Comound Ideas and Imaginations and how they differ with Invalid Ideas:

Note: My this article should be read in the light of Section-II and III of David Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”.

These two sections can be seen on this link: 

Comound Ideas and Imaginations and how they differ with Invalid Ideas:

Some ideas that do not correspond to any real entity may be imaginable, for example, the idea of a ‘Golden Mountain’ or the idea of a ‘Flying Horse’ etc. We cannot consider these types of ideas as invalid just because of having no existence of their corresponding real entity in the identified world. There are some other ideas, however, which also do not correspond to any real entity but the nature of these ideas is such that these ideas cannot be imagined in visualized form. The examples of these kinds of ideas include ‘impossible figures’ for example, a ’square circle’ or a ‘circular straight line’ and other self contradictory concepts like as ‘weak powerful’ etc. These kinds of ideas are among the examples of invalid ideas.

Whatever we can imagine in the form of mind image, we can draw it on paper as well (i.e. in more general terms, whatever is imaginable in the form of mind image, can be translated into man made products. There are certain restrictions also; for example humans can imagine other unseen humans so those unseen humans are capable to be made into man made physical statues or sculptures etc. but humans cannot give real life to those self-made sculptures etc.) depending on our drawing abilities. But whatever we cannot imagine in the form of mind image, we cannot draw it on paper even if we are a drawing expert. For example, we cannot draw impossible figures on paper because we cannot imagine these figures in the form of mind image. It means that whatever we see in drawings is imaginable because drawings take input only from external world objects and imagined objects, and all the external world objects are also imaginable.

We can form the ‘idea’ of self contradictory (impossible) figures in our mind but we cannot ‘imagine’ these impossible figures in the form of mind image. So we can conclude that these types of ‘impossible figures’ cannot exist in the external world because all the external world objects are imaginable so if some ‘object’ is not capable to be imagined it means that the ‘object’ does not represent any real entity which exists in external world. The ‘impossible figures’ cannot have any real existence not just because these are un-imaginable; the ultimate reason for this fact is that impossible figures are actually self-contradictory concepts. The impossible figures are self-contradictory by their definition. For example, when we say ’square circle’, we are talking of such a figure which comes up to the definition of a ’square’ and at the same time, also comes up to the definition of a ‘circle’. The concept of a ’square circle’ is self-contradictory because an object which comes up to the definition of a ’square’, at the same time cannot come up to the definition of a ‘circle’. Since this concept is self-contradictory, so it cannot have any real existence. Since it is self-contradictory and since it cannot have any real existence, so it also cannot be imagined in the form of a mind image. Another interesting result of this discussion is that it also means that whatever we can imagine in the form of a mind image cannot be a self-contradictory concept because if it were a self-contradictory concept, then we would not be able to imagine it in the form of mind image. However this fact cannot lead us to the conclusion that all the un-imaginable concepts have to be self contradictory also. There may exist, certain pure abstract concepts which may be other than self-contradictory ones and at the same time, which cannot be imagined in the form of mind image. So it is not necessary that all the un-imaginable ideas have to be self-contradictory or invalid. It should be noted here, that what we cannot imagine in the form of mind image, although, it cannot exist in external world but still it can have existence in our mind in the form of an invalid idea. Invalid ideas, in this context, are considered as those ones that cannot correspond to any real entity in the universe. There is another class of ideas, as previously also have been described, that, although, may not correspond to any real entity of the identified world, but either these ideas may have their corresponding real entity present in some still un-identified world or these ideas can be translated into real physical entities through human efforts i.e. in the form of man made products. The examples of this class of ideas include ‘Golden Mountain’ and ‘Flying Horse’. Now these kinds of ideas either may have their corresponding real entity present in some un-identified world, for example it is not impossible (i.e. it may be possible) that any ‘Golden Mountain’ may have real existence in some un-identified world or even if not, then still humans can ‘manufacture’ golden mountains in the form of toys or in some other form of art.

