Allegories of Perception

The Blind Man and The Elephant

The parable of The Blind Men and The Elephant appears to date back to the Tittha Sutta in around 500 B.C and there are many variations of it.

In simplest form, the parable describes a group of blind men who encounter an elephant for the first time. They each touch the elephant and try to explain what it is, based on what they each feel. Each man only feels a certain part of the elephant - the first man touches the trunk and says the elephant is like a thick snake, the second touches the tusk and says the elephant is like a spear, and so on.

Each man, only able to describe what he directly feels, is partially right about what the elephant is, but each man is also wrong about the full picture. None can correctly identify the animal in front of them as an elephant, because none can see or perceive the full being.

Plato’s Cave

In Plato’s Cave or the Allegory of the Cave, a group of people have lived their entire lives chained to the wall of a cave, facing a blank wall. There is a fire behind them, so objects passing in front of the fire cast shadows on the wall. The prisoners in the cave can only see the shadows, and believe the entire world is made up of these shadows. They cannot perceive of the objects casting the shadows. Again, they are perceiving just one narrow slice of reality and may be correct about this one aspect, but cannot perceive of the full picture.

Flatland

In Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions by Edwin Abbott (which everyone should read!), the narrator is a square (imaginatively named “Square”) who lives in a two-dimensional world. Inhabitants of this world are geometric two-dimensional figures - women are lines, and men are polygons with various numbers of sides. On New Year’s Eve 1999 (the 3rd Millennium), the Square dreams of a visit to a one-dimensional world, Lineland. In this world, men are lines and women are points. Being one dimensional, the lines and points of Lineland cannot see the Square as anything other than points on a line. The Square cannot persuade the inhabitants or the monarch of Lineland of the second dimension, and the monarch attempts to kill Square.

Square is then visited by a sphere - however, being two-dimensional, Square cannot view the three-dimensional Sphere as anything other than a disk. Sphere tries a number of ways to persuade Square of the third dimension - from levitating up and down through Flatland, using analogies, etc. None of Sphere’s attempts are successful - Square cannot perceive the third dimension. Finally, Sphere takes Square out of Flatland to the third dimension, “Spaceland.” It turns out that Sphere visits Flatland at the start of each new millennium to introduce a new apostle to the idea of a third dimension, hoping that the apostle will educate Flatland about this realm. However, from Spaceland, they witness the leaders of Flatland acknowledging Sphere’s existence but then imposing silence about this reality and massacring or imprisoning witnesses to it.

As Square learns about, and accepts the third dimension, it occurs to him that other dimensions may be possible. He tries to convince Sphere of the theoretical possibility that a fourth dimension and perhaps others exist. Sphere is not convinced and returns Square to Flatland.

However, Square then has another dream in which the Sphere revisits him to introduce him to a zero-dimensional dimension, Pointland. Point is the sole inhabitant and monarch of Pointland and the entire universe, and perceives any communication as a thought in his own mind. Point simply cannot conceive of anyone but oneself.

Once Square returns to Flatland, he cannot convince anyone of the existence of Spaceland. Official decrees are also announced which states that anyone preaching the existence of three dimensions will be imprisoned or executed. Square is imprisoned (along with his brother) and cannot convince anyone, not even his own brother, of the existence of the the third dimension. He therefore writes Flatland as a memoir for a future generation who may, one day, see beyond their two-dimensional existence.

Flatland can be seen as a commentary or satire on Victorian social classes, but to me, it is most powerful as a story which illustrates that we are necessarily limited by our own perception of the world, which seems entirely objective and true to us. If there are other dimensions in this world, it may be that it will be impossible for us to perceive them.

Grains of perception in our world and time

There are many ways to explore how the above three stories relate to us humans living in what is now 2024. From a religious or metaphorical perspective, some argue that all religions may be analogous to the group of blind men describing the Elephant - all religions are trying to describe the nature of God and all are correct about the specific part of the nature of God that they can feel and experience, but wrong about the rest. Many religious writers have argued that humans are blind to God in the way that Plato’s prisoners are blind to the objects casting the shadows on the wall, and are Flatlanders in our inability to perceive of the Heavens, Hell, and God. I find these viewpoints fascinating, and religion and theology are one of my many interests.

