Reality: Elephant vs. Rashomon
PAGE IN PROGRESS
What you see here is a page of my hypertext book Me, Looking for Meaning. Initially empty, it will slowly be filled with thoughts, notes, and quotes. One day, I will use them to write a coherent entry, similar to these completed pages. See this post to better understand my creative process. Thank you for your interest and patience! :)
What you see here is a page of my hypertext book Me, Looking for Meaning. Initially empty, it will slowly be filled with thoughts, notes, and quotes. One day, I will use them to write a coherent entry, similar to these completed pages. See this post to better understand my creative process. Thank you for your interest and patience! :)
Reality as paradox (quote from Jung)
"Two things are true" from Good Inside
Another reason to embrace the Rashomon version: we are significantly limited in our attempts to comprehend, think, and talk about reality by language. Language is a tool, and at times it feels like a very crude tool, indeed.
when the argument is “I am right, you are wrong” (which is common for political polarization), it U.S. essentially about absolute truth. The subtext is, “one of us knows absolutely truth, and that someone is me”
I have previously tried to capture my understanding in the essay "You Are Not Wrong, You Are Incomplete" and in my book Media Is Us (for instance, in the section "The Worlds We Live In" (pp. 41-45)). However, I have to acknowledge that whatever I have written so far (including this very page) is merely my attempts to solve this conundrum. The question of truth is perhaps one of the most difficult and important ones humanity has grappled with, because it is essentially about understanding the world and ourselves.
In Media Is Us, I wrote that when we think about the contradictory nature of truth, "[a] well-known Indian tale about three blind men and an elephant comes to mind. According to the story, after touching the animal, each man came to a very different conclusion about it. They were all right, of course, but they were also wrong because every person argued that he was the only one who had found the truth. To understand what the elephant is, they would have needed to acknowledge the validity of each other’s experiences and to combine them, however contradictory those seemed to be" (p. 41). In this sense, I argued, we are all probably nothing more than "a bunch of 'blind men' studiously touching a rather indifferent 'elephant,' for the universe does not seem to care much what we think about it" (p. 43).
For a while I naively thought that the blind men and the elephant metaphor might help us make SOLUTION B real. I saw it this way: First, we acknowledge that everybody sees the world from different perspectives. Then we combine these perspectives (somehow), and voila! This did not seem particularly easy to accomplish. How do we combine everybody's perspectives in practice? But I guess it made me feel better to think that the ultimate Truth is kind of one big puzzle, and everybody holds a piece of it. And if we just manage to put these pieces together somehow, we will finally understand how things really are! But something in this solution was not clicking.
So I found another metaphor, an even less optimistic one this time: Rashomon. Rashomon is the name of a film directed by Akira Kurosawa, and it is based on a short story "In a Grove" by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa. In this story, we hear different people presenting their versions of dramatic events that involve betrayal, violence, and death. If the reader (or viewer of the film) hopes to piece together the truth by the end of the narrative, she will be bitterly disappointed. The story is teasing and frustrating: no matter how much you try to fit the pieces of the puzzle together, you might have to admit that is no ultimate answer, no all-encompassing truth to grasp, no way to understand what happened in the grove.
But something must have happened there! And if we work really hard, we should be able to find out what it was. Or, to bring back the first metaphor, the elephant does exist, so no matter how difficult it is for us to understand it, with the right tools it can be done.
This logic seems to make perfect sense. In an ordinary world that human being inhabit (not the quantum one, so let's put Schrödinger's cat aside for now), a specific glass either stands on a specific table, or it does not stand there. Both cannot be true at the same time. A Sun either revolves around the Earth, or it doesn't. And if you accuse me of slapping you, either I did it or I did not. Hence, if you argue that I slapped you and I argue that I did not, one of us must inevitably be right and the other one must be wrong. This simple logic explains why SOLUTION A outlined above has always been so attractive.
Indeed, in some cases SOLUTION A is the best one, and it works. If one of my kids says that the other one called him a silly word, and if I happen to have recorded their interaction, it is enough to listen to the recording to determine what actually happened. It could be helpful because then I can talk to the kids and explain the importance of not calling each other silly names that they don't like. Alas, most situations are infinitely more complex than that. (And I do not record my kids' interactions.)
It helps to distinguish between (a) reality = the way things are (and they certainly are some way!) and (b) truth = reflection in our minds and words of how things are (and this is where it gets tricky). I do not suggest questioning the existence of reality. The glass is either on the table or it is not; the Sun either revolves around the Earth or it does not; I either slapped you or I did not. In all these cases there is no third option that would somehow combine the first two. There is a reality that - theoretically - should be available for grasping. But I do suggest questioning human ability to capture actual complex reality through our mind and communicate about this reality using language. Because the actual reality is indeed infinitely more complex than a glass on a table. Reality = the way things are, where "things" are myriads of elements of the universe and their complex interrelationships.
