. It is done
through motivation, value systems. All three are affected by the social
relationships. There are, therefore, three inter-dependant ingredients in any
process of thinking and acquiring knowledge:-
(a) The thought process must
conform to observations, not merely in providing the data, but also the
processes and models or structures. Common environments and activities provide
common data.
(b) The social relationships must
be of a cooperative nature in the common pursuit of truth, rather than one of
rivalry, personal ambition and greed or desire for prestige, power or profit.
(c) There should be an emphasis
on the cultivation of consciousness, empathy, insight, and discrimination, the
ability to analyse, relate, synthesise, assimilate and integrate.
6. Rational
thinking is regarded as something which is done only in offices, studies and
laboratories with respect mainly to ideas, not something to be applied in daily
life for the processes of living. The application of a system makes a
difference to how it is constructed and vice versa.
----------<O>----------
From the Islamic point of view
correct thinking requires the following:-
1. A correct Framework of
Reference with respect to which experiences can be usefully interpreted. This
framework must be comprehensive enough to include all aspects of life, all
ideas, motives and actions. Such a framework, by its very nature, cannot be
proved but requires faith. However, it can be proved by results, that it
enables a fulfilling life.
2. There must be correct
motivation and knowledge of what the aims and purposes of a system are. The
purpose should be love of truth. The purpose should be human development.
3. There must be a capacity for
objective perception. This requires the awareness and control over subjective
factors such as attachment, greed, self-interest, prejudices, and habits and so
on. It also requires greater capacity for consciousness, conscience and will.
4. A correct and appropriate
language. That is, useful concepts based on an adequately extensive field of
experiences. These must be held in common. A consensus of opinion can then be
obtained.
5. The existence of correct or
appropriate instruments, ideas and procedures for measurement, comparison and
discrimination.
6. The presence, knowledge or
search for all relevant facts. It is not merely the case that a hypothesis
should be proved, nor is it sufficient that a hypothesis cannot be disproved. A
hypothesis refers only to a particular set of facts, and may be true or false
with respect to different selection of facts. More than one and even
contradictory hypothesis may be useful.
7. Correct and useful procedures
in thinking.
There are three interactive
faculties:- thinking, feeling and action.
Thinking has three levels which
correspond to the three faculties.
1. Mechanical thinking. This can
be of three levels.
(i)
Reactive, when a stimulus in the environment provokes a thought. As there is no
deliberate examination of the environment or the thought, it is often
erroneous. A rope in the dark may be interpreted as a snake and so on.
(ii) Associative. One thought leads to
another which leads to still another as in a reverie. No direction or purpose
exists here. A smell may bring a memory of some past situation. Some element in
this memory triggers off some other memory. Or some other element in the
environment, a sound perhaps, leads the thought in another direction.
(iii) Conditioned. Experience has created
certain patterns. These patterns have become reinforced with repetition. Habits
of thought are created. When some situation stimulates thinking it sets in
motion this habit. Because the sun rises every day we expect it to rise the
next day. When we see any process we always expect it to continue. Many
expectations of various kind exist which become causes of suffering when they
are not fulfilled.
2. Emotional thinking. Here, too,
there are three levels.
(i) Fantasies.
These produce pleasure or remove pain.
(ii) Superstitions. Thought
governed by fears and desires.
(iii) Rationalisations. The justification of actions and motives. All opinions tend
to be of this type.
3. Rational thinking.
(i)
Calculating, Planning to achieve some purpose.
(ii) Analysis, systematisation
and integration of thoughts.
(iii) Transcendental thinking,
not in terms of symbols but in terms of experiences.
We may also distinguish between
three psychological systems in man ;-
The sub-lingual, which he shares
with animals where experience creates conditioned
reflexes;
The lingual, where man has learnt
to form concepts and can think in term of these, though this is often reduced
to automatic reactions to words.
The
supra-lingual system, where he can think in terms of patterns of order.
To understand the difference,
consider a statement made by the Prophet Muhammad. He is reported to have said:-
“Everyone is born a Muslim. But their parents make
them into something else.”
Now suppose this was presented to
a Christians. They would emphatically deny that this was true. In fact they may
be most annoyed and react violently. This illustrates reactive or sub-lingual
thinking.
If we were to explain that the
word Muslim means one who lives in a state of surrender to his essential nature
(the nature made by God), then it is clear that this is how children are born.
It is only later that they are changed by social conditioning. They develop a
personality. No one at all could possibly deny these facts. This illustrates
thinking in terms of meaning. It is lingual thinking and ought to be normal to
man.
It should be noted that when
thinking takes place in this way then the same ideas can be given in a great
many different verbal formats. The difference between religions is often based
on just this. But the sub-lingual thinker cannot see the similarity behind the
differences. There is a difference between the words of the Prophet and the
explanatory words used here, because of the difference in the people and the
times for which they were meant.
We may, however, ask what is the
value, rather than the meaning of the statement? What is its purpose? How does
it fit in with other statements and with the life and nature of the people? A
teacher has to select certain statements from many other possible ones
according to whom he is speaking to. Some questions were refused an answer.
