SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2018: NOTE TO FILE
The Two Types of People
In this world and possibly on it
Eric Lee, A-SOCIATED PRESS
TOPICS: ABANDON SHIP, FROM THE WIRES, CORNUCOPIAN OPTIMISM
Abstract: The "two types" is a game everyone can play and many do, but sometimes play can lead to insight, as in asking if, among the infinite catagories of the concept-forming mind, there are two types that matter. What if the view of life, the universe, and everything embraced with enthusiasum by most humans is based on error, ignorance, and illusion? Is it possible to know that one doesn't know? That one is sick-minded? If so, is the one who knows they are sick-minded truly sick-minded? If not, then there are two types of people....
TUCSON (A-P) — Let's start by putting an old joke behind us: 'There are two types of people in the world, those that think there are two types of people and those who don't'.
But seriously, there are only 10 types of people: Those who understand binary and those who don't. Or for another example, take the ASCII value of each letter in your legal name, including spaces (ASCII=32) and add the year, month, and day of your birth (Gregorian calendar). The resulting number, in binary, will end in a one or zero. So there are two types of people in the world: Zeros and Ones. The probability of being one of these two types is one hundred percent, and you probably have a fifty percent chance of guessing which type you are, assuming you're a typical know-nothing human who doesn't already know.
This leads to the Panglossian Conjecture: There are an infinite number of two types of humans (including those who know Greek root words, and those who don't). Corollary: None of the them tell us anything about reality, other than about the one doing the parsing. Which is to say, all 'two types' are as evaluated by the one doing the bifurcating secondary to the dualistic bias of the human concept-forming mind.
It is possible to put all humans into multiple types, tens of types, hundreds of types..., billions of types, but that gets messy, well beyond the capacity of our conceptualizing brains to deal with. Two works, sometimes three or a few more, but humans function, sort of, only within severe limitations.
So to make the 'two types' claim (your typology) of interest, think of the set of all humans, living and dead, and into what two 'types' you would put them, with the understanding that you may only learn something about yourself and others (if they share their parsing), by doing so.
If you think about it at length and conclude that there really are two types of people in the world: Those who have accepted Jesus into their hearts (are saved) and those who haven't (are not saved), then there is a high probability of your self-identifying as a Christian. Some in the set of the saved are 'true' Christians and others fall short, so your next bifurcation is likely to be along the lines of dividing the set of all 'Christians' into two types, perhaps 'evangelicals' and 'solemn pretenders' or 'tools of Satan'.
So consider it a game that involves some risk of learning about yourself. To play, think about 'it' and see what comes to you. To practice what I'm sort of preaching, I decided to play the game and, well, Muhammad (PBUH) forgive me, to share.
I Bifurcate
I like to reference sources, as I've never had an original thought, and so my starting point is something I recall reading that Zhuangzi said about 24 centuries ago: "He who is sick-minded, but knows he is sick-minded, is not truly sick-minded." Zhuangzi, being several orders of magnitude smarter than I, may have had an original thought, but in this case he was merely repeating, after his own fashion, what his smarter teacher, Laozi, noted in the Tao Te Ching:
71. SICK-MINDEDNESS
Who knows that he does not know is the highest;
Who (pretends to) know what he does not know is sick-minded.
And who recognizes sick-mindedness as sick-mindedness is not [truly] sick-minded.
The Sage is not sick-minded.
Because he recognizes sick-mindedness as sick mindedness,
Therefore he is not [truly] sick-minded.
"Knowing that you do not know is the best. Not knowing that you do not know is an illness.... True words are not pleasing. Pleasing words are not true.... He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know." To which Zhuangzi adds, "Who knows this knowledge without knowing?" Zhuangzi was perhaps the better wordsmith/concept-monger than Laozi, but that's not saying much.
Note that per Laozi, who should know if anyone, the Sage is not [truly] sick-minded only because he/she is aware of his/her sick-mindedness, therefore Laozi of the 'Mystic Female' fame, is my source for the claim that all humans, without exception, are sick-minded. One exception would prove me wrong. Pre-verbal humans, may be an exception, but once the mouth starts motoring.... The set of all sick-minded parses into those who know they are sick-minded and those, the vast majority, who do not [yet] know they are sick-minded.
The human condition, resulting in the human predicament, is characterized by error, ignorance, and illusion, which is secondary to our sick-mindedness. Are humans sick-minded by nature? Assuming other primates, mammals, and animals are not 'sick-minded' and that we modern not-so-naked apes are, then how and when did we become like the rats and mice in a Calhoun experiment, living in a human zoo? The obvious first guess would be that we of the overly complex societies, who are not living in nomadic bands of five to eight-five (typically 20-60), are the product of a social system that selects for sick-mindedness.
State-level societies like our own (all prior ones, as historians note, having failed) are not 'natural' in terms of human biology such that no humans have yet designed a complex society that lasts or that they can live in with a 'natural' life intact. Chiefdoms differ in their lesser degree of complexity, but they look like early empire-building wannabe state-level systems in the making because they are.
Tribal level societies may be a late development in hominid development. Nomadic family bands are foundational. Regional area bands sharing a tribal identity implies a level of memetic complexity that pre-Homo ancestors would not have known, assuming they lacked our level of verbal/conceptual complexity. In some areas having high environmental resources, paleolithic humans developed fixed villages or gathered to build monuments, which is a departure from roving extended family band life.
But the foundational pathology may have developed well before epipaleolithic or neolithic times. Perhaps 40 to 70 thousands years ago is a better guess. When ancestors of modern humans about 70 thousand years ago numbered a few thousand, perhaps what was selected for was complexity of verbal behavior and concept forming minds (or denial), which doesn't show up in the fossil record and hence did not trigger a new species name (Homo sapiens narrator) that the memetic change justified.
The hominid linage gave rise to the storytelling animal who are still telling stories and believing them. Telling stories is not pathological, however. Believing one's own stories, finessing others to believe one's stories, being finessed into believing stories, i.e. being a believer is pathological. "Who (pretends to) know what he does not know is sick-minded."
That the believing mind arose, creating a legion of concept-mongering true believers, is what-is. That the transition required the evolution of complex verbal behavior to enable storytelling is a given. The question is when did the transition to true believer occur and what are the ramifications? Only humans can suffer error, ignorance, and illusion on a scale that matters as forming concepts, telling stories, involve all three conditions.
Only scientists, usually having learned the hard way, seem to realize that their first best guess is most likely wrong and seek correction by listening (better) to Nature. Science is the endeavor to tell the most likely stories about Nature, the nature of things, and with respect to every guess, the question is how wrong is it? How fragmented and partial? Complex systems are not only more complex than we know, they are more complex than we can know. "Who (pretends to) know what he does not know is sick-minded."
,
As for those who are sick-minded but don't have a clue that they are sick-minded, error, ignorance, and illusion are their lot, of which, being in denial, they understand nothing. The clueless may be ineducable by Nature or human teachers, though they may learn a few things the hard way. As for the sick-minded who know they are sick-minded, they tend not to celebrate their pathologies, but to endeavor to understand them and to some extent be delivered from them. Doubt, an ability to question everything, is celebrated. A mind in a state of inquiry naturally follows as the dawn the night. The inquiring mind is counter to the believing mind and with unknowing comes deliverance from the condition of being had by beliefs. To have beliefs is to be had by them. Understanding this dynamic is deliverance from it. Sanity creeps in on little cat feet, or rather pathologies weaken their grip, allowing the mind to learn, to function better.
