The question we have to ask ourselves is not what does it all mean. The truly important question is why does it all have to mean anything. If we were to alter our thinking patterns, which would have to be a planned and systematic decision, to allow ourselves to ignore most preconceived notions, theories and ideals about most signs, symbols and structures we would begin to create intellectual gaps and then we could begin to fill those gaps with new knowledge. This would mean new possibilities. As soon as we abandon one concept we being to search for a new concept to take its place because that is the nature of our brain. We are self aware and intelligent and therefore our brain cannot remain empty. As soon as we open our eyes we have to interpret what we perceive. The point is that we must attempt to see spaces and objects around us as simpler forms. We must observe them as forms without assigned concepts. This is really hard to do. I think I mentioned this before, most people when they think of the word home or a house think of a cube with the roof over it, a traditional brick house, or an apartment building. An architect is trained not to go beyond thinking about it in terms of the size of the space and its relation to the surrounding buildings and environments. In a way an architect first considers the entire space around the building he is about to design and continues to think about the house or the home as ‘the space’ that exists in relation to ‘the surrounding space’. In a sense he is not allowed to think of a house precisely because it is a cliché. So in way our objective must become first to notice cliché and then to turn them into signals that would immediately suggest that we must abandon them. One could write a book about this undertaking but I will stop there. If an architect were to begin and end with the idea of a brick house then all the buildings in the world look identical. Needless to say, any space could be separated from its surrounding space in an infinite number of ways. So must know and must convince people that that if we create an intellectual space within our minds for new possibilities to present themselves they will occur and they will provide us with new forms of definitions of ‘reality’.
By the same token (spaces and architecture) there are multiple ways of interpreting people. I cannot begin to think of a better example than Sherlock Holmes or should I say his creator Arthur Conan Doyle. I think that what’s enabled Mr Doyle to create such detailed, interesting and unpredictable characters, situations and stories was his ability to observe people not in terms of what they are as their physical being but in terms of how they interact with their environment and the people they encounter. I have become convinced that to Mr. Doyle there were no ‘people’. He does not see people or individuals. He does not observe them. He cannot think in clichés. He cannot think in clichés because he is focused on how an individual manifests himself or herself in terms of his or her actions. In particular, in terms of their actions on their immediate environment and on their own bodies. No two people open the door the same way, or hold a cup, or comb their hair, or adjust their hat. His impressions of people and environments thus his memories are not racial, national and persona clichés. His memory must have been a databank of unique mannerisms, actions, expressions, and environmental properties, and relationships between environmental properties and individuals. Hence it was possible for the writer to imagine new ways of solving crimes. A new type of thinking and crime solving methodology was an inevitable consequence of his perceptual capabilities, interpretations and intellectual mapping of those interpretations. If I am correct, I wonder how and why the writer’s senses thus perception managed to become so focused and deep. The writer made Sherlock Holmes say ‘How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.’ This is not entirely true or it is not one hundred per cent possible for this to hold for every scenario because some very, very rare phenomena can and do occur even though statistically/probability speaking they are next to impossible. Nevertheless, to me this saying offers a much deeper and a valuable concept from which we can learn. A person can lie about his or her actions or thoughts or we can perceive a person in terms of clichés. However, each person, when committing that particular crime, when at that particular crime scene or what is about to become a crime scene, will behave in her own unique ways. They will comb their hair the same way, hold their cup the same way and so on. Thus if one can locate and note those details at the crime scene and then extrapolate them and match them to a person or match the person to the effects left on the environment (the crime scene) plus additional, logical external motivating factors, then one can solve the crime. Thus the crime scene is always the sum total of the murder’s actions on it or within it and those actions will be unique. Only that one person will treat that space in that particular way. I think there is much to be learned from this. If we could begin to eliminate large concepts, such as nationalities and flags and skin color, and examine the actions of the people based on their regional position and their associated motivating factors we would get much closer to understanding their motivations. It would become much easier to anticipate their actions and possible outcomes. It would become much easier to relate to their being. This would require a great amount of ‘reductive’ thinking but we can begin to do it. Like i stated earlier, developing a useful methodology would require significant research (social psychology area) that would have to establish which areas to eliminate and how to begin the process.
I am convinced that developing a methodology or tool with which to replace clichéd thinking is a possible option. The alternative is to count that all people will become highly educated and highly perceptive. Not likely to happen. We have to create ‘new ways of perceiving’ and try to spread them, teach them in schools. How many people are likely to become as knowledgeable Arthur Conan Doyle. How many people can tell which part of Europe or America or Asia a person comes from based on how they hold their fork and knife and chair and from which side they approach the table or how quickly they sit down or stand up or what they taste first or how they regard women and if they look first at her eyes or hands or waist or if a person comes from remote area, or a rural area or inner city or whatever and so on and so forth. To acquire that amount of detailed knowledge about mannerisms and actions one would have to be a billionaire researcher with nothing else to do. We all know that is not going to happen.
Most people cannot acquire that much knowledge because there is not enough time. And if there were it would be boring and unnecessary.
Thus the logical and obvious solution is a new system of thinking. A short cut. Train people to notice their own thinking clichés and then skim over them and begin to look for new details. A new form of perception.
People this a part of a copy right paper. Lol.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s