CreaSentisciente

As pointed out in Critical and Creative Thinking, there are a number of contradictions in people that are generally repeated frequently. This leads us, first and foremost, to the sphere of coherence: can one be completely coherent? At all times?

I don’t think so. At least not until we can overcome the limits the limits that prevent complex thinking, and thus reach a higher evolutionary level of conscience, which is precisely achieved through coherence.

But we are still not there. And the vast majority of people are not there either. Because to achieve this, these contradictions would have to be resolved definitively, and I don’t think this is possible without training and practice. As I have already stated in other writings, one learns to think, to evolve, and to feel love, just as one can learn everything that is the opposite.

Let’s start with a common and frequent question: aren’t all problems solvable? On this, I can assert with certainty that they are not. Sooner or later, we will realize that not all problems have a solution, nor do all questions have an answer. At least not here and now. This opens two new fronts for us. First, if I accept that not everything has a solution or answer, I am already entering the realm of the multilogical problem, and I am opening the door to the complexity of thought. Second, focusing my attention on ‘here and now’ means placing my thoughts under the domain of conscious awareness. As we will see, this does not always happen, even when one is conscious.

Ultimately, I cannot attempt to be coherent without having gone through a learning or self-learning process; otherwise, I can only accept my contradictions (this could be the only way to be coherent, if we want to see it that way), because otherwise, any attempt to be coherent will only make me appear to be so. Contradictions will arise and increase the more we confront what we can think (a mind in motion) against what we can come to believe (a static idea).

Subjectivity vs. Objectivity

People frequently confront the search for an unattainable objectivity. That is, the opposition between what is relative and belonging to the subject, and what is relative and belonging to the object.

Let’s see what Antonio Damasio says:

‘There exists a self, but it is a process, not a thing, and the process is present at every moment in which we are supposed to be conscious. We can consider the process that is the self from two advantageous points of view. One is that of an observer who perceives and evaluates a dynamic object, that is, the dynamic object constituted by certain ways of functioning of the minds, certain traits of our behavior, and a certain history about our life. The second advantageous point of view is that of the self of the subject who knows, the process that gives an approach to the experiences we live and, over time, allows us to reflect on those experiences. From the combination of these two points of view will result the dual notion of subjective identity.’ (Translated from «And the brain created man,» Spanish edition, 2010)

This paragraph by Antonio Damasio serves several purposes. The first is to advance an essential principle, which is that all people ‘understand something,’ and this leads to the existence of various levels of understanding, among which the deepest is the pursuit of details.

But the practice of everyday life, which is the realm in which we live and work, is not a scientific activity. The constant search for details can lead us into the greatest darkness. Or to use a metaphor, it’s like Alice falling down the rabbit hole, not knowing when she will reach the bottom.

This seems to be another contradiction: if I don’t try to go into detail, am I developing complex thinking? Here lies the importance of establishing a purpose, a ‘why we do something.’ I want to emphasize that critical thinking, and creative thinking, complex thinking is a means, not an end in itself. They are intellectual tools to carry out our purposes.

Returning to Damasio’s text, his definition is an important effort to objectively explain the nature of subjective identity. However, in daily practice, what we seek are somewhat simpler concepts, as long as this is possible.

Subjectivity is the essence of the self. It is born with me. It develops in my conscious mind, resulting in the fact that my conscience is my conscience thanks to this essence, to this subjectivity. Because without a mind, there is no conscience. At least in the physical and biological plane of Reality in this world. And no one experiences more than one conscience in their life fully. That is to say, setting aside for a moment the spiritual nature of the human being, what is said here is a verified fact.

Let’s assume now that we ask a physicist how the human eye works (something that is well understood). From their explanation, we could infer these 2 things:

• a) ‘that all scientific knowledge is based on the senses’
• b) ‘that despite everything, the scientific descriptions of the natural processes thus elaborated lack all sensory qualities, so they cannot account for them, nor can they explain them’ (Translated from ‘Mind and Matter,’ Spanish edition, Erwin Schrödinger).

In other words, there is no real way to separate and distinguish what is relative to the object from what is relative to the subject. Everything I know, I know because I perceive and understand it through my senses. Senses that are part of me. Of the self. Of my subjective identity.

This raises an interesting question: is there any other way to perceive something, that is, within the realm of conscience, if not through the senses?

In summary, we can and must seek objective facts through the anachronistic or synchronic involvement of several conscious and thinking minds, but we will never find objective thoughts.

Emotion vs. Rationality

‘The mark of intelligent people is their ability to control emotions by applying reason.’ (Marya Mannes).

Emotionality is innate in human beings. We constantly feel emotions. Our emotional nature is an unquestionable fact. But the question would be whether this is truly clear. To raise the issue, let’s return to Antonio Damasio:

‘Emotions are complex action programs, largely automatic, crafted by evolution (…) The actions are complemented by a cognitive program that includes certain ideas and modes of cognition.’

‘Feelings are perceptions composed of a particular state of the body during the course of a real or simulated emotion, and a state of altered cognitive resources and a deployment of certain mental scripts (…) These perceptions are connected to the object that causes them.’

That is to say, we feel emotion when the action program results in a change in the bodily state. This makes sense at first glance. However, the use of terms like ‘action program,’ ‘certain ideas and modes of cognition,’ and ‘certain mental scripts’ does not provide us with much practical value for our daily lives.

Because if I now ask myself, what about when I feel love for my children? Do I feel a change in my bodily state? Or is love not felt? Is it an emotion? Or is it a feeling? And happiness? Is it correct to say that I feel happy?

Well, let’s put these questions on hold. Now let’s move on to rationality. We understand that something is rational when it is ‘in accordance with reason.’

One of the goals of critical, creative, and complex thinking is to learn to master the non-standard use of words. In other words, building our own thinking involves constructing our own definitions and purposes. And dictionaries do not serve this purpose.

Rationality is practically an organizational principle. For example, there is a rationality related to means-ends. If my ultimate goal is to achieve economic benefit, my action policy will seek to rationally adjust to this goal, employing concepts such as effectiveness and efficiency.

But the ultimate goal of developing complex thinking is not to obtain an economic benefit. We shouldn’t even establish an ultimate goal. Complex thinking only has one purpose: to be a tool. Thus, for our purpose, rationality as an organizing principle becomes ‘reasonableness.’ That is, establishing principles, concepts, and ideas that are reasonable. And since it is not possible to completely separate object and subject, if I am not reasonable, it is unlikely that my thoughts will be either:

‘Reasonableness is not pure rationality; it is a rationality tempered by judgment.’ (Matthew Lipman).

This point is very important. Carl Jung claimed that people cannot believe in something just because. A reasonable hypothesis is needed, even if that hypothesis does not follow the orders of logic. It should be considered that logic serves to provide consistency to reasoning, but that does not mean it is true.

Since there is no way to totally separate my subjectivity as a thinker from the objectivity of my thoughts, I won’t be able to be purely rational either. The only thing I can do is to become emotionally reasonable. The above would be like transforming into a new distinct version of being human.

Thinking in a complex way involves accepting these contradictions. Achieving the highest possible objectivity, within my subjectivity as a person, implies that I must be emotionally reasonable.

Some might call this ‘emotional intelligence,’ but I’ve never liked that term. I prefer my ‘emotional reasonableness’; it leans more towards balance.

(This article is part of a series of several more on complex thinking.)