Some statements as understood by certain people would have become false though
they would have been true when understood by others and vice versa. Other
statements, when given in one order produce one effect, and in another order,
produce quite another. A statement made in isolation is not the same thing as
when made part of a system of statements. If the teaching had revolved around
the idea of original sin then the statement quoted above would have had a
completely different significance from that given here. As it stands in the
context of Islamic teaching, it implies that just as Social conditioning
perverts the individual so also through social actions the perversion can be
reversed. It is not an irreversible feature of human character. The implication
more over is that there must have been a time in human history when due to some
environmental catastrophe or due to some factor causing gradual erosion, the
forces causing the perversion were first set afoot. It tells us what the word
‘Muslim’ implies. The statement creates a particular kind of self-image and
attitude to reality. The awareness of this is the result of supra-lingual
thinking.
It is also possible to make a
distinction between three types of thinking, namely atomic, serial and
structural.
Atomic thinking refers to
thinking in terms of units of data in isolation from other units of data. There
is a tendency to analyze and separate into compartments. Perception occurs in
atomic form. The greater the analysis the greater is the number of atoms. It is
then possible to combine these atoms in many ways. These combinations may be
quite random or purposive. The possibility of imagination and invention arises
from this. Atoms could also exist in permanent or semi-permanent combinations
to form higher atoms. Perhaps the word molecules may be used to refer to these.
The glue here may be some kind of conditioning, some emotional factor. Fixed combination of ideas like these limit thinking. On the other
hand, perhaps the atomic ideas could be further sub-divided, thereby increasing
the power of thought.
Serial thinking is done in logic
where the argument leads step by step to a conclusion. Lectures and books by
their very nature have to be in the serial form. Life itself is a serial.
History and Nature are seen as a series of cause and effects.
The brain, however, works in a
structured form. It sees many elements of a situation and the relation between
these elements simultaneously.
Suppose we have an object A,
consisting of elements a, b, c, d, e, f etc. Then these elements will be
connected to each other in many ways. Object A is an element in some higher
object or complex together with B, C, D, E etc which are also connected in
multiple ways with each other. Elements a, b, c, etc may also be objects
containing elements a1, a2, a3 etc connected in multiple ways. It is not
difficult to see that we can look at the same situation and see a great number
of different patterns according to the elements we select. Given a page full of
different coloured dots, for instance, we could join up all the blue dots or
the red dots. Or we could look for squares or circles of dots. And then study
the relationship between all these.
----------<O>----------
Rules of Thought and Criticism
From the point of view of Logic,
knowledge comes through the senses. We cannot know anything which has no effect
on us, particularly that which we have not seen. It is, therefore, not possible
to say, for instance, “that is a table”. We can only say “I see a table”. The
implication is that if we go away, we cannot still assert that the table is
still there. It may have been destroyed or converted into something else. This
is not only so because we have ceased to have experience of it, but also
because we have interpreted our sensations in a certain way which is not what
an animal, instrument or other objects may experience.
Secondly, if something is true at
one time, it is not necessarily true at another. The fact that the sun has
risen in the past does not mean that it will rise tomorrow. Thirdly, if we make
an assertion about one object, we cannot make the same assertion about another
object. Though the objects may be similar in having characteristics A, B, C,
there will also be dissimilarities, D in one and E in the other. These are
usually ignored when statements are made about a class of things. In fact, the
set A, B, C, D is not the same as A, B, C, E. In so far as characteristics are
inter-related they modify each other. At least, there must be something about
the object which ensures that it has one set of characteristics rather than
another. It is supposed that at a very fundamental level, such as electrons,
all are exactly alike. But even here there must be a reason why one is in one
position and others are in other positions. We do not know all electrons to
make such an assertion and, in any case, we are only looking for common
characteristics. The only logical assertions which can be made is that if
something is defined as having the characteristics A, B, C, D, then it has the
characteristic A, or B etc, or A, B, or A, B, C etc. But, this should not be
confused with the existence of objects having only those characteristics.
It is clear, however, that we
cannot live our lives by logic alone. Our behaviour does not only depend on the
sense data received but also on:-
(a) Influences of which we are
not aware. Some things affect us directly, and the changes they cause in us may
also produce or affect awareness.
(b) Some other things are
inherent in us owing to how we are built.
(c) We obtain information not
only passively from the external world but also through interaction and this
depends also on our instincts and motives and on what we do.
(d) Though we obtain information
through the senses, these are interpreted in the intellect, feelings and
actions and all three give us information. (e) Other things, though acquired
from experience have been processed at the subconscious or unconscious level.
(e) A great amount of the data that comes
through the senses does not reach awareness, but we select only some of it
according to our interests.
(f) Human progress depend
not so much on personal experience as on collective experience and
communication.
(g) We live not by certainties but by an
assessment of probabilities.
