There is nothing wrong with human society, except that it is not a calm one.
If human is a thinking animal, and if one is not at ease, 'thinking' should be the first suspect. I think, we looked everywhere else, perhaps from time immemorial. For, since long, all religions, philosophies, or nowadays governments, have been busy, instituting additions and alterations to those features of the society that look relevant. Yes, a few of those result also in manipulating the way we think, and there are some instances of success, like introduction of a new system of governance. But, we are yet to arrive at a happy state, as far as violence go. I think we have always been off the mark.
If there is something wrong with 'thinking', knowledge, its result, should be hiding a clue. So, let us think about knowledge.
Knowledge is a product, as well as a side effect, of all that we do while we are busy with activities like viewing, listening, learning, creating, appreciating, or altering, things around us. Examining critically, I think, it can be broadly classified into two.
One, which is always within the constraints of relationships or laws or something else that is logically consistent, or that do not lead to unanswered questions. Here, of course, one can make or subscribe to changes, but, only within such constraints. These changes might be adding new laws or relationships or other abstractions, or altering the existing ones. Mathematics is the best way to express and manipulate such constraints. In simple terms, mathematics is nothing but an expression of certain features of interest, of such entities. Where, features are shown by the relationship between the LHS and the RHS of a unique symbol, when we change only one side at a time. And the unique symbol reflecting our current aims or priorities. The same also stands good, as far as any statement that can make sense.
However, assimilating the matter of interest, or what we call as acquiring knowledge, do pose a challenge. Things, even though are logically conclusive, may be asking for certain measures of simplification or other kinds of manipulation that could be taxing the brain.
Two, which is not constrained by mathematical relationships or laws, and remains so, while adding new laws or relationships or other abstractions to support or justify whatever. We however treat this also as logically consistent. And here, to make it logically sustainable, we quietly redefine mathematics as well as logic at every juncture.
I think this was not our original approach, the one we entertained since time immemorial. The desire for logical consistency is something that occurred to us later, after we experienced a little, the world around us. The earliest of our ancestors wouldn't have been facing such constraints. In fact, their approach also can be projected as a relationship between the LHS and the RHS of a unique symbol. But here, both the LHS and the RHS stand to change simultaneously, and that too at the will and pleasure of the narrator.
Naturally, here, assimilating knowledge is not at all a challenge, except where we do not happen to submit to the idea put up by the narrator.
In one instance, knowledge includes all that falls in a large multitude of classifications, like science and some parts of arts, fiction, philosophy, etc., which lie as part of the former. Here, not only that everything falls within the purview of something mathematical, but also those do not do so are not taken into consideration. In the other instance, where, it has all that lie as part of the latter, like most parts of philosophy, its variants like spirituality, fiction, and some parts of science, arts, etc., nothing can be made to satisfy a mathematical law or logic. Also, here, the more, it deviates from such kind of a connection, the greater, the value we accord to it.
When we use the word knowledge in both the above instances, we are clouding whatever we happen to learn. Meaning conveyed by the word knowledge becomes rather inconsistent, being closely linked to the current disposition of the narrator, whether it is towards the former case, or aligning with the latter one. Consequently, there will be a gap between what we say, and what others think or assimilate from it. Each such gap then acts as a spark, raising many questions and other transactions that eventually add something human specific. Now, rather than wondering about the unending supply of new and different (human specific) features, we celebrate each of those, making such questions remain happily unanswered. And the seal of knowledge, in this domain, acts as a shield for those unanswered ones.
As a result, our expectations and inferences do not gel with the reality, unless we introduce abstract terms or ideas that can make it do so. Naturally, now, we hold all those terms and ideas at the highest pedestal. But, since we forget that such abstract terms are of volatile nature, being valid and active only for a particular instant, we have our society, a hotbed of transactions, its outcome, and a whole lot of repercussions, both desirable and otherwise. (Had we realized this long back and took corrective measures, we would have been living in a serene society now.) Since we do not hold or control a repository exclusively for entities that result, the outcome is absorbed by knowledge itself. This routinely introduces new ideas or conventions that grab our attention in full, and, though look dignified, does not convey much. In this manner, it continued for long, and now, we have come to compound it further. How? By 'rationalizing' the situation by terming the human, an imponderable one.
It is not difficult to wriggle out. We only need to redefine knowledge into two separate entities. One relating to the former, and another one dealing with the latter. To avoid possible confusion, I think, better is to introduce two new words, one for the former case or material stream, and another one for the latter or all that is not material stream. As one can make out, in such a scenario, what we get and what we expect shall more or less be in sync, for all our transactions, and in both the above classifications.
We are certain to hold both these words at high esteem. Naturally, the activity that leads to each shall also be named uniquely. And if one is not at ease, the relevant instance of 'thinking' would become the suspect, and since there is no likelihood of a mix-up, our society shall be a calm one for ever.