Ideas that do not have or even cannot have the existence of corresponding real entity in the universe, do have their existence in our mind because after all these are ‘ideas’ of our mind. As per this information, we cannot claim, however, that our minds are able to ‘create’ such ideas that have no corresponding real entity present in the real universe. Just consider the nature of both types of such ideas i.e. first that do not have corresponding real entity present in the identified world but the possibility exists that their corresponding real entity may have real presence in some un-identified world and secondly that cannot have the existence of the corresponding real entity in any part of the real universe. The examples of first type of these ideas include ‘Golden Mountain’ and ‘Flying Horse’ etc. whereas the examples of second type of such ideas include ‘impossible figures’ like as ’square circle’ and ‘circular straight line’. Note that all these examples fall in the category of ‘compound ideas’ in the case of both types of ideas and, in the category of ‘compound imagination’ in the case of only first type of these ideas. A ‘compound idea’ or a ‘compound imagination’ is one, which consists of more than one component ideas. For example, in the case of the idea of ‘Golden Mountain’, in fact two separate ideas which are the (i) idea of ‘golden’ and (ii) the idea of ‘mountain’, have been ‘compounded’ into a single ‘compound idea’ of a ‘Golden Mountain’. Now just consider that both the components of this compound idea or imagination which are (i) idea of ‘golden’ and (ii) the idea of ‘mountain’ separately have the existence of their respective corresponding real entities in the identified world. It is only the particular ‘arrangement’, in the form of this ‘compound idea’ i.e. the idea of ‘Golden Mountain’, which may not have the existence of its corresponding real entity in the identified world. Actually human mind can create nothing by its own efforts or abilities. Mind, however, can get information from the external world and then can put various sets of information into a verity of very nice and refined ‘arrangements’ in the form of ‘compound ideas’ or even in the form of ‘compound imaginations’. These ‘arrangements’ may or may not have the existence of their corresponding real entities in the identified world or even in the whole real universe. If such an ‘arrangement’ (other than a self-contradictory arrangement) has no existence of the corresponding real entity, then this ‘new arrangement’, in fact is a ‘new idea’. Previously this particular arrangement had no existence of its corresponding real entity but now possibility exists that, as a result of this ‘new idea’, which has been formed inside of a human’s mind, that human may translate this newly formed idea into a real entity in the form of some ‘new’ man made product. We already know that new idea formation is basically an analogical process. In a simple idea generation process, first of all we identify or detect some ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ between two real or imagined entities. It means that we establish ‘analogy’ between those two entities. Then we mentally apply the attributes of one of the entities on the other one. In this way actually a ‘new arrangement’ of already existing ideas is formed inside mind whose components, usually are; (i) one of the entity itself and (ii) the attribute of the other entity. This process can be explained with the help of following diagram.

	Entity – 1				Entity – 2
	[A]			[A1](a1)
Step – 1

	Entity – 1         [A](a)		Entity – 2
				[A1](a1)
		\__ (a1) __/ copy of (a1) is going to attach with Entity – 1’s [A] … when it shall be attached to [A], it would become (a), instead of original (a1)
Step – 2

Here, in the first step, we form analogy between entity-1 and entity-2 because both entities are ‘similar’ (i.e. not same) in ‘A’ and ‘A1’. Then, in the second step, we mentally apply the attribute ‘a1’ of entity-2 on entity-1. Note that when we actually ‘attach’ the attribute ‘a1’ with the entity-1, this attribute automatically becomes compatible with entity-1 and so becomes ‘a’ i.e. now, after having been applied to entity-1, it is no more ‘a1’ (which was compatible with ‘A1’) but has become ‘a’ (which is now compatible with ‘A’). This fact has been further explained in another appropriate section of this thesis. In this way our mind has formed a ‘new arrangement’, which is ‘Aa’ in this case. We did not have this particular arrangement in our mind previously. So we can consider this new arrangement i.e. ‘Aa’ as a new idea also. We already had ‘A’ in our mind but previously we were unable to make it as ‘Aa’. To make ‘A’ as ‘Aa’ only has become possible when new information i.e. ‘A1a1′ has come to our notice and we have made the analogy as described above.

