jean-michel jaquet

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,

they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality. Albert Einstein
S
cience is an effort to systematically understand our world.
Through research, we establish facts and piece them together
to create frameworks which describe reality.
MIT Professor Noam Chomsky reflects on the limitations of science:
Science studies whats at the edge of understanding, and whats at the
edge of understanding is usually fairly simple. The reason why physics
can achieve such depth is that it restricts itself to extremely simple
things, abstracted from the complexity of the world. Human affairs are
creativity
16
c o n v e r g e n c e v o l 9 n o 1
ABSTRACT: This article reflects on the limitations
imposed by our tendency to think within well-worn
patterns and, in so doing, our failure to observe the
incredible possibilities that lie outside of our immediate
field of vision. It discusses an approach to diversity of
opinion, one in which we adopt an inquiring rather
than combative stance and, subsequently, allow
ourselves to be transformed for the better.
Truths
we
create:
Learning
to see
beyond
ourselves
16-18Jaquet.qxd 2008/04/07 06:01 Page 20
way too complicated So the actual sciences tell us
virtually nothing about human affairs.
1
Historically, the development of even our simple
sciences has not been a linear process. Theories like
quantum mechanics do not fit neatly into existing
frameworks, but rather disrupt them, forcing the
re-writing of orthodoxies. Our path to knowledge of the
world is a scrappy series of compromises as emerging
facts jostle with current-day truths to make space for
themselves. In the process, some truths are abandoned,
others forced to adapt, while still others find their
positions enriched and strengthened.
It is tempting to imagine our process of learning about
reality as the exploration of a cave with each new
discovery providing greater detail of its inner mysteries.
In practice, it is more like stepping outside a series of
caves, with each step introducing us to a larger, more
complex world than we knew before.
DEMONS AND SCHIZOPHRENIA. Plato used the allegory of the
cave more than 2 000 years ago, observing that people of
his day focused their thinking within what he saw as
narrow boundaries of possibility. They created elaborate
frameworks about a small field of topics while ignoring
the complexities that lay outside their immediate view.
Going back only a few generations from our time, we
find frameworks of truth very different from those
popular today. Mental health professionals in recent times
considered possession by evil spirits a central thesis of
their science. Their observations were the fits and
extreme swings in temperament of their patients. Their
solutions were immersing them in running water for
hours on end, or suspending them in cages and spinning
them violently to shake the demons out of them. This
was science of the day - taught in respected universities,
analysed by scholars and adopted by institutions.
Today we may replace a diagnosis of possession with
one of schizophrenia and treatment by immersion in
water with the prescription of psychoactive chemicals.
Absorbed in the science of our time, we may overlook the
likelihood that the landscape of todays psychological
understanding will, in only a few generations, have
shifted in a manner which completely displaces current
approaches. That our childrens children may look back
on our use of psychoactive chemicals as crude, brutish,
even criminal. Just as we look back, with horror and
incredulity, on the comparatively recent practice of
pre-frontal lobotomies.
IM IN THE DARK HEREThere is a blind spot in our thinking
that is as true today as it was in Platos time: that our
picture of the world is fairly accurate, fairly complete and
the basis upon which future developments will be
established. In contrast, our most celebrated scientists
have seldom been advocates of current-day truths. They
challenged the orthodoxy and frameworks of their times.
They understood that while categorising the phenomena
we observe can help us in our process of understanding,
it can also lock us into patterns of belief that limit our
capacity to access the possibilities around us.
Our perception of reality and truth is a relationship
between the observer and the observed. As observers of
truth, we have frameworks for thinking that allow us to
understand what we see in relation to these models. Our
emotions, preconceptions and judgements all influence
our attachment to such models and our perception of
truth. They create not just blind spots in our thinking, but
actual walls that hem us in and prevent us from accessing
possibilities.
It is not always the ability to push deeper into the
analysis of existing fields of study that we lack: it is the
inability to let go of beliefs and assumptions which limit
us from perceiving new and exciting truths that are
ripening around us. It is, according to the Buddhist
saying, the emptying of the cup that is overflowing with
ideas - so that new possibilities can be apprehended.