Let's recap. When I argue with my political opponent and say (in essence), "You are wrong and I am right," what I am saying is, "I know the truth and you don't." It's good, first of all, to acknowledge the presence of the idea of truth hiding in this statement, as well as our assumptions about truth. And then it's good to wonder what it really means to know a/the truth about a topic or an issue. Because this topic or issue is likely to be much more complex than a question of whether there is a glass on the table, it is likely that each one of us has a grasp of some aspects of the topic or issue in question, but not all of the aspects. Each one of us has a perspective which is in some ways valid but is also incomplete, because it is after all a perspective: you see an issue from a certain point, meaning that you don't see it from other points. And this perspective is a certain truth, but not the whole truth. This is when the blind men and the elephant metaphor is helpful. In some situations we, indeed, could immensely benefit from learning to accept that our perspective/truth is partial and to combine it with our opponent's point of view in order to gain a deeper understanding of the issue at hand.
But this strategy does not always work. In fact, it often does not work, and we find ourselves in the confusing Rashomon-like situations. Why is that? Because for the blind men and the elephant metaphor to apply, our minds need to accurately reflect at least some aspects of reality most of the time. So, say, if we are arguing about an issue that have N amount of aspects, we just need a person per each of these aspects, then we need to record their perspectives and put them together. And - boom! - we have a complete picture. Following this logic, we might argue that, if we cannot finish the puzzle, it's simply because some voices are silenced and some perspective are ignored. This can certainly be a part of the problem, but trying to make sure that all voices are included - that all possible points if view are represented - is probably not going to be an ultimate solution, no matter how important it is to do.
The reason for our inability to grasp the truth is that the human brain often does not accurately reflect reality, it does not even accurately reflect its aspects. Why is that? Are we stupid? Are we flawed? No, the reason is that our individual minds are just not made for that. And this is not even a particularly new idea.
As an old adage goes, we don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. More specifically, each person sees things as this person is. And each person is a combination of human nature, individual traits, and all the circumstances of this person's life. There are some cognitive biases that we all share, but there are also individual ways of seeing the world that emerged as a reaction to our experiences; some of these ways of seeing the world are coping mechanisms that we developed to deal with less-than-ideal circumstances. You might think: "If only I (or my opponents) could get rid of all these biases and distortions, I (or they) can finally see the truth!" Unfortunately, it does not work this way. Cognitive biases are unalienable aspects of our brain functioning, and the line between insight and delusion can be surprisingly hard to find (and who's to say that people looking for this line are not somewhat delusional themselves?).
We might need to admit that our hope to be right (= to know how things really are = to grasp the/a truth) is nothing but a result of human hubris. For it's a sign of hubris to believe that because human beings are oh-so-special they can understand the world better than other (less rational or plainly irrational) animals; just as it is a sign of hubris for one human being to believe that this person has a way better view on the elusive elephant than their neighbor with, say, a different political affiliation.
The human brain, or a particular individual's brain, does not properly reflect reality not because this brain does not work well. Actually, our brains work perfectly fine most of that time, no matter how we live our lives. Our brain gives us access to the kind of truth we need, and that is not some kind of perfect absolute truth that the statement "I am right" presupposes. Our understanding of the world around us is supposed to be, first and foremost, functional. Which means that our "truth" is meant to simply help us survive as individuals and, most importantly, as a species.
Everything I have written so far is not meant to lead to passivity or despair: "If I cannot understand the world the way it is, there is no reason to try." Of course there is a reason to try, and to do the best we can. We should be curious explorers and tireless scholars. We should create new tools trying to understand the world as much as we can. We should compare our worldviews and disagree about them with passion. But we should also keep in mind that the truth we are dealing with is first and foremost functional.
From « good inside » : « Our ability to experience many seemingly oppositional thoughts and feelings at once—to know that you can experience several truths simultaneously—is key to our mental health. Psychologist Philip Bromberg may have said it best: “Health is the ability to stand in the spaces between realities without losing any of them—the capacity to feel like one self while being many.”*…. we are our healthiest selves when we can see that two (or more!) things are true.…We don’t have to choose a single truth. In fact, in most areas of life, we have multiple realities that don’t exactly add up. They simply coexist, and the best we can do is acknowledge all of them. »
difference between truth and interpretation; we always interpret things, we always see things from a certain perspective. Does not mean that things aren’t a certain way; but can we see them this way undiluted by our interpretation (meanings in our heads)? That’s why it’s so hard to do the first step of nonviolent communication- neutral observation instead of judgment.