Now let us consider the idea of ‘Golden Mountain’ to be a ‘new idea’. In this case an analogy between an ordinary golden object and a mountain is established. Then the ‘golden’ attribute of that ordinary golden object has been applied to that mountain and so we have got the new idea of ‘Golden Mountain’. In the whole process of the formation of this new idea, we actually do not detect that we are applying the golden attribute of some other object to a mountain. What we can detect is only that we just ‘got’ a new idea i.e. the idea of a ‘Golden Mountain’. But why we do not or cannot detect the whole underlying process? It is due to the fact that mental analogical process of applying attributes of one of the entity to another is different from physically applying one entity’s attributes to another. For example, if we physically apply golden color to a mountain, we have to physically ‘paint’ the whole mountain with golden color and the whole process may take several months for its completion. The process shall be initiated by first ‘painting’ a particular portion of the mountain with the golden color. This may be considered as the first phase of the whole process. After the completion of this first phase, we shall see only a particular portion of that mountain to be golden in color. After the completion of second such phase, a relatively greater portion of the mountain will be ’seen’ as golden and after some months when the final phase shall be completed, the entire mountain would have become a ‘Golden Mountain’. The process of mentally applying the golden attribute to an imaginary mountain is very much different from this physical process. The mental application of the golden attribute to the imaginary mountain neither has any initiating point nor it is to be completed step wise in a series of successive phases. For example, in order to imagine a ‘Golden Mountain’, you just close your eyes and ’see’ a mind image of a ‘Golden Mountain’. Here you do not need to ‘manually’ apply the golden attribute to the imaginary mountain. The golden attribute, in a ‘visual form’, is at once applied to the imaginary mountain. While imagining a ‘Golden Mountain’, it is not that you first imagine an ordinary mountain and then you ‘at once’ apply the golden attribute to that ‘ordinary mountain’. In this case, in fact, you, right from start, imagine a mountain, which is not an ordinary one but is a ‘Golden Mountain’. This extraordinary capability of our minds does not let us detect the whole underlying process of the application of the attributes of one entity upon other in the idea generation process. We only detect that a new idea has been generated. Actually, right from the start of the process, i.e. instantly, we conceive the final results of the process either in the form of a newly conceived concept or in the form of a mind image. This newly conceived concept or mind image in fact, is a new arrangement of different pieces of information that either already existed in mind or we currently have received from the external world through the process of sense perception. In the process of idea generation, we do not manually put (Note: actually we also can ‘manually’ put different pieces of information into a new arrangement in our imagination, if we want) those different pieces of information into a new arrangement. The ‘new arrangement’ is made at once and automatically, i.e. without any manual effort. Our minds, instantly, can form a variety of new arrangements of different pieces of information. The quality of these instantly formed new arrangements is very much refined due to the fact that the different pieces of information that have been put into a new arrangement, lose their separately identifiable identity because those different pieces of information have been ‘diffused’ into an independently identifiable new arrangement. So we cannot ‘feel’ that the ‘new idea’ is just a very refined arrangement of already existing pieces of information. We only ‘feel’ that a new idea has been ‘clicked’ in our mind. As has been described previously that in a new idea (e.g. an imaginary new object like as ‘Golden Mountain’), different pieces of information are ‘diffused’ into a separately and independently identifiable new arrangement. This point needs further elaboration. In compound imagination such as ‘Golden Mountain’ or ‘Flying Horse’ etc. two or more different concepts are ‘fused’ into a single concept. In fact, each other’s attributes are exchanged i.e. both entity’s attributes are applied to each other in such a way that the original concepts become untraceable to our conscious mind. Now mind is conscious of only the independently identifiable ‘new arrangement’. Compound imaginations are not self-contradictory. By definition, it is not impossible for a mountain to be made of gold. Golden mountains do not exist in nature but it does not mean that this sort of mountains cannot exist in nature. Whatever physically exists in nature is imaginable (except those physical objects whose component objects (ideas) not yet been perceived – in this case when we shall perceive those component objects then that physical object also shall become imaginable) and whatever imaginable, having no corresponding physical existence, is physically existable. Self-contradictory physical objects cannot exist and also cannot be imagined but self-contradictory ideas (descriptive) can exist in mind. The potential possible exception to the ruling that self-contradictory ideas cannot have real existence may be the behavior of elementary particles as suggested by the quantum physics. Quantum physics says that elementary particles are both matter and waves. To be, for a particle, both matter and wave at the same time seems a self contradictory physical thing. Are matter and wave opposite concepts? The answer to this question is outside the scope of our present discussion. The answer to this question can be sought from nuclear scientists and let us ‘assume’ for our discussion to continue that matter and wave may, in fact not be the opposite concepts and the matter may actually be a ‘freeze’ form of waves etc. On the basis of this ‘assumption’ we can stay on our ruling that self-contradictory concepts cannot have any real physical existence.

