Reflections on Palmer Ch. 3

In chapter 3, Palmer sets up a dichotomy between analytical thinking and paradox, and posits that we far too often analytically dissect the world into a series of either-or choices, which leaves us lifeless and impoverished, when we should instead embrace the life-giving polarities of the paradox.

At the beginning of this chapter, Palmer acknowledges the contributions of analytical thinking, and the advances it has lead to in science, and states that it has it's proper place. In reality however, he is as quick to dismiss objective reason as in the rest of the book, though he in fact seems to not really understand either logic or paradox. Palmer lists a number of supposed paradoxes that he thinks must be embraced as life-giving: the human need for both rest and activity, the way we operate using both intellect and emotions, the dichotomy of theory and practice, etc. In reality, none of these are paradoxes. There is nothing seemingly impossible about needing both rest or activity (we need them in alternation), or about using the intellect and emotions (two different ways of experiencing the world - they are not inherently contradictory), or even about theory and practice (theory is simply generalizations made from practice). These dichotomies are not really dichotomies as such, in each case they are separate, interrelated parts of a whole. Palmer's real argument here seems to be that we need to take a holistic approach to knowing, where we strive for an integrated understanding of the components of self or system.

Palmer makes two assumptions about analytic thought in this chapter, neither of which I agree with: First, that there is a preponderance of logic and analysis in our society -- that it has become the predominant way of thinking. Second, that analytical thought precludes the sort of holistic understanding he is advocating. I do not accept either of these positions.

The thought patterns of Americans have been studied by the science Palmer is so quick to reject, and the reality is that most people make decisions almost entirely based on social norms, emotional impressions, and instinct. Analytical thought seems to be a unnatural way to approach the world, and is quite rare. We are far from an epidemic of analysis - in fact, we are suffering from the opposite.

The idea that analytical, objective thought somehow restricts itself to dissecting people and systems into unrelated parts also seems absurd to me. Certainly this is one potentially useful way of employing logic, but it is certainly not the only way. In fact, science is primarily concerned with the relationships between components, and in discovering rules to describe those relationships -- the opposite of the dissection Palmer is afraid of. To take his own examples, the relationships between resting and activity, the emotions and intellect, and theory and practice can all be better understood by examining them analytically, and this understanding can lead to a more complete, holistic understanding of what those dichotomies represent.