At several points in the book I have referred to ‘water logic’ as a contrast to the ‘rock logic’ of traditional thinking.
The purpose of this naming of ‘water logic’ is to give an impression of the difference.
At this point I shall spell out in more detail some of the points of difference.
A rock is solid, permanent and hard.
This suggests the absolutes of traditional thinking (solid as a rock).
Water is just as real as a rock but it is not solid or hard.
The permanence of water is not defined by its shape.
A rock has hard edges and a definite shape.
This suggests the defined categories of traditional thinking.
We judge whether something fits that category shape or not.
Water has a boundary and an edge which is just as definite as the edge of a rock, but this boundary will vary according to the terrain.
Water will fill a bowl or a lake.
It adapts to the terrain or landscape.
Water logic is determined by the conditions and circumstances.
The shape of the rock remains the same no matter what the terrain might be.
If you place a small rock in a bowl, it will retain its shape and make no concession at all towards filling the bowl.
The absolutes of traditional thinking deliberately set out to be circumstance-independent.
If you add more water to water, the new water becomes part of the whole.
If you add a rock to a rock, you simply have two rocks.
This addition and absorption of water logic corresponds to the process of poetry, in which new images become absorbed in the whole.
It is also the basis of the new artificial device of the ‘strata!’.
With conditions and circumstances, the addition of new circumstances becomes part of the whole set of circumstances.
We can match rocks by saying this shape ‘is’ or ‘is not’ the same as another shape.
A rock has a fixed identity.
Water flows according to the gradient.
Instead of the word ‘is’ we use the word ‘to’.
Water flows ‘to’ somewhere.
In traditional (rock) logic we have judgements based upon right/wrong.
In perception (water) logic we have the concepts of ‘fit’ and ‘flow’.
The concept of ‘fit’ means:
‘Does this fit the circumstances and conditions?’
The concept of ‘flow’ means:
‘Is the terrain suitable for flow to take place in this direction?’
Fit and flow both mean the same thing.
Fit covers the static situation, flow covers the dynamic situation.
Does the water fit the lake or hole?
Does the river flow in this direction?
Truth is a particular constellation of circumstances with a particular outcome.
In this definition of truth we have both the concepts of fit (constellation of circumstances) and of flow (outcome).
In a conflict situation both sides are arguing that they are right.
This they can show logically.
Traditional thinking would seek to discover which party was really ‘right’.
Water logic would acknowledge that both parties were right but that each conclusion was based on a particular aspect of the situation, particular circumstances, and a particular point of view.
What do we mean by ‘to’?
A ball on a slope rolls ‘to’ or towards the bottom of the slope.
A river flows ‘to’ the sea.
A path leads ‘to’ some place.
An egg in a frying-pan changes ‘to’ a fried egg.
A falling egg leads ‘to’ the mess of a broken egg on the carpet.
A film director may cut from a shot of a falling egg ‘to’ a shot of a collapsing tower.
A film director may cut from a shot of a falling egg ‘to’ a shot of an anguished girl.
A ball that rolls ‘to’ a new position is still the same ball.
The raw egg that becomes the fried egg is still the same egg in a different form.
But the shot of the collapsing tower or the anguished girl in the film is only related to the prior shot of the falling egg because the director has chosen to relate them.
So we really use ‘to’ in a number of different ways.
Throughout this book I intend to use ‘to’ in a very simple and clear sense: what does this lead to?
What happens next?
It simply means what happens next in time.
If a film image of an egg is followed by the image of an elephant then the egg leads to the elephant.
If you are being driven in a car along a scenic route and an idyllic shot of a cottage is followed by a view of a power station, then that is what happens next.
So the sense of ‘to’ is not limited to ‘becoming’ or ‘changing to’, although this will also be included in the very broad definition of ‘to’ as what happens next.
An unstable system can become a stable system.
A stable system can become an unstable system.
One thing leads to another.
Because this notion of ‘to’ is so very important it would be useful to define it precisely with a new word.
Perhaps we could create a new preposition, ‘leto’, to indicate ‘leads to’.