The example of ‘Golden Mountain’ is simple one. Human mind is capable of instantly forming very complicated new arrangements of already existing sets of information. These new complicated arrangements can also be imagined as mind images. In this way mind can ‘create’ very complicated images. If this sort of images has been formed in the mind of a good artist, that artist then can draw those complicated new images on paper or canvas etc. So by looking at very complicated piece of art, in fact we are looking at such a new mind image, which has been translated into a physical piece of art by a good artist. The point which needs to be emphasized here is that if we analyze even a very complicated such piece of art, we shall find that the ‘complicated piece of art’ is, in fact a very much refined arrangement of already existing simple pieces of information. So what our mind ‘creates’ in this way is a ‘compound idea’ or a ‘compound imagination’. The elements of both ‘compound idea’ and ‘compound imagination’ already had their existence. The already existed ideas just have been ‘compounded’ into a new arrangement. Our mind, therefore, creates nothing. It only arranges and re-arranges the information which comes from memory and sense perception in ordinary course of the process of idea generation. This discussion implies that our minds are just unable to conceive any new thing, whether in the form of a new concept or in the form of a new mind image unless and until all the components of that new concept or new mind image are fully traceable to our previously held or currently perceived stocks of information. Process of dreaming is also explainable in same manner. Most of the contents of our dreams can be considered as the excellent examples of mental diffusions of different component sets of information into independently identifiable compound ideas. For example once I ‘saw’ in my dream, one of my friends telling me those things which actually should have been told to me by another friend of mine because those things actually were known to that other friend only. In this dream, actually the attributes of second friend were ‘diffused’ with the personality of the first friend. I can quote another real example out of my dreams in order to better explain the process of mental diffusion of different component sets of information that can result in a whole new and rather strange type of experience that we usually get in our ordinary dreams. Once I found myself swimming inside ocean water, in a dream. I could ‘see’ a big ship moving in front of me so that the lower portion of ship which was inside water was visible to me. I also could see a number of kangaroos (i.e. Australian animals) who were ‘running’ beneath the lower portion of that ship. This was really a strange and a whole ‘new’ experience that I got in that dream. The contents of this dream apparently can be seemed to be completely outside the scope of any of my previous real experience. First of all I am not as good swimmer as can ‘swim’ inside of ocean water. Secondly I never have seen (up till now) any ocean in my real life so the experience of observing ‘inside’ of ocean water is simply out of question. Also I never saw any ship (i.e. its upper or lower portion) in my real life. I never went to Australia and I never saw any kangaroo whether standing or running before me. It is also quite impossible for kangaroos to run inside of ocean water. So the contents of this dream may seem to be completely outside the scope of not only my personal experience but can also be considered quite impossible to be observed in a real life situation. A simple analysis of this ‘strange’ dream however can show that all the contents of this dream were actually completely traceable out of my previous experience or previous stocks of information. I already had seen ‘inside of ocean water’ in many television programs. I also had seen lower portion of big ships in various television programs and feature films etc. Similarly I can remember that I really saw a number of kangaroos that were running (but on ground), also in some television program. So actually, all of those different entities were just ‘diffused’ into that particular ‘strange’ arrangement of already existing sets of information, which I experienced in that dream. And why I found my own self ‘swimming’ inside the ocean water? It was due to the fact that actually I was feeling cold while during sleeping, at that time. We know that feeling warmth or cold is a form of sense perception. We also have seen, in the ‘sequence of thought’ section, that sense perception, in whatever form ‘interrupts’ the sequence of our thought. This ‘sense perception’ actually not only interrupts the sequence of our thought but it can interrupt the sequence of our dreams as well. In fact sense perception can change the overall ‘story’ of our dream events. I can elaborate this fact with the help of analyzing another of my dreams. Once I was driving motorcycle in my dream because I was very much fond of driving motorcycle in those days. What I observed in that dream was that the sound of running motorcycle was gradually becoming louder and louder. The sound finally became too much louder and noisier that I woke up. I realized, after having woke up that it was not the sound of motorcycle which was becoming louder and louder. Actually a person, outside in the street was shouting with louder and louder voice. I could ‘perceive’ that noise even during sleeping. This ‘perception’ then interrupted the ‘story’ of my dream events in the above-mentioned way. We however shall further explain this fact i.e. how the processes of sense perception operates while during sleeping and just how so ‘perceived’ data is incorporated into already progressing sequence of dream events, later on in this section and also in other appropriate sections of this work. Here it seems worthy to mention that the ‘sequence of dream events’ also follows the same pattern as that of ‘sequence of thought’. So whatever series of ‘events’ we observe in our dreams, one ‘event’ shall be followed by only that next ‘event’ which would have some relationship of ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ with the previous ‘event’. And this fact can be easily explained with the help of previously stated example of my dream where I saw myself swimming inside of ocean water. I saw myself swimming inside of ocean water due to the involvement of sense perception during my dream because I was feeling cold while during sleeping. The lower portion of the big ship had the relationship of ‘association’ with the ‘inner side of ocean water’. The ‘inner side of ocean water’ also had the relationship of ‘association’ with the television programs. The running kangaroos had the relationship of ‘similarity’ with the ‘inner side of ocean water’ because just like the ‘inner side of ocean water’, it also had the relationship of ‘association’ with television programs. It is also important to consider that some of those ‘events’ also must have the relationship of ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ with that particular setup of my own ‘sub conscious’ mind that I had at that time. Sequence of ‘dream events’ can also be elaborated in same manner in case of that other dream where I experienced sound of running motorcycle to become louder and louder as a result of involvement of sense perception. In this case the actual noise that was made by the person outside in the street had the relationship of ‘similarity’ with the sound of running motorcycle which I was already experiencing during the course of that dream. The actual noise made by the real person, on the basis of ‘similarity’ with the sound of running dream motorcycle was incorporated in the dream which I was already experiencing in such a way that the actual noise automatically became compatible with the already progressing sequence of dream events. It means that actual noise of that shouting person ‘diffused’ with the ‘sound’ of that running dream motorcycle thus resulting in a separately identifiable noise which appeared to me, during the course of that dream, as quite a strange form of sound of a running motorcycle which was becoming louder and louder in a strange and in an un-controllable manner. In this way sense perception really interrupted the sequence of my dream but in a different manner in which this sense perception normally interrupts the sequence of conscious thought. It is important to highlight that this explanation of sequence of dream events should not be considered as giving the same results as were suggested by Sigmund Frued when he described the un-conscious processes of mind because according to him un-conscious processes (like as dream ‘events’) are governed by different laws than to ordinary mind processes. According to his explanation, “under the influence of the unconscious, thoughts and feelings that belong together may be shifted or displaced out of context; two disparate ideas or images may be condensed into one” (MS Encarta Encyclopedia). In my opinion, there are no different laws than to ordinary mind processes, which can exclusively govern the un-conscious mind processes such as sequence of dream events etc. and so in my opinion, un-conscious mind processes are governed by the same principles, which also control the ordinary mind processes. Frued could not detect the presence of same principles in un-conscious mind processes because actually he was un-aware of the principle of mind which is the identification (or detection) of ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ before co-relating different sets of information whether in ordinary mind activities or in un-conscious mind processes. Frued was un-aware of the principle that governs ordinary such mind processes as ‘sequence of thought’, then how he could decide that un-conscious mind processes such as ‘sequence of dream events’ are to be governed by different sort of principles? We however shall thoroughly analyze what were considered the underlying ‘principles’ of mind processes by Frued in some other section of this thesis. Here however we shall describe one important difference between ordinary mind processes and those un-conscious mind processes such as ‘sequence of dream events’ etc. Before describing that difference let us emphasize that it is not a ‘principle difference’. The principle for the ordinary mind processes and that of un-conscious mind processes is the same which is the identification of, or detection of ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ between different sets of information before co-relating those different sets of information in whatever form. The only difference between conscious mind processes and un-conscious mind processes, which is not the difference in ‘principle’, is that we can make better judgment about the ‘valid’ similarity or association between different sets of information in our conscious mind activities whereas we lose much of our this judgment ability during the course of un-conscious mind activities. So in my dream, if I see one of my friends telling me those things, which should have been told to me by another friend of mine, here the ‘principle’ of identification of ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ is still at work even during the dream. The only fault, in this case is that the things, which are to be told to me, have been ‘invalidly’ associated with a different friend of mine. During my conscious mind processes, I would ‘validly’ associate those things with the right friend because I would have my judgment abilities about identifications of ‘valid’ association in a proper functioning form at that time. I usually would lose my this ability during my un-conscious mind processes so my mind, during that time, can present to me various invalidly associated sets of information in a way that I may remain unable to detect the invalidity in them because during the course of un-conscious mind processes, I would not have my abilities to make judgments about to decide the validity or invalidity of associated sets of information in proper functioning. So the only major difference in the conscious and un-conscious mind processes is the presence of judgment ability to decide about the validity or invalidity of ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ between various sets of information in proper functioning. During the conscious mind processes, this ability is usually present in proper form whereas during un-conscious mind processes, we lose much of this ability.

