I got back to Mumbai after weeks outside. Thankfully the house was in order except for a bit of dust around. There wasn't much to eat apart from almonds, walnuts and some old boxes of sweets. It is a bit of a struggle without having food handily available. I am now completely dependent on my social network; someone has to suggest meeting up, someone has to suggest that the meeting up happen over food etc.
When I started writing on this blog, I had two main objectives: a) getting used to writing and writing well so that I may someday use these skills to write a book or something worthwhile, b) to 'educate' the world through my ideas and observations. The second one was a bit of a stretch. But at times I do certainly feel that people out there really aren't very keen observers. There are some patterns of thought and reason which everyone resorts to.
A system of thought can be legacy; something that is passed down through generations and is a part of one's culture. But logic? Logic cannot be something that is passed down. Logic has absolute existence. The existence of logic is almost tautological. It simply cannot not-exist.
People have very skewed notions of what is logical. The human mind is to blame for this. For all the talk about human beings being intelligent, there is still a long way to go. We are no where close to being objective in our thoughts and analysis.
Being non-objective is necessary and important. If as a race, we weren't non-objective, we wouldn't have poetry, differing opinions, ideologies, etc. But it is important for people to be objective where necessary. I would say necessary is not the right word. Humans can survive without being objective at all; but being so makes life a touch easier. What do I mean by being objective?
Before delving into that, I want to get one thing out of the way. I hadn't paid the milkman for milk I bought in the month of January. The outstanding amount was some 520 Rupees. So last night I heard the bell ring at an unearthly hour: some 10:30 odd. It was him demanding his money. How did he know that I get scared in the night, easily, alone? The matter is now sorted; I paid him the money this morning.
When you are objective, your thoughts are uncoloured by feelings. You examine evidence for what it is and your logic is absolute, singular and not coloured by what your culture or upbringing has taught you. You maintain hypotheses to be hypotheses till the point there is credible and objective evidence.
There are so many instances in life where I see people rationalizing non-objectively. These people also claim that their rationalization is logical and objective. This is because their system of logic and reason in non-objective. Or rather the hypotheses on which their system of logic rests haven't been tested enough.
Another pet peeve of mine is what I want to term 'perceptual knowledge'. Simply put this is like saying "I know something; I cannot share it with you. You will have to realize it for yourself" (sounds familiar, doesn't it?) I think perceptual knowledge has some basic flaws. Knowledge by definition (my definition at least) cannot be perception based. Knowledge has to exist outside the mind for it to be knowledge. Perceptions are mere perceptions and there is no credible way to ascertain their truth. Or even better, the truth value of a perception is something that doesn't make sense.
The other major flaw is that perceptions by nature are products of the human mind. And the human mind is not objective. Putting it in another way, perceptions are mere chemical balances in the human nervous systems. This chemical balance needn't be driven by knowledge.