At this point in time it would sound only artificial and unnecessary
Johnny was a young boy who lived in Australia.
One day his friends offered him a choice between a one dollar coin and a two dollar coin.
In Australia the one dollar coin is considerably larger than the two dollar coin.
Johnny took the one dollar coin.
His friends giggled and laughed and reckoned Johnny very stupid because he did not yet know that the smaller coin was worth twice as much as the bigger coin.
Whenever they wanted to demonstrate Johnny’s stupidity they would repeat the exercise.
Johnny never seemed to learn.
One day a bystander felt sorry for Johnny and beckoning him over, the bystander explained that the smaller coin was actually worth twice as much as the larger coin.
Johnny listened politely, then he said: ‘Yes, I do know that.
But how many times would they have offered me the coins if I had taken the two dollar coin the first time?’
A computer which has been programmed to select value would have had to choose the two dollar coin the first time around.
It was Johnny’s human ‘perception’ that allowed him to take a different and longer-term view: the possibility of repeat business, the possibility of several more one dollar coins.
Of course, it was a risk and the perception was very complex: how often would he see his friends?
Would they go on using the same game?
Would they want to go on losing one dollar coins, etc.?
There are two points about this story which are relevant to this book.
The first point is the great importance of human perception, and that is what this book is about.
Perception is rather different from our traditional concept of logic.
The second point arising from the story is the difference between the thinking of Johnny and the thinking of the computer.
The thinking of the computer would be based on ‘is’.
The computer would say to itself:
‘Which of the two coins “is” the most valuable?’
As a result the computer would choose the smaller, two dollar coin.
The thinking of Johnny was not based on ‘is’ but on ‘to’:
‘What will this lead to?’
‘What will happen if I take the one dollar coin?’
Traditional rock logic is based on ‘is’.
The logic of perception is water logic and this is based on ‘to’.
The basic theme of the book is astonishingly simple.
In fact it is so simple that many people will find it hard to understand.
Such people feel that things ought to be complex in order to be serious.
Yet most complex matters turn out to be very simple once they are understood (here, here, and here).
Because the theme is so simple I shall attempt to describe it as simply as possible.
Although the basic theme is simple the effects are powerful, important and complex.
I have always been interested in practical outcomes. (Find practical outcomes here)
There are many practical processes, techniques and outcomes covered in this book.
How would you like to ‘see’ your thinking as clearly as you might see a landscape from an aeroplane?
There is a way of doing that which I shall describe.
This can be of great help in understanding our perceptions and even in altering them.
I know that my books attract different sorts of readers.
There are those who are genuinely interested in the long neglected subject of thinking and there are those who are only interested in practical ‘hands-on’ techniques.
The latter type of reader may be impatient with the underlying theory, which is seen to be complex and unnecessary.
I would like to be able to say to this sort of reader: ‘Skip section ...
and section ...’
But I will not do that because thinking has suffered far too much from a string of gimmicks that have no foundation.
It is very important to understand the theoretical basis in order to use the processes with real motivation.
Furthermore the underlying processes are fascinating in themselves.
Understanding how the brain works is a subject of great interest.
I have used no mathematical expressions in the book because it is a mistake to believe that mathematics (the behaviour of relationships and processes within a defined universe) has to be expressed in mathematical symbols which most people do not understand.
Some years ago Professor Murray Gell-Mann, the California Institute of Technology professor who won a Nobel prize in physics for inventing/discovering/describing the quark, was given my book The Mechanism of Mind which was published in 1969.
He told me that he had found it very interesting because I had ‘stumbled upon processes ten years before the mathematicians had started to describe them’.
These are the processes of self-organizing systems which interested him for his work on chaos —try an Amazon search.
This book is a first look at water logic and my intention has been to put forward a method for using it in a practical manner.
This book is closely related to my previous book I am Right - You are Wrong (London: Viking, 1990 and Penguin 1991).
In that book I set out to show that the traditional habits of Western thinking were inadequate and how our belief in their adequacy was both limiting and dangerous.
These traditional habits include: the critical search for the ‘truth’; argument and adversarial exploration, and all the characteristics of rock logic with its crudities and harshness.