There is another point, in the position taken by Frued, which needs to be analyzed in somewhat detail. Again refer to his explanation of un-conscious mind processes which states that; “under the influence of the unconscious, thoughts and feelings that belong together may be shifted or displaced out of context; two disparate ideas or images may be condensed into one”. Here Frued thinks that two disparate ideas or images can be condensed into one only due to the influence of unconscious because according to him different sort of principles than to the ordinary mind processes governs un-conscious mind activities. I have concluded that according to Frued, two disparate ideas or images can be condensed into one, only due to the influence of unconscious because if unconscious is to be governed by different sort of principles than to the ordinary mind processes then what results are given by unconscious, we should not expect that the same results also can be given by ordinary mind processes because ordinary mind processes would have to be governed by the ‘ordinary’ principles and so we cannot expect that those ‘ordinary’ principles can give the same results which are given by ‘special’ principles that govern only the un-conscious mind processes. So we should not expect, according to Frued’s explanation of unconscious that two disparate ideas or images can be condensed into one as a result of ordinary conscious mind activities. It means that according to Frued’s explanation, we cannot imagine any ‘Golden Mountain’ as a result of any of our conscious effort because in a mind image of a ‘Golden Mountain’, in fact two disparate images are condensed into one and this is exactly what is possible only under the influence of unconscious, according to him. But if we can imagine a ‘Golden Mountain’ through our ‘conscious’ efforts, then our conclusion would be that not only ‘unconscious’ but ‘conscious’ mind processes also can condense two disparate ideas or images into one and so finally we would conclude that unconscious mind processes are governed by the same principles which also govern the ordinary conscious mind activities. And since we can really imagine a ‘Golden Mountain’ through our conscious efforts so we can conclude that un-conscious mind activities really are governed by the same principles which also govern the ordinary conscious mind activities.