And even if we take a specific aspect of the universe, it is unlikely to be described by one specific "truth" - one statement about it. It is true that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but there are also a million and one truths that can describe the Earth and the Sun. So arguing whether can can grasp the truth about something is also not very helpful. We might be able grasp one of the truths that describe this something, but not all of them. Does it mean that we understand the object/phenomena in question, or that we don't?
Does questioning the existence of truth mean questioning the fact that things are a certain way, they cannot be several ways at once (like in Rashomon)? But things are changing all the time, things are multilayered. Things may be "one way" but this one way might be infinitely complicated.
difference between truth and lie; we think that other people are wrong; but they are not wrong if they don’t lie, if they have their own truth, even if it’s based on biases, on cognitive distortions. We cannot dismiss what that know, what they think, what they feel as wrong or not true. It’s their truth. It has a reason to exist. We need to understand this reason to take it into account, instead of dismissing it as unimportant or unreal. For example: a child says that there is a monster under his bed. This is not truth only when it’s lie, meaning when the child knows that there is no monster but still says there is a monster. If the child believes there is a monster, it is his truth, and it needs to be reckoned with. But even if it’s a lie, there is a truth behind it. There is a reason why the child is lying (maybe he is desperately needing attention?), and this truth needs to be reckoned with as well. We cannot just claim that the only way to determine and account for truth is to look under the bed to check if there is a monster underneath or not. It’s easy to say: if there is a monster, he is saying the truth. If there is no monster, he is not saying the truth. That’s only one part or aspect of truth. Truth in a bigger sense cannot be determined by simple checking. And the reason is that truth is not a binary (something is either true or isn’t). Truth is infinitely more complicated. That does not mean that we should not check under the bed, and should not point out to the child that there is no monster (if we don’t see one). But we cannot just stop there.
Truths are essentially meanings. Each object, and each situation, has many possible meanings in a sense that can be looked at from different perspectives, understood differently, prioritizing some angles over others. (Barthes's Mythologies)
facts are considered truth but facts are also tricky. First, they are affected by language (how we formulate a fact matters, we can formulate fact differently- which of the versions is true? Fact is by definition limited. It’s like a frame to a little piece of reality. This piece is connected to many other things, directly and indirectly it is connected to everything else. Bot when you formulate the fact, you don’t show all these connections. Or you show some but no others. Fact is by definition incomplete (that’s why we want to say, “yes but” or “yes and”). Earth revolves around the sun. The sun revolves around the center of our galaxy, so the earth revolves around this center. Earth orbit is elliptical.
Both the Sun and the Earth orbit around the centre of mass of the solar system which is known as the solar system barycenter.
But if we look at it the other way around: saying that the sun revolves around earth is clearly wrong, but this is what it looks like from our perspective. For practical reasons, we can (and sometimes have to) choose one truth but we should always remember that other truths are always lurking around. In social relationships, the situation is infinitely more complicated. Like with power, truth works differently on the micro and macro level of society. It’s easier to state a truthful statement when we are being specific: person A hit person B. But if we zoom out, the situation becomes more complicated, and the more we zoom out the more complicated it is.
Escaping the binary there is truth vs there is no truth. We are now talking of situations when people see things differently, not when someone is lying. One thing is if I say the sun is yellow and you say it’s green because of how your eyes work. The other thing is when I know it usually appears yellow to the human eye but I say green because I want to confuse you. Because of the us/them mentality, we assume that people who disagree with us are bad and prone to lying; but people honestly see things differently. So we will leave lying out of the question. Matters of interpretation are much trickier because interpretations cannot be just discarded. They hold their own truth. Say, if we have a disagreement and you think I said something to insult you. We argue about intent. I might have said it without the conscious intent to insult you but I was angry and used a phrase that I know can be interpreted as insulting. Or maybe I was honestly trying to be supportive but you interpreted it as insulting because you are depressed. examples/cases to discuss: my fear of flying; elephants and blind men; sun or earth at the center of the solar system; my ring (looks different in different light). Truth and mental conditions (depression, anxiety). Arguing about whether you said something or not vs. interpretation of the phrase. A phrase is either uttered or not - there is no third option. But even thinking that you did not say something might be because you said it automatically (so it’s not a lie if you claim that you did not say it). Interpretation is another thing.
Challenges of logic: if you give five pieces of meat to a dog, how many pieces will the dog have? Is it logical to say 5, or 0 - because the dog will eat the meat?
from “we have no idea”:
” The quest to find a Theory of Everything is an attempt to do something we have never before accomplished in science: reveal the deepest, most basic truth of our universe.”
what does it mean to reveal the truth about the universe?
Do we even have tools for that (including language, which has not been very helpful)
there might be a difference between building useful descriptions and reaching the truth
we can have an explanation that the god of sun has the day begin when he starts crossing the sky in his fiery carriage. This will help us predict that every morning the sun will come up, but will it really be the truth?
