Last Explanation … Hopefully
The
following is based on an email I sent to a senior academic/educator in a world
renowned university.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
...........
.......................
.......................
..... I feel
that you haven’t quite grasped the essence of their (my writings) message; your concern about
my exclusion of the economics discipline and sending the writings to only those
of the six disciplines cited in the writings is indicative of this inference (more
on this below). (See also PS)
The core
problem discussed in my writings is very simple and fundamental – elementary,
if you will, and arises simply from the very nature and functioning of our
brains.
More
specifically, it has to do with the
disposition of our brains that limits our ability to understand anything to what is in the
information bases in them (see paragraph 3 of boxed quote in
“8 – A Fresh Viewpoint” on this blog). This is the basic cause of the
problem and leads to the natural/inevitable outcome of barriers to our understanding of fellow humans (and
also issues) since the information base
of each individual would differ from that of another person. This is the
essence of the problem my writings had tried to deal with.
The
differences in the information bases in turn arise from three primary
overlapping sources: i) differences in individual experiences, which are
outcomes of each person’s interaction with the outside world and thus would be
different for each individual, including identical twins brought up together; ii)
differences due to our belonging to different cultures – both at the macro level
such as various ethnicities or tribes or localities and at the micro level such
as in family settings within these more or less homogeneous larger groups; and iii)
differences arising from specialization, which is the global norm today. Of the three areas, (i) is basic, and (ii) and (iii) can be seen to be subsets of it, but given their weight, they have been
given due emphasis.
The
two-step solution outlined in the writings is a direct measure to counter the
effects of these differences by providing an effective means to bridge the gaps
that result from those differences and minimize and/or eliminate the damage those
differences are responsible for inflicting on humanity at large.
Given the
nature of the problem outlined above and given the lack of an effective measure
to counter that problem in the current world education system, it can be said that
it now lacks the necessary awareness. To
be sure, there are vague notions of “awareness” and correspondingly sporadic efforts
in the academic circles aimed at finding “solutions.” And yet the nature of the “problem” is not
clearly understood, and as such, “solutions” put forth to counter vague notions
of “problems” are no more than efforts to grope in the dark. A clear
and precise understanding of the nature of the problem is necessary for
effective remedy – the same way modern medicine relies on clear and precise understanding
of how the human body works rather than the dubious practices of the centuries
past which had relied on trial and error (this kind of hocus-pocus, though, can be effective
for a very small group of illnesses that respond positively to the “placebo effect”).
This is not
to say that every problem can be expressed in simple terms; in fact, most
complex problems cannot be reduced to simple terms. But as we saw above, our problem, while complex,
could fortunately be reduced to its root causes that can be expressed in simple
and accurate terms. And we now have a crystal clear understanding of the
nature of our problem. Given the nature
of the problem as outlined, the simple and straightforward two-step solution
suggested, while partial, also seems to be logical and reasonable.
The purpose
of sending my writings to the 35,000 or so world academics/educators is three
fold: i) to get them to assess the nature of our problem, and whether or not
they find my analysis accurate; ii) to get them to come up with an alternative
analysis, if they have any; and iii) to pave the path for incorporating
agreed-upon solutions into the world education system so that the current sad situation
can be improved and a high level of human wellbeing achieved. Of course, foremost in the effort was raising
awareness – which most of them presently lack; if they had, they would have
already solved our problem. The
continued existence of the problem with its devastating impact on humanity is clear
evidence that the world education system currently lacks the required
understanding and, as a direct result of
this lack, the willpower to rectify the problem; for when we are
genuinely convinced that something is terribly wrong, we act strongly to
rectify the situation, as evidenced by the multitude of social movements the
world over. Hence their indifference may
very well be indicative of their lack of
awareness of even the existence of a problem, or regarding those
with vague notions of “a problem,” a lack of clarity of its nature and thus how
it can be effectively rectified.
(Paragraph 9) As to the exclusion
of the economics discipline, it is clear that my writings are not about social
policy; they’re about the failure
to come up with viable policy and which failure is caused, in large part, by the problem outlined.
Here are the reasons for the choice
of the six disciplines mentioned in the writings: education was chosen because, as would be clear from them, the
solution to our problem resides with that discipline; philosophy was included because it is the integrating
discipline of human knowledge (please refer to the long quote from Professor
Will Durant’s book The Story of
Philosophy at the end of “2 – Education and Fundamentalism”); psychology and communication were included since
the essence of the problem is rooted in them both – one talks of one’s
inability to “reach another across gaps”; this is psychological and
communicative in nature at one and the same time; in fact, in “5 – Further
Illumination,” I described them to be “two sides of the same coin”; and sociology and political science were included
since our problem has widespread sociopolitical repercussions globally and the analysis of
such impacts falls within their domain.
I don’t see
any scope for the economics discipline in this scheme of things – in our effort
to analyze the various facets of our problem and to come up with a viable
solution. If we were discussing social
policy, the economics discipline would certainly be central to the effort. And if we were to broaden the scope and aim for
comprehensiveness, mathematics would be a most eligible candidate since a high
level of analytical capability is central to it, but given its rather abstract nature, I chose
not to include that discipline.
