Hi.
I saw this:
http://www.commongroundgroup.net/2013/0 ... s-another/
It talks about the pitfalls of "binary", "either/or" thinking. I was wondering if anyone had any comments on this from a Buddhist point of view.
The trap of binary thinking.
Re: The trap of binary thinking.
See, for example:
Hi sshai45,
Do these help?
Ajahn Buddhadasa – The Middle Way
Middle way = balance?
Mike
Hi sshai45,
Do these help?
Ajahn Buddhadasa – The Middle Way
Middle way = balance?
SN 12.15 Kaccaayanagotto SuttaAjahn Pasanno wrote: Although these passages portray the Middle Way as balancing two ends of a
continuum, there are other instances where the Buddha defines the Middle Way as a
precise approach that cuts through the continuum entirely. This is especially apparent
in passages where he discusses the Middle Way in terms, not of behavior or
motivation, but of Right View.
Mike
Re: The trap of binary thinking.
If you believe in logic then you are bound to binary thinking because a statement is either true or false, a reason does either apply or does not apply, something is rightly called "X" and when it is not so rightly called then it is actually "non-X".
Re: The trap of binary thinking.
Not necessarily. There are other logical systems.ground wrote:If you believe in logic then you are bound to binary thinking because a statement is either true or false, a reason does either apply or does not apply, something is rightly called "X" and when it is not so rightly called then it is actually "non-X".
Kim
Re: The trap of binary thinking.
Yes. What was said referred to "classical logic" (Dharmakirti, Dignaga) and debate which some buddhists are very interested in. E.g. "fuzzy logic" (and there are many other systems called logic) is applied to artifical intelligent systems but is not really applicable to debate.Kim O'Hara wrote:Not necessarily. There are other logical systems.ground wrote:If you believe in logic then you are bound to binary thinking because a statement is either true or false, a reason does either apply or does not apply, something is rightly called "X" and when it is not so rightly called then it is actually "non-X".
Kim
Re: The trap of binary thinking.
sshai45 wrote:It talks about the pitfalls of "binary", "either/or" thinking. I was wondering if anyone had any comments on this from a Buddhist point of view.
"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Ven. Sariputta said: "All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of five motivations. Which five?
"One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question with this thought,[1] 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well & good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Some pitfals are due to asking questions for unskillful reasons.
Some pitfals are due to answering questions in unskillful ways.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: The trap of binary thinking.
... so this statement ...
If your only tool is a hammer, you find that every problem begins to look like a nail.
Kim
... is false.ground wrote:If you believe in logic then you are bound to binary thinking because a statement is either true or false
I think of logic (binary or any other variety) as a tool and try to remember to use it when (and only when) it is appropriate.OP wrote:I saw this:
http://www.commongroundgroup.net/2013/0 ... s-another/
It talks about the pitfalls of "binary", "either/or" thinking. I was wondering if anyone had any comments on this from a Buddhist point of view.
If your only tool is a hammer, you find that every problem begins to look like a nail.
Kim
Re: The trap of binary thinking.
No it is correct because it reads if you believe in logic.Kim O'Hara wrote:... so this statement ...... is false.ground wrote:If you believe in logic then you are bound to binary thinking because a statement is either true or false
ground wrote:... because a statement is either true or false, a reason does either apply or does not apply, something is rightly called "X" and when it is not so rightly called then it is actually "non-X".
So you do not believe in logic.Kim O'Hara wrote:I think of logic (binary or any other variety) as a tool and try to remember to use it when (and only when) it is appropriate.
Re: The trap of binary thinking.
"Logic" is just another name for "circuit". "circuit" is an appropriate name in the context of logical thinking too because it refers to the circuit of neurons in the brain. Cultivating this kind of logical thinking people condition themselves to believe that the effects of this neuronal circuit corresponds to an (external) reality and so they become believers in logic and are bound to binary thinking.
-
- Posts: 10184
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: The trap of binary thinking.
I think there's a lot of truth in this section at the end:sshai45 wrote:Hi.
http://www.commongroundgroup.net/2013/0 ... s-another/
"Binary thinking is easy—okay, I’ll call a toad a toad—it’s lazy thinking. It spares us the effort of forming opinions based on fact, reason and values by insisting that if not A, then surely B. It spares us the embarrassment of admitting that we don’t have a grasp on the nuances of every situation or issue. It saves us the trouble of wading through the facts (and knowing when we have enough of them at hand), weighing the complex issues, understanding the dynamics, weeding out the distractors, and applying the relevant values and principles that go into comprehending what is going on around us."
Maybe it's about accepting uncertainty, admitting that we just don't know, that on many questions we will never have sufficient data on which to base an objective conclusion?
Buddha save me from new-agers!