One striking feature in discussions and debate everywhere is binary thinking that doggedly uses terminology such as 'Left-Right', 'West-East', 'Conservative-Liberal', 'Religious-Secular', etc. to define and describe an inherently complex and non-linear world.

My question to all is - where does this obsession with binary categorisation come from?

Ev

Have wondered the same myself. How about adding "either/or" as in 'either coal or nuclear' or 'either homosexual or straight'.

There is always room for taking a bit of the best of everything, but that never seems to happen. I mean, I understand the human predilection for labels - helps us to think. But yeah, why the binary approach when the spectrum of human development and ideas is far broader and overlapping.

Ev, it is a primitive control mechanism, used by almost everyone who has ever chosen to acquire power.

If you ever intend to take over the world Ev, bear this in mind. You need to clearly define an enemy in order to get people to fight on your side - it is not sufficient just to have "this what I stand for", you must also have a far stronger "this is what I am against".

I subscribe to the multiple positions approach, but try having a political discussion without resorting to labels like "left" and "right". No matter how much I lecture university students that the old labels mean nothing, I still can't shake the habit - which suggests it is not so much a habit, but a structural necessity when it comes to argument.

Sure, what is called 'Linguistic determinism' plays a part. But there's more of course.

Fuzzy logic expert Professor Bart Kosko wrote a great book called 'Fuzzy Thinking' on this topic. Amazon books has a the first six pages online. I think it's worth having a look:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/078688021X/ref=sib_dp_top_ex/002-2520523-1704054?ie=UTF8&p=S00L#reader-link

Professor Kosko's homepage, which has a number of interesting articles:

http://sipi.usc.edu/~kosko/

Computers work on binary maths i.e the positive and negative in our lives to give us answers.In any family situation we will find the positive and negative aspects in our personalities being used to bring out the best in individuals.There are no hard and fast rules since it takes the wisdom of Solomon to know when to chastise amd when to reward.There are some personalities who thrive on the challenge and others who need a lot of nurturing.Too much leftism or rightism in any given situation depends upon the environment and the personalities of the individuals.

When the survival of the whole community is at stake,we have to take the courageous path of the right,some may fall by the wayside,but in the end,only the fittest will survive.

In the first chapter, Kosko writes:

"This faith in the black and the white, this Bivalence, reaches back in the West to at least the ancient Greeks. Democritus reduced the universe to atoms and void. Plato filled his world with pure forms of redness and rightness and triangularity. Aristotle took time off from training his pupil Alexander the Great to write down what he felt were the black-and- white laws of logic, laws that scientists and mathemeticians still use to describe and discuss the grey universe.

Aristotle's binary logic came down to one law: A or not-A. Either this or not this. The sky is blue or not-blue. It can't be both blue and not blue. It can't be A AND not-A. Aristotle's 'law' defined what was philosophically correct for over two thousand years.

The binary faith has always faced doubt. It has always led to its own critical response, a sort of logical and philosophical underground. The Buddha lived in India five centuries before Jesus and almost two centuries before Aristotle. The first step in his belief system was to break through the black-and-white world of words, pierce the bivalent veil and see the world as it is, see it filled with 'contradictions,' with things and not-things, with roses that are both red and not red, with A AND not-A.

You find this fuzzy or grey theme in Eastern belief systems old and new, from Lao-tze's Taoism to the modern Zen in Japan. Either-or versus contradiction. A OR not-A versus A AND not-A. Aristotle versus the Buddha."

This is really the crux of the matter, and what has led me to think about our modern 'Western' outlook and it's roots.

I refer to this sort of thinking as polarisation. I have accused a few people of this forum of thinking and expressing themselves in this manner. It seems to me that there is a pretty clear correlation between a strongly polarised thought process and a hateful and strongly condemnatory attitude towards those with whom they don't entirely agree.

I have gone to great lengths to try and debate things with a couple of these people. But the cause is lost!

This style of thinking, ie seeing things in black and white rather than shades of grey is highly unrealistic in a complex world.

It leaves me baffled as to how any person intelligent enough to partake in discussion on multiple subjects on this forum can think like that. But they do. And to them it just comes naturally.

This aspect of our psychology sits right at the heart of many of our problems around the world

Divide and conquer.

Many discussions on OLO are concerned with freedom of choice. What could be called the pro-choice people are not trying to force their opinions on anyone else. For instance:

Use contraception or don't use contraception.
Have an abortion or don't have an abortion.
Get married or have a de-facto partnership.
Sex before marriage or sex only within marriage.
Heterosexual is OK or homosexual is OK.
Believe all the Bible or believe some of it or believe none of it.
Swim in bathers or swim in neck-to knees or swim nude.

On the other hand, some of the more extreme Christians don't want anyone to have a choice on anything, unless that choice meets with their approval. And they connive with politicians and bureaucrats to try and enforce their minority opinions on all Australians. And they bitch about being discriminated against if anyone objects to their conniving.

And they constantly bring up red herrings about situations which are obviously both immoral and illegal [such as acts which morally require consent between adults, or acts which cause actual harm to others], in deliberate attempts to confuse the issues. Ever heard of Don't bear false witness?

So I suggest that, in general, the pro-choice people are prepared to accept a variety of opinions and actions as valid, whilst the religious extremists see things only in black and white. And cynically try to use the political system to force the rest of us to conform to their bigoted dictates.

Pink Floyd wrote the song "Us and Them" on their celebrated and extremely successful album Dark side of the Moon: Us and Them ... Me and You ... Black and Blue ... Up and Down ... Down and Out ... With, Without.

Was it a trick question Ev?

Did anybody else notice that the question with which Ev opened this discussion amounts to asking "Binary thinking - good or bad?"

Answer: "It depends..."

So, do you agree or disagree with binary thinking?

;o)

Thinking causes all the trouble.

trade215 - 'Thinking causes all the trouble.' - Thanks, yours is the best answer! I'm sure many a Zen/Buddhist master would agree with you :)

mercurius - I heard about a lecturer who was once asked by a student "Is life a paradox?". "Well, yes and no," replied the lecturer..

Pericles - You said, "Ev, it is a primitive control mechanism, used by almost everyone who has ever chosen to acquire power."

Yep, in his book 'Mein Kampf' (My Struggle/Fight), Adolf Hitler said something about that I think, brazenly described how you must divide everything into positive and negative emotions in order to control the population.

Thanks everyone for all the comments. Sorry I can't reply to everyone but I did read and consider all the posts.