By the same token, we can see particles as moving points in space or as excitation of the fabric of space (Quantum field theory states that particles are excitations of quantum fields that fill all of space) or as vibrations of tiny strings. Which one us truth?
We need to see the paradox of truth-seeking. It is something very important, but we should do it while always keeping in mind that absolute truth might be ever-elusive. Truth is a paradox because, while debating on an issue, we can be simultaneously right about some of its aspects and wrong about others. So can our opponent. Through a respectful dialogue, we might both refine our understanding.
Obviously, we need to look for truth in a sense of better understanding of things because this understanding will help us make better choices in our actions. There are real problems that society is facing, and we cannot just say that we cannot do anything because we cannot know the truth. My belief is that skepticism our ability to gain truth can actually help us move forward achieving our goals in a move efficient way.
truth is complicated and no one really has full access to it. In this sense, in many arguments, there is no "right" side and "wrong" side. I believe in this second solution, but formulating my ideas has not been easy.
A shared understanding of truth is important for the functioning of society. Examples: science and the justice system. We need to have this shared understanding for practical purposes. Having it does not mean that we cannot see its limitations.
Grannies from Bluey (fluidity/relativity of truth)
we live in the same physical reality, but interpretations differ
is the truth about physical reality or interpretations
Information: infodemic. Is the problem that somebody is trying to deceive others by pushing false information? Or is it that, because more voices can be heard, more information can be accessed, truth has become more contested, it’s more obvious that there is no one subjective truth?
We say "she is saying the truth" as if truth is something monolithic. Whatever a person is saying is made up of a combination of statements, some of them more or less factual, more or less colored by this person's opinions. When we read a book, see a film, listen to news, or talk to another person, we similarly encounter a mix of the three (facts, lie, opinion) or at least of the first two (admittedly, some people lie less than others). [scene from Inside Out where they say that facts and opinions get mixed up all the time].
Concerns about ChatGPT: it will make it even harder to get to the truth https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-ezra-klein-show-2/episode/a-skeptical-take-on-the-a-i-revolution-210560921?utm_medium=email&utm_source=sharpspring&sslid=MzKAAFMTcwtTM2MA&sseid=MzKAASMTI1MjAA&jobid=f3a7a616-9736-4693-9252-276da5a9d884
-not wars over truth but wars over meanings
truth, interpretation, perspective : same ring but I see different colors under different lighting. Is the ring really blue or purple? Or is it more important that the ring can be blue or purple depending on the light?
Truth: difference between truth and interpretation; we always interpret things, we always see things from a certain perspective. Does not mean that things aren’t a certain way; but can we see them this way undiluted by our interpretation (meanings in our heads)? That’s why it’s so hard to to the first step of nonviolent communication- neutral observation instead of judgment.
Rashomon trailer
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/
Schrödinger's cat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
The frame problem: meaning changes based on the context we include.
Why other people don’t see/speak truth: they don’t see it or they lie (that’s what we assume)
Book Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality
50 Cognitive Biases in the Modern World https://www.visualcapitalist.com/50-cognitive-biases-in-the-modern-world/
We Don't See Things As They Are: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/03/09/as-we-are/
ancient skepticism https://iep.utm.edu/ancient-greek-skepticism/
We interact not with the reality, we interact with meanings
We have access to reality knowable by the human brain.
Reality (from Why Buddhism Is True):
“There is a pretty uncontroversial sense in which, when we apprehend the world out there, we’re not really apprehending the world out there but rather are “constructing” it. After all, we don’t have much direct contact with the world; the things we see and smell and hear are some distance from our bodies, so all the brain can do is make inferences about them based on indirect evidence: molecules that waft across the street from a bakery, sound waves emanating from a jet plane, particles of light that bounce off trees.”
“Perception is an active, not a passive, process, a process of constantly building models of the world. That’s one reason different people see different things in the abstract ink blots used in Rorschach tests: our minds try to turn even the most ambiguous patterns into something that makes sense. We like to have a story about what things are and what they mean.”
[But we can also ask, "what is reality"? Modern technologies, especially AI, might make us ask these question more than we used to before. For example, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnDO6RKLTpk
Is this real?
How do we know?
What is, actually, real?
Connecting to the questions about truth.
My emotions are real, even if they make me see things in a certain way, that might be different from the way somebody else sees them.
And if someone is, what I think, delusional, aren't her perceptions also real in some important ways?]
epigraph from After the Laundry, the Ecstasy:
”You live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality, but you do not know this. When you understand this, you will see that you are nothing. And being nothing, you are everything. That is all.” Kalu Rinpoche
Reality: order created by human brain, order imposed on disorderly, chaotic universe. But maybe under this chaos there is another deeper layer of order?
About this project: Start page