However, where I most acutely relate to these allegories in today’s world is in political and social conversations. I am fortunate enough to belong to various clashing worlds, and often find that there are gains of truth in many sets of conflicting worldviews - it’s just that they may be limited in perception, missing an important piece of the puzzle, or unable to comprehend the opposing worldview’s frame of reference.

As our political debates appear to get more and more polarised and fractured, it is more important than ever to remember that the tension, dialogue and debate between opposing ideas and frameworks have the best chance of leading us to a balanced structure and a fuller picture of reality. Indeed, any one framework or ideology without this healthy tension and feedback is at risk of producing extreme, dangerous outcomes. This does not mean we all need to become centrist duds - we are free to consider other perspectives, try them out, and reject them.

Personal responsibility vs collective responsibility

This may all sound very theoretical and fluffy, so let’s just take one small example: The tension between personal responsibility and collective social programmes. To put it very, very crudely (and therefore, not entirely accurately in terms of the nuanced shades of grey that many people operate in), those on the “political right” (whatever that means in today’s topsy turvy political climate) often argue for more personal responsibility for those in unfortunate circumstances (“pull yourselves up by the bootstraps”). On the other hand, those on the “political left” (again, whatever that means today) often argue instead for the need for more social programmes, more funding say for schools, teachers and the National Health Service (“you need boots to pull yourself up by the bootstraps - why not give people boots?”).

However, these two perspectives have always struck me as being two sides of the same coin - to give people boots, we need enough people to have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, started walking, and have made extra boots; once we give people boots, they should pull themselves up at the bootsteps, at least until perhaps the boots break. When that happens, we will need more boots to have been produced by people who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and carried on walking. And so on, or so on.

To apply this to real life, when it comes to tackling a big social problem, for example, the funding of the National Health Service and social care, we could benefit from both perspectives. We can and should look into providing the necessary funding for social care, health care, and disability care. However, equally, if every single person in the UK today took personal responsibility to the fullest extent possible for their own health, could we not save all our social and health care services a tonne of money, freeing services up for those most vulnerable?

By some Gov.uk estimates, our NHS in the UK spends about 40% of its costs on treating preventable diseases - so if we each made the lifestyle and diet changes in our own hands to lower our risk of preventable diseases, this could have at least four potential effects:

1. One is that we would each, hopefully, be healthier and happier in our own lives which is always a plus for us and all around us.

2. Second, we would, hopefully, be able to care for each other better - provide short term care when a friend has had a child, or your mother has had a fall, etc.

3. Thirdly, if our improved health resulted in less sick days and higher productivity at work, this may boost the tax revenue.

4. Finally and most importantly, this could strengthen our social programmes and NHS services by ensuring that the NHS can provide more attention and funding for the most severe, vulnerable, poorest patients. It is true that there will always be some people who have circumstances which hinders their ability to take personal ownership of their health, and others who do everything right and still end up with cancer at 30, or get hit by a bus and face life long disability. However, the more the rest of us who can take care of our health do so, for as long as we can, the less pressure there will be on the NHS and the more they can focus on the 2-year old cancer patient, the long-term disabled, etc.

Our mythical conservative commentator in this scenario may only be looking at an average person who can potentially do more to take care of their own health or the large groups of people who end up drunk and in an accident in A&E when they lament that people should take more personal responsibility. They may be right that the cohort they are perceiving could take more responsibility. This is the part they can see of the elephant. However, they may totally miss the 2-year old cancer patient, the 30-year old woman who got hit by a bus and can’t pull her bootstraps up because she has been paralysed and cannot work again, or the soldier who can’t pull himself up by the bootstrap because he lost his leg in war. These may all be individuals who cannot return to work no matter how many DWP letters they receive telling them they can and should.