These habits of thinking were ultimately derived from the classic Greek gang of three, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, who hijacked Western thinking.
After the dogma of the Dark Ages, the rediscovery of this classical thinking was indeed a breath of fresh air and so these habits were taken up both by the Church (to provide a weapon for attacking heresy) and by the non-Church humanist thinkers to provide an escape from Church dogma.
So it became the established thinking of Western civilization.
Unfortunately this thinking lacks the creative, design and constructive energies that we so badly need.
Nor does this thinking take into account the huge importance of perception, beliefs and local truths.
Finally this rock logic exacerbates the worst deficiencies of the human brain, which is why we have made progress in technical matters and so little in human affairs.
For the first time in history we do know something, in broad terms, about how the brain works as a self-organizing information system - and this has important implications.
As I predicted the book was met with outrage that was so hysterical that it became comic and ludicrous rather than offensive.
Not one of those who attacked the book ever challenged its basic themes.
The attacks were in the nature of childish personal abuse or picked on very minor matters - which is always a sure indication that the reviewer is not reviewing the book but prefers to attack the author.
This is a pity because it is a serious subject which needs much more attention than it gets.
It was Einstein who once said: ‘Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.’
It does not follow that violent opposition from mediocre minds qualifies one automatically as a great spirit but it does suggest that the violence of the opposition sometimes indicates emotions rather than value.
To redress this balance, because the subject is important, I invited three Nobel prize physicists to write forewords to the book for future editions.
Those forewords put the matter into perspective.
Because physicists spend their whole lives looking at fundamental processes and their implications.
I had intended to add a section on water logic and ‘hodics’ to the book.
In the end the book became too long and it was obvious that the section would have to be too short to do justice to the subject.
I promised I would treat the subject in a subsequent publication, and that is what this book is about.
In our tradition of thinking we have sought to get away from the vagueness and instability of perception in order to deal with such concrete matters as mathematics and logic.
We have done reasonably well at this and can now get back to dealing with perception as such.
Indeed we have no choice because if our perceptions are faulty then perfect processing of those faulty perceptions can only give an answer that is wrong, and sometimes dangerous.
We know from experience that both sides in any war, conflict or disagreement always have ‘logic’ on their side.
This is true: a logic that serves their particular perceptions.
So this book is about the water logic of perception.
How do perceptions come about?
What is the origin and nature of perception?
How do the nerve circuits in the brain form and use perceptions?
How do perceptions become stable - and stable enough to become beliefs?
Can we get to look at our perceptions regarding any particular matter?
Can we change perceptions—and if so, where do we start?
This book does not provide all the answers but at the end of it the reader should have a good understanding of the difference between water logic and rock logic. …
See Peter Drucker's From Analysis to Perception—The New Worldview and The Educated Person for relevance connections. Chapters on these topics can be found in several of Drucker's books. Both can be found in The Essential Drucker.
“The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not turbulence; it is to act with yesterday’s logic”. — Peter Drucker
The shift from manual workers who do as they are being told — either by the task or by the boss — to knowledge workers who have to manage themselves ↓ profoundly challenges social structure …
“Managing Oneself is a REVOLUTION in human affairs.” … “It also requires an almost 180-degree change in the knowledge workers’ thoughts and actions from what most of us—even of the younger generation—still take for granted as the way to think and the way to act.” …
These pages are attention directing tools for navigating a world moving toward unimagined futures.
It may be a step forward to actively reject something (rather than just passively ignoring) and then figure out a coping plan for what you’ve rejected.
Your future is between your ears and our future is between our collective ears — it can’t be otherwise. A site exploration starting point
To create a rlaexp.com site search on Google’s site ↓
Type the following in the search box on the Google’s site:
your search text site:rlaexp.com
Donations: Please click the button below to make a donation through PayPal.
Copyright 2001 2005 2007 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 © All rights reserved | bobembry | bob embry | “time life navigation” © | “life TIME investment system” © | “career evolution” © | “life design” © | “organization evolution” © | “brainroads toward tomorrows” © | “foundations for future directed decisions” ©
rlaexp.com → real life adventures + exploration