As to the
source of the concept of “simplicity” vs “complexity” of knowledge, I believe I
read fragments about it in numerous sources; I don’t remember exactly. Regardless of where I read about it, or
whether I read about it at all, the concept is a direct corollary of the
discussion of my writings: those with knowledge limited to one discipline would have a
simple mindset while those with knowledge that covers multiple disciplines
would have a complex mindset. The
“Social Judgement Theory” of social psychology sheds ample light on the
different approaches to social situations by those two groups – hence the
notion of “social judgement.” I believe that the concept underlies the
saying “travel broadens the mind” – for those exposed to cultures other than
one’s own would know that there are other ways of life, and that it is not as
simple as it appears. If I’m not
mistaken, Plato was beneficiary to this; during his travels to cope with his
grief following the death of his mentor and friend Socrates, he encountered
more viable ways of organizing the state than he had in mind when he left Athens Maldives
I suggest
you read the writings again carefully – slowly and reflecting / contemplating on
what is being said rather than in the manner you’d read a student’s term paper,
with an eye on finding faults / inconsistencies; the frame of mind
arising from this falls into what psychologists call “counter-arguing” and
would naturally and inevitably divert one’s focus from the logic
presented. It is quite likely that this
unfocused state of mind is the main reason that made you loose sight of the big
picture.
I hope the
above discussion was useful and clarified issues that were hitherto vague. And I apologize if the way I chose to express
my thoughts had made you uncomfortable. (I’ve
a reputation for being blunt, which is apt to make people feel uncomfortable.)
.............................
..........
..........
PS:
I’m uploading this email to my blog; in fact, it has been written with
this in mind. The reason is, given that an
eminent professor of your stature at a respected university could not quite grasp
the simple central message of my writings, it is likely that it would be the
case for a significant number of others to whom they were sent. And I thought I’ll make a last effort to help
them understand – which, after all, cannot be forced.
PPS:
To help you with easier reading, I’m attaching the PDF version of all
the eight pieces I wrote thus far, which were sent to the academics/educators
on my mailing list, yourself included, plus this new one.
*********************************************************************************
Besides
attending to our problem outlined here, there are other areas that are in need
of improvement in the world education system if it is to contribute optimally
to create a better world. Instilling in
children values that are in tune with the world we are living in is one such
important area, since the right values instilled in them would help make them better
adults, and the world a better place. I’ve
referred to values (see below) many times in the writings, but I purposely avoided
dwelling on them and similar issues for numerous reasons, among them: i) the
problem being discussed is core and apparently rather difficult to comprehend, perhaps
because one’s vanity can’t quite accept its inevitable psychological implications;
ii) to keep focus on the most important issues, which in turn would help keep discussions
manageable; iii) any discussion of “values,” in particular, would be a thorny/sticky
issue since everyone would want to include their beliefs in discussions; iv)
core issues could be agreed upon through an international effort, perhaps a
forum gathered specifically for the purpose, and those core concepts can be
adapted by different nations to suit their specific needs.
Naturally,
any international forum would require careful preparation. What I have in mind in this regard is that
this phase should require informal cross-discipline and in-depth dialogue among
a sufficient number of senior academics / educators from all the six disciplines
and an agreement on core issues should be reached. There should not be any
papers. (No single person in any given
field is likely to produce a comprehensive, balanced, and viable solution;
papers with unrelated, divergent side issues would form a big impediment to
reach agreement.) An agreed-upon communiqué
should do. And only those who can provide
their expertise for promoting human wellbeing – rather than enhancing academic fame
by promoting their papers – should be invited.
Funding also need be sought to provide the participants
sufficient / reasonable compensation.
Given that
basic agreement on core issues is to be reached in these informal encounters,
the bulk of heavy lifting would be done at this stage, and the larger gathering
would primarily formalize or ratify agreed-upon concepts of this preparatory stage. Even at this larger forum of (limited) international
stature, participation would be limited to academics/educators. But to enhance smooth implementation, it
would help to include in it (academic) representatives of key governments involved and relevant international organizations such as UNESCO. Also, to facilitate a smoother ratification
process in the formal setting, issues agreed-upon in the preliminary stage should
be passed to participants of this larger quasi-international forum and their
informal online dialogue with the preparatory group enhanced before the face-to-face
meeting in the larger forum.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Values: I believe
that currently there is a vacuum of responsibility as to who is to instil appropriate
values in the young, and this is a global phenomenon. Unlike earlier eras when adults used to pass
on the wisdom of the past to the young, the modern family, often with both
parents working, seems to be unaware or unable or unwilling to face this responsibility;
this may be largely due to the fast-changing nature of today’s world in which many
values of one generation become practically irrelevant for the next. And neither the parents nor the school system
currently takes that responsibility, perhaps each implicitly thinking that it should
be the responsibility of the other, and children grow up without proper
guidance to the right path. But in view
of both the fast-changing and complex nature of today’s world, parents, even if
willing, would be largely ill-equipped to handle the task. This naturally shifts the burden to the
system. It would also be more practical
/ feasible since today children are at the disposal of the system from an early
age and for increasingly longer periods on a daily basis, and since it also has
the potential to undertake the task. Thus
what is required is to gear-up the system to do a good job – to transform it from
the current state of a total lack of awareness about the societal need for core
values in its young that will enable them to be good citizens (meaning, be able
to deal with responsibility and compassion both fellow human beings and the
environment, both natural and human-made) to the state of being both aware and able
to handle the job effectively and efficiently.
(This is apart from its being geared to instil in children an attitude
to communicate with their mates and also adults with empathy and to teach the
youth the basic techniques of effective communication and related psychology.)