Similarly, our mythical left wing commentator may lament at the tragic examples of the 2-year old cancer patient, the 30-year hold woman who was hit by a bus, and the returning soldier and lament at how evil the conservative is for allowing this to happen. They may decry a total lack of care and be bewildered by anyone who denies this cohort social help. They may well be right about this cohort of people, however the part of the elephant they are missing is the large cohort of people who could take more responsibility for their own health, and the knock on social benefit to the tragic cohort they are concerned about if everyone else just did that.

Ideally, the mythical crude conservative and the mythical crude leftie would be able to talk to each other, describe the problem as they see it, and build a fuller picture of what is going on, and which solution may work for which cohort.

It’s a similar story with ageing and care of elderly. You can view this as a problem of social benefits, and that has merit to catch people who are in very poor health, very poor, or isolated. However, again, imagine what type of social benefit we could produce if we all did everything in our own individual power to age well (from as young as possible), and everything in our power to care for our own ageing parents, friends, and neighbours (while they also did everything they can do help themselves for as long as possible).

Another way of saying this is to in Jordan Peterson’s famous rule to first, make your own bed. Sort out your own life. Take responsibility for yourself. Then, for your partner, if you have one. Then, for your children if you have one. For your parents. From there, slowly, you can adopt more and more responsibility for your local community - individual responsibility is not opposed to strong social bonds and programmes, it is a necessary foundation for it.

We are all Flatlanders about our own intuitions

There are endless ways in which each ideology or viewpoint completely misses some important part of reality or implication. For example, liberal immigration policies may be good at the individual level and may have economic benefits, so its most supportive proponents cannot fathom why anyone would be in favour of banning or limiting it (thus leading to the conclusion that those people are simply racist). However, they may be missing the fact that immigration may also have societal implications for wider culture and social cohesion - economics is just one realm of impact, and there may be other effects which can be tolerated on a small scale but lead to social disturbances on a larger scale.

Like the three blind men who are trying to feel their way around an elephant, the inhabitants of Plato's Cave and the inhabitants of Flatland, Lineland and Pointland, we are all limited by our human nature, culture and framework for looking at the world. This does not mean there is not an objective reality and that we cannot come closer to it. However, it does mean that our perceptions are partial and cannot encapsulate the full reality of the world and that any one ideology is unlikely to provide all the answers.

I am fortunate enough to belong to a range of seemingly contradictory and conflicting worlds - from an immigrant, religious and socially conservative upbringing to a liberal, secular, largely atheist education; from sweaty and grimy MMA gyms which are heavily male dominated to calm, beautifully scented yoga and Pilates studios which are female dominated; from working with clients fleeing war and persecution or experiencing homelessness, addiction, or at the lowest point in their lives to working some of the world's largest corporations and richest individuals.

I have a wide range of hobbies and interests, which means sometimes I am in rooms of mostly men who are into shooting ranges, MMA and pumping iron and other times, I am in rooms of mostly women learning ballet. Through these hobbies and the range of clients I meet at work, I encounter people who are pro-Brexit and want stronger borders and those who are strongly opposed to Brexit argue for open borders, people who are pro life and pro choice, people who are strongly religious and strongly antitheist, and everything in between.

I often find that these worlds seem totally incomprehensible to each other and colleagues and friends often appear nonplussed at my involvement in some or the other - most recently, for example, a colleague remarked her shock that I enjoyed shooting guns (legally, on holiday in Texas) and also enjoy yoga classes full of scented candles. Another found my taste in books surprising when discovering I was reading a book by a more conservative author when previously we had discussed books by more left-wing writers. I find their surprise surprising - I am deeply curious about the world and don't like to view the world from just one political standpoint or perspective. I believe each perspective offers a grain of truth - though there are some I agree with or disagree with more than others, and some I find more or less useful. I don’t believe I know what the truth is, but I want to stumble my way towards it.

Feel free to join me in the exploration and search for the a fuller picture of reality - for the full elephant, the causes of Plato's shadow, and the dimensions of the world we cannot yet perceive.

---