The parable of the blind people and an elephant is a well known story told of a group of blind people who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it…

 

A group of blind people heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: “We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable”. So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said, “This being is like a thick snake”.

 

For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind person who placed their hand upon its side said the elephant, “is a wall”. Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.

 

In some versions, they come to suspect that the other people are dishonest and they come to blows. The meaning of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people’s limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.

 

The parable originated in the ancient Indian subcontinent, from where it has been widely diffused. One of the earliest versions is apparently found in the Buddhist text Tittha Sutta, Udāna 6.4, Khuddaka Nikaya dated to around c. 500 BCE, during the lifetime of the Buddha.

 

For more information visit:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

 

The following is an excerpt from the book – ‘The Wrong Way Home; Uncovering the Patterns of Cult Behavior in American Society’ by Professor Arthur Deikman who published on cult behaviours examining their occurence in everyday circumstances. One of the behaviours he identifies as intrinsic to cult behaviour is the practice of devaluing the outsider. In the section of his book focusing on this he relates the following interesting annecdote about Abraham Maslow, possibly most famous for his placing of needs into a hierarchical scheme:

 

“In every person’s life, given a psychologically threatening situation, devaluation can extend to friends with the consequence that slights and insults may be perceived when none are intended. I remember hearing Abraham Maslow, the psychologist who helped create humanistic psychology, as he reminisced about his life and spoke of his sense that his own death was near. Shortly before, he had made a pilgrimage across the United States to visit all the people with whom he had once been friends but had fallen out.

 

He wanted to understand what had happened. What he learned was sad, ironic, and hopeful at the same time. In each case he and the friend had had an interaction whose meaning was ambiguous; Maslow might have ignored an invitation or the other person might have behaved coldly toward him. Of all the possible explanations that he or his friend considered at the time—he’s worried about his job, he forgot, he is ill, he’s angry at me, he dislikes me—each placed at the top of the list the explanation that which was least flattering to himself. And in every case they were wrong.

 

I call this the Maslow principle and frequently tell the story to my patients, since the problem comes up so often. Even in daily life, it is often hard to realize that the other person is just like us, to see him or her at eye level. Almost everyone tends to give a negative interpretation to another person’s behavior in ambiguous situations. When we do this, it seems logical; when someone else does it, we find it paranoid and hard to believe.”

For more information:

raggeduniversity.co.uk/2022/09/13/cult-devaluing-the-outsider

 

Taking these primers I have been thinking about what actual proof there is that can help take my thinking beyond the binary, beyond the dichotomous, past the feelings and sentiments which so often seem to create conflict balanced on some sense of mutual exclusion.  What evidence is there to underpin the occurence of the parable of the blind people and the elephant, and how might this pertain to our daily lives on basic levels as much as how it might speak to macro levels ?

 

I came across the Round-Square-Triangle as a geometric solid which seemed to offer this. I picked this up from Mark Proffitt’s website and work where he offers the following brainteaser:

 

Can you imagine a single solid object that is simultaneously a Circle, a Square, and a Triangle without altering its form in any way?

 

 

The above geometric solid is what Mark Proffitt called the ‘Round-Square-Triangle’. Viewed from one angle a single solid is a circle; viewed from another, it is a square; and viewed from another, it is a triangle. Here is a video demonstrating it:

 

 

For more information:

roundsquaretriangle.com

 

My musings are that this object may offer a mathematical proof for situational knowledge which may help us move beyond unhelpful binary ways of framing reality and reveal the nature of some systems problems in public junctures.  Who is right ? Sometimes everyone; sometimes no one.  This is a demonstration of the severe limits of singular and binary accounts of the world – they make us all stupid.

 

I would love to have had the opportunity to have had a coffee with Donella Meadows. Drop me a line if you can see any issues; it is helpful to become aware of what I have not perceived.

 

Happy Vernalising

 

Alex Dunedin