Similarly the first phrase of Frued’s explanation which states that; “under the influence of the unconscious, thoughts and feelings that belong together may be shifted or displaced out of context”, also needs to be properly analyzed. We have seen in one of the example of my dreams where one of my friends was telling me those things which should have been told to me by my another friend, that thoughts and feelings which belong together may really be shifted or displaced out of context because in this case the things which were to be told to me actually ‘belonged’ to the second friend but during the dream i.e. under the influence of unconscious, those things really ‘displaced’ out context and became ‘associated’ with a different person. We are to analyze Frued’s this ‘claim’ that it happened due to the ‘influence’ of unconscious which is governed by some ‘special’ principles which are not applicable to the case of ordinary conscious mind processes. We have to see that whether we can, through our conscious efforts, ‘displace’ two related ideas out of context or not. Obviously we can do it. I can, for instant, consciously ‘imagine’ one of my friends telling me those things, which should have been told to me, by another friend of mine. So by imagining this sort of thing, actually I am consciously doing that sort of thing, which is possible, according to Frued, only under the influence of unconscious. And note in this case that okay I can ‘displace’ some otherwise actually related ideas out of context through my conscious efforts but when I do it consciously, I am aware that I am ‘invalidly’ displacing the related ideas out of context. It is so because my abilities to make judgments about ‘validity’ or ‘invalidity’ of the ‘associated’ or ‘disassociated’ ideas would be at work in proper order, during the course of my conscious mind activities. So the only major difference between conscious and un-conscious mind activities is the presence of judgment abilities about to decide ‘validity’ or ‘invalidity’ in the ‘similarities’ or ‘associations’ between different ideas during conscious mind activities and the absence of these abilities during the course of un-conscious mind activities. The question arises here is that why we lose this judgment ability during the course of our un-conscious mind activities? We know that our sequence of conscious thought is governed by the principle of identification of ‘similar’ or ‘associated’ ideas to those ideas that constitute our present conscious mind. We also know that there may be many ideas, which usually are ‘similar’ or ‘associated’ with the ideas of our conscious mind. Under the influence of un-conscious, actually our mind automatically brings some of those ‘similar’ or ‘associated’ ideas as next ideas of our conscious mind. During the course of conscious mind activities, on the other hand, we have somewhat ‘conscious’ control over to bring only the specific ‘similar’ or ‘associated’ ideas, out of many others, to our ‘conscious’ mind as the ‘next’ ideas of our conscious mind. This form of ‘conscious control’ is determined by such factors as ‘future expectations’, ‘wishes’, ‘pleasures’ etc. This ‘conscious control’ can also be considered as the ‘willful’ control over the sequence of conscious thought. Having ‘willful control’ over to decide which ‘similar’ or ‘associated’ ideas are to become the ‘next’ ideas of our conscious mind, we become able to decide about the ‘validity’ or ‘invalidity’ in the ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ between different ideas. Under the influence of un-conscious, we do not possesses this ‘conscious’ or ‘willful’ control over to decide which ‘similar’ or ‘associated’ ideas, out of many, are going to become ‘next’ ideas of our that ‘conscious’ mind which is operating under the influence of un-conscious. Due to the absence of our ‘conscious control’, what ideas shall become the next ideas of our that ‘conscious’ mind which is operating under the influence of un-conscious shall be determined by the same factors i.e. ‘future expectations’, ‘wishes’, ‘fears’, ‘pleasures’ etc. but in this case this sort of ideas shall automatically i.e. without our conscious and willful check, become the ‘next’ ideas of the proceedings of our un-conscious mind activity. Since the conscious or willful ‘check’ is missing in this case, it means that there is missing of judgment ability about to decide the ‘validity’ or ‘invalidity’ of similarity or association between various ideas. In this way our un-conscious mind usually presents to us many invalidly associated ideas or images just due to the missing of our willful control over to form valid associations between various ideas.

