Bill

One of the topics of interest to me is the whole question of whether or not "Eastern" thinking is in some fundamental way different from "Western" thinking.

As a lead-in to that discussion, I would first note the distinction drawn by Terrence W. Deacon in his book The Symbolic Species between the mode of thought common to higher animals (and specifically, chimpanzees) and the mode of thought common to humans. There is a qualitative difference between animal and human thought. Human thought is characterized by thinking symbolically about abstract subjects. Animals lack that ability, and it would appear that it cannot be learned (i.e., the animal brain lacks the basic ability to be able to think like a human being).

So, is there just one species of human thought or is there more than one species of human thought? Is the mode of thinking between Eastern-trained minds sufficiently different from the mode of thinking of Western-trained minds so as to call it a distinct mode of thought?

Tied into the above question is the following series of ultimate questions:

• Can humans evolve a different, or even a higher mode of thinking?
• If so, will it require alterations to our physical brains, or just training our existing brains to think in a different way?
• Is is possible to train different groups of people to think in different ways and then to collaborate to achieve a greater goal for all?

There may be other related questions, and I'll try to think of them and post them later.

== Bill

I don't think that the style of thinking is different.

But when you come to specific cases we look at them with different perspectives.

Bill

A clarification required Your question and your comments on the mode of thoughts for animals and human beings ...does this have any bearing on ur perception about eastern vs. western thinking? Are you suggesting some sort of an analogy? Just wondering.

They are only different in the questions they want to tackle. The emphasis of the two is different. Westerners ask questions like, "What is true", "What is knowledge", "What is out there" and so on. Easterners started with a tradition of "How do I live"?

This accounts for most of the differences in their approach IMO.

DC
http://www.digitalchicken.net

[This message has been edited by DChicken (edited April 12, 2001).]

Are the thinkings different?

Yes, I believe so. But I feel that it is tied into socialization, not anything else.

IOW, I feel we can each learn to think the way the others do. I feel that some people are capable of doing that easily, some only think they can, and some never will. But it is possible.

Can humans evolve a different, or even a higher mode of thinking?

My dog, I hope so!

If so, will it require alterations to our physical brains, or just training our existing brains to think in a different way?

Both? But the latter first... I feel that the brain is an underused tool--- like a pentium 4 1.4 gig computer with 800M memory--- running DOS 2.3

We do not train the brain in the best fashion.

Is is possible to train different groups of people to think in different ways and then to collaborate to achieve a greater goal for all?

I would think so. I think that is a point behind think tanks and courses in 'thinking outside the box'

My college fiction teacher made a point the first half of the semester to strip us of all the rules we had been taught since we were children. We weren't allowed to use narration, or punctuation, or... you get the point.

Then, after pages and pages of crap had been turned in, we were got our rules back. The way we used them, however, was completely different. We had learned to think differently in 7 weeks.

However, several members of the class were not capable of forgetting the rules for the first 7 weeks. They ended up with no improvement in their work and hated the class.

So, I think we are all capable of learning how to think differently--- it is just harder for some and others don't want to.

Hi Bill!

I've just plunged into God's Chinese Son by the renowned Chinese expert and writer Jonathon Spence. I don't think you can get a better idea of comparing Western and Eastern ideas than their intersection in the body of Hong Xiuquan, who led the Taipings on their bloody, mad rampage through south and central China, and left the corpses of twenty million fellow-beings as a monument. Hong believed he was the younger brother of Jesus, and linked Chinese and Western messianic traditions.....

Personally it is hard for me to get my mind around the "east-vs-west" thinking issues. My understanding of "Eastern" thinking is based on practical interaction with thousands of Asians in Taiwan and elsewhere, and I tend to make a sharp distinction between what Asian thinkers said, and how Asians actually behave in practice.

On my extensive website on teaching English in Taiwan, I used to have a section on dealing with the Taiwanese, but I deleted it, because it offended the locals, and didn't help you unless you already knew what you were doing (in which case you didn't need it).

Another excellent introduction to the Chinese worldview, though now outdated, is Richard Hartzell's Harmony in Conflict, which is not available through Amazon. Hartzell was a long-termer in taiwan and a tireless advocate and activist on behalf of the foreign community. HiC was written during the martial law period, and thus is light on the underlying authoritarian nature of Chinese (and many Eastern) cultural behaviors. Nevertheless, it is extremely revealing, and quite funny.

Yet another excellent book is the savage, satirical The Ugly Chinaman and the Crisis of Chinese Culture which is without a doubt one of the funniest books I have ever read. Think of Bo Yang, the writer, as H. L. Mencken, squared. If you actually live and work in a Chinese community, it is priceless. Bo Yang was imprisoned in the 1970s in Taiwan for his biting wit and fearless truthtelling. He does exaggerate for satirical effect, but not by much.

On my own site, I wrote this at the end of the very short section on getting along:

....When you finally understand "harmony" and "face" as cultural postures for reinforcing authoritarian domination of society, you will have arrived. Most anthropological works are good for understanding the deeper roots of social behavior, but worthless as guides to behavior. In any case, they often skirt the issues of authoritarianism.

Finally, don't be fooled by politeness. Politeness is to Chinese culture what a pearl is to an oyster: a beautiful secretion around a major irritation. It is the opposite of being accepted. Its purpose is to keep you at arms length and under control. You know you are accepted when they start treating you like crap just like everyone else.

Michael

Does the eastern mind have better tolerance for the ambiguous or it is better equipped to be at peace with the unknown?

No.

Well that clarifies....

phaedrus wrote: Well that clarifies....

That must have been a Zen answer.

Frog.

Or maybe he's a Vorlon. (Babylon 5 reference.)

As I see it, Eastern thought tends to focus on the awareness of the holistic inter-relatedness of things (particularly in opposition to a fragmented, atomistic view) as the prime source of enlightenment. This is not to say that all Westerners are atomists, or that they all reject holism.

There is a strong thread of holism in Western thought coming from greek dialectics -- Aristotle is widely regarded as first philosopher to flesh this approach out. This dialectical approach to thought (not to be confused with dialectical materialism) involves looking at an issue from as many perspectives as possible in order to trace out the interrelationships.

I'm reminded of the story of the four blind men and the elephant. Each of the blind men can only feel a part of the elephant. One thinks it's a rope, another a tree trunk, another a wall, and another a snake. Think of the dialectical approach as putting together all of the descriptions to arrive at a more complete view of what is studied.

Perhaps the difference then is that the East tends to rely on mystical awareness of the interconnectedness of things, while the West takes a more philosophical approach, desiring to rationally understand those connections as much as possible.