KEEP LEAVING COOKIES Children are very open to
possibility. For them, Santa Claus is wholly possible. We
remember what it felt like to be children: the sense of
openness, excitement, wonder about the world and the
experimentation it evoked. This creative state shifts as
we start adopting frameworks that lock down our
Our path to knowledge of the world is a
scrappy series of compromises as
emerging facts jostle with current truths
creativity
17
c o n v e r g e n c e v o l 9 n o 1
16-18Jaquet.qxd 2008/04/07 06:01 Page 21
creativity
thinking. As adults, we have strong emotions attached to
possibility. Fear, hope, past hurts and disappointments.
Years of conditioning that taught us to paint within the
lines, and write within the lines, and stand in lines, and
sing the right words to the song.
Achieving possibility, then, becomes not just an
intellectual exercise, but a deeply emotional one. A
change not of mind, but of state. Qualities of this creative
state include a willingness to see new emerging patterns
and emotional openness to alternatives to intuitions and
inner visions and the courage to act upon them. The
adoption of a child-like curiosity about the world, and the
temporary suspension of judgement and shelving of
knowledge. A perceptual shift in which we experience
that we are not chained by our past realities.
When we achieve this state, creating new possibilities
becomes as easy as walking across the room. It happens
spontaneously, as an unfolding of our natures.
DONT CHOP UP THE ELEPHANT! In the absence of science to
provide us with clear truths about complex matters, we
humans have to muddle on as best we can. We are forced
to deal with tremendous complexity in our own lives each
and every day and, of necessity we adopt frameworks to
help us get by.
Our tendency to become attached to these
frameworks is no less than those of a scientist to their
own paradigms. I might define myself as an atheist based
on some evidence I observe. I might then say: Oh, that
person is a Christian. He or she believes in the Bible and
is irrational, according to my framework. I can write him
or her off. Or: That person is an astrologer and believes
the stars tell us what direction our lives are going in. He
or she is clearly clearly mad, and must be ignored too.
Or: That person is a Democrat or Republican or a
socialist. Because my view is right, I must find ways of
rejecting or defeating their views.
With each of these steps, I limit my possibilities for
interaction and ideas to a point where I am in a
straitjacket. I can agree with only a small number of
people in my in-group and there are few with whom I can
share my socially-constructed reality.
If I am pro-choice, I might have a deep feeling for
freedom of choice in what happens to ones body. If I am
anti-abortion, I may have an incredible respect for the
sanctity of life. How can one say that either position is
incorrect? Is either world view wrong?
In fact, we are each like the metaphorical blind men
trying to describe the same elephant. One of us has it by
the tail, the other by the trunk. We will not come to truth
by lopping off either tail or trunk, for then we will only be
left with a deformed elephant. A deformed truth, a piece
of reality. Instead, we have to find a way of understanding
the part we each have hold of, in relation to the part the
other does the richness that only diversity can bring to
the whole. Then we have the whole, incredible elephant.
In this way, the places where our views are most
divergent, most seemingly irresolvable, are actually
where there is a whole lot of exciting elephant in between
us to discover.
In our willingness to embark upon this process of
exploration and the creation of new truths, we find that it
is not just our positions that are transformed, but
ourselves and the need for holding onto our older world
views dissipates. Letting go becomes a paradoxical way of
becoming more whole, even more powerful. We step
outside of the cave of our smaller selves and discover a
new world in which diversity of views becomes a treasure
to be sought out and not a threat to be eradicated,
excluded or converted.
We experience that our most valuable lessons come
from those whose ideas are most different from our own.
In fact, it is precisely because of their divergent views that
we come to know our own in intimate ways, as well as our
own purpose and our responsibility for contributing to the
whole. We stop seeing the world in terms of limitations
and dualities and start seeing the opportunities and
possibilities that are all around us all the time.
References
1. Chomsky, N. (2006), Science in the Dock, Science & Technology News.
18
c o n v e r g e n c e v o l 9 n o 1
Years of conditioning have taught us to
paint within the lines ... and stand in
lines, and sing the right words
16-18Jaquet.qxd 2008/04/07 06:01 Page 22