We have seen previously in the example of my dream where the voice of a shouting person was quite strangely converted into the sound of a running motorcycle. Can it be considered such a kind of mind activity which is not possible to occur during the course of ‘conscious’ mind activities? In my opinion, this kind of mind activity is also not any such thing, which is quite impossible to occur during the course of conscious mind activities. We can consciously ‘perceive’ different meaningful images in many otherwise actually meaningless patterns. For example many meaningless patterns of clouds in the sky may appear to us as images of various animals or as the images of some other physical objects etc. This phenomenon occurs due to the particular nature of the functioning of our perception system. Due to this particular nature of the functioning of our perception system, our mind tends to assign the most closely ‘similar’ meanings to those otherwise meaningless patterns. In this way we can consciously ‘perceive’ a whole different thing from the actual thing that was brought to the notice of our senses. In the example of this dream, due to same reasons as explained for the case of conscious experiences, my mind, during the course of that dream, just assigned the most closely ‘similar’ meanings to otherwise quite un-understandable noise. The actual noise was quite un-understandable to me at that time because I was sleeping at that time. The most close ‘similar’ meaning of that otherwise un-understandable noise was the ‘sound’ of running motorcycle because I was ‘driving’ a motorcycle, at that time, in my dream. Therefore in my opinion, un-conscious mind processes are not governed by any different principles then to the ordinary mind processes and the only difference is the lack of judgment ability to decide ‘validity’ or ‘invalidity’ in ‘similarity or association between different ideas, during the course of un-conscious mind processes and the absence of this judgment ability is due to the absence of our willful control over the sequence of flow of ideas under the influence of un-conscious mind processes. Mind can create nothing either during the course of conscious mind activities or during the course of un-conscious mind activities. Mind however can arrange or re-arrange already existing information during the course of both conscious as well as un-conscious activities. This sort of newly formed arrangement may not have the existence of corresponding real entity in the universe. So finally we can say that ideas that do not have the existence of corresponding real entity cannot be considered as the ‘creation’ of mind just because of having no existence of their corresponding real entity.

