a symmetrical bell-shaped curve that represents the distribution of values, frequencies or probabilities of a set of data. It slopes downward from a point in the middle corresponding to the mean value, or the maximum probability. Data that reflect the aggregate outcome of large numbers of unrelated events tend to result in bell curve distributions. The Gaussian or normal distribution is a mathematically well-defined bell curve used in statistics and science generally.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. This is a useful concept to define what is “mean”, “typical” or “(more value –laden) “normal”.
The interesting thing is that this bell curve also reflects our society. The Yin and Yan, the right and left, and the polarization of issues. It leads to the proposition that the middle can be defined only by and with reference to, the extremes. The result of such a proposition is tension, struggle, and (in the best of circumstances) compromise. This is a social practice of the philosophical thesis, antithesis and synthesis that most people can superficially relate to.
I would like to challenge the reader with some thoughts. Not yet fully formed, but half baking through my foggy brain. Close your eyes and imagine no longer a bell curve, but a baby bottle nipple. The very tip of the nipple is the “mean”. The edges of the nipple represent the outlying “extremes”. There are no longer two solutions, but are an infinite variation of solutions. In fact, there are many more solutions in the three dimensional model than in the two dimensional. The outlying solutions even have a greater relative number to the typical than found in the bell curve. The relationship between extreme and typical is altered, although only slightly. Of course, two solutions near each other on the edge are similar and “lumpers” will tend to argue they should be put together, but such is irrelevant for my purposes.
Given this type reflection, we do violence to ourselves by foreclosing our options in a two viewpoint world. It is not a question of right or wrong, but of where on a continuum do we want our actions to be? Applying this to driving a car, it is not whether we drive a car or not and where on the bell curve do we fall with the amount of car use we are willing to accept. Rather, there are legs, bicycles, motorcycles, busses, trains, planes and automobiles and the individual mix of use may depend not only on the curve of what you are willing or able to use, but on the circumstances surrounding the situation (one wants to get to a hospital FAST, as opposed to simply enjoying some scenery around the yard or neighborhood).
A simple concept, but hard to grasp in practice as it can always be lumped or reduced to two choices. Not a subject here, but I would suggest that is short sighted. A military survival manual once instructed me that when faced with a problem, you should come up with three solutions. Less, and you ignore facts. More and there is too much to make a decision. While I may not agree totally, this illustrates the fact that too much lumping simply does not meet the needs of society.
Now, I would like to challenge the reader further. Close your eyes again. The nipple now closes upon itself and becomes a ball. The edges are the outer surface, and the “mean” is the middle. Denser and heavier in the middle, more spread out and loosely connected on the outer edge. The range of options has now expanded dramatically. We have put decision making in three dimensions. Right and left have become irrelevant. One still defines the normal by reference to the outside in the sense that you cannot find the middle without the extremes. This is really just an extension of the nipple, but one I think about for a reason. It has three dimensions. It is not yet too far outside our realm of thinking.
Finally, take the last leap. Put the ball in the fourth dimension of space time. THE BALL MOVES! The middle and the edges flow inward and outward. They are not static. The yin and the yan are inextricably the same. As the ball moves whole new ideas which were not within the original ball are covered, and whole modes of thinking are no longer part of the ball. Ideas grow which were never thought of before and old ideas disappear from reality. The “norm” is not static in any way.
Critics may say my thoughts reduce things to relativism. I tend to think not. There is, after all, still a ball in space. But is it not much more difficult to argue, or even hate, an idea or person when you realize that the idea or person is temporal? Is it not easier to accept other people, other ideas, and discard things that are no longer useful when you see that it is a normal part of the universe? And in so doing any negative feelings that normally accompany such things also are temporal and can be put in perspective.
Think of any problem you need to deal with, get away from yes or no, in or out, on or off. Open yourself to the world of possibilities and see if there is something different that works for you and know that if it works for you, it is not wrong.
Peace, and unrest.
No comments:
Post a Comment