Like all other objects and
organisms we have to adapt to the environment. This means that we have to take
into consideration variations. We build a comprehensive picture of reality or
parts of it as a self-consistent whole in which the parts must fit in a well
adjusted manner. The better this is done the better are we adjusted, and the
greater our control over our lives. This is not a logical process. The whole
cannot be a part of itself.
There are many degrees of
knowledge:- (i) hallucinations, (ii) illusions, (iii)
delusions, (iv) prejudices (v) the products of selection, exaggeration,
distortion, suppression, extrapolation, pattern making (vi) guesswork or
speculation, (vii) opinion, (viii) hypothesis or theory, (ix) sense data (x)
perception, (xi) conception (xii) ideation (xiii) feeling (xiv) imagination,
(xv) reasoning and inference, (xvi) belief (xvii) knowing (xvi) understanding
(xvii) awareness or insight (xx) inspiration (xviii) faith . (xx) inherent or instinctive (xix) induced knowledge where we are
not aware of the source (xxi) identification.
In order to improve thinking in
all departments of life, it is probably better to have guidelines such as the
following:-
Faced with an assertion a person ought to ask himself, or others the following 27 questions:-
1. Can you distinguish between what is really
true and what is merely an uncertain opinion? And between the
various degrees of knowledge.
2. Do you possess sufficient and
relevant knowledge upon which to base your opinion?
3. Knowledge has continued to
advance in the past. Would you say that it has ceased to advance, and,
therefore, it will never prove you wrong?
4. Is it your own knowledge or
have you merely heard it from others? Have you proved it for yourself?
5. Have you merely jumped to
conclusions or have you thought and pondered on the subject, analyzed, chewed,
digested and assimilated it?
6. What is its significance? How
does it fit in with rest of experience? Is it consist
in itself and with the totality of knowledge?
7. Has it made any difference to
your attitude and life? Or is it merely an isolated piece of useless data. Is
it relevant, useful, applicable, or a subject of mere gossip or idle curiosity?
8. Could there be some idea which
is more useful, having a wider significance?
9. What are the motives or
interests behind this opinion? Why is it being expressed and what led to the
selection, interpretation or organization of facts.
10, Is it a value judgment about
what is good, an expression of feeling or hope, is it an instruction or
statement about what is useful or about what is true or what is beautiful and
appealing?
11. Who does it apply to? If it
is useful, who is it useful to, in what way, and in what circumstances? Who is
it true for under what conditions? And so on.
12. Have your procedures for
observation, calculation, logic, experimentation, measurement been correct?
13. Have you got adequate
concepts by means of which to describe the real situation? Are the concepts
necessary to describe the situation? Could the situation be described by means
of other concepts?
14. If there are two or more
opinions about something, do you have valid and agreed procedures by means of
which you can decide which is true?
15. Are your senses sharp,
appropriate and adequate for the job?
16. Is
your attention and interest in the correct direction and wide enough?
17. Do you suppose that your
faculties of intellect, consciousness, intelligence, understanding, judgment,
perspicacity and so on are perfect enough to ensure objective knowledge?
18. How do you explain the
beliefs of those who differ from you or even contradict you? Are they all
fools, idiots or are they deluded? Perhaps they know something or have
experienced something which you have not. Perhaps what suits you or is
compatible with your experiences is not so for others and vice versa.
19. With so many conflicting
opinions in the world, would you not say that some or all may merely be partial
truths, each referring to a different set of facts?
20. Would you not say that the criteria on which you base your belief or criticize the
opinions of others is similar to the criteria used by the others to justify
their own contrary beliefs?
21. Are you certain you have
understood correctly? Have you considered that words may have different
meanings for different people, and the self same thing may be described by sets
of different words by different people? It may well be that the person with
whom you verbally disagree is in reality in complete or partial agreement with
you. And conversely, the person with whom you seem to be in verbal agreement in
reality disagrees with you wholly or partially. And that is quite apart from
the fact that he may also be Mistaken or lying.
22. What is the total context,
verbal or even cultural, in which the statement occurs?
23. What is the field, framework
of reference or level of reality to which the statement refers?
24. Has it occurred to you that
your own opinions change according to mood and circumstances? You may, for
instance, in the heat of an argument and under the influence of a threat to
your ego defend a position whose opposite you would defend at another time. Is
it not true that you do not even know for certain what your opinion is? That
often you make it up on the spur of the moment never having given the subject
matter much consideration before?
25. Do you not know that facts
and their interpretation which form opinions depend largely on the accident of
inherited and acquired personality traits?
26. Are you aware that opinions
also depend on self-interest, on prejudices, wishful thinking and fantasies,
greed, various assumptions and expectancies, addictions, fears, obsessions,
phobias, likes and dislikes, things which have nothing to do with the subject?
Have you heard of the mental mechanisms of rationalization, projection,
introjection, repression, elaboration, distortion, referring, transference,
substitution? Do you realize that opinions may depend on habit, conditioning,
training, fixations, inertia, laziness?
27. Have you considered the
possibility that something is true only with respect to a particular time,
place, situation, context or person. It may not apply
to all?
----------<O>----------