The ideas that have no existence of corresponding real entities and which are other than self-contradictory ideas should be considered valid ideas because these ideas can be translated into man made products. There are other reasons also why we should not consider these ideas to be invalid just because of having no existence of the corresponding real entity. For example these ideas can be considered valid because these can be imagined in the form of mind images. The possibility also exists that any real ‘Golden Mountain’ may have physical existence in some un-identified world.

Invalid ideas are only those;

i. That cannot be imagined in the form of mind image and so cannot be translated into even man made products. Here, a point should be noted that there are certain pure abstract ideas, which cannot be imagined in the form of mind image, but still we cannot consider this type of un-imaginable ideas as invalid. For example we cannot consider all the metaphysical ideas as invalid just because we cannot imagine those metaphysical entities in the form of mind image. This provision of the invalidity of ideas is applicable only to the case of those ideas, which are in fact; compound ideas of such component ideas, which are ordinary ‘visible’ material objects. In this case, in fact, the component ideas are not only visible material objects but these component ideas also can be successfully imagined in the form of mind images. So the component ideas are valid ideas. It is only the particular arrangement of these valid ideas, in the form a ‘compound idea’ which we should consider invalid idea due to our inability to imagine this ‘compound idea’ in the form of mind image. The class of these un-imaginable things, which represent impossible figures or other self-contradictory ideas, cannot have their real existence even in the un-identified world. Their possible existence is only in the form of invalid and un-imaginable ideas inside the mind.

ii. Those ideas which, when put to practical application, cannot give the expected results in a real situation. It must be noted however, that in the case of these kinds of invalid ideas, we can get desired or expected results in an ‘imagined situation’, but we cannot get the expected results in a real situation due to the scientific invalidity of these types of ideas. The examples of these types of invalid ideas include all forms of magic and other superstitious ideas. These types of invalid ideas are ’situational’ in nature. For example in the case of a situational magical idea (i.e. superstitious idea) in which the magician gets the idea of killing an enemy by lets say, destroying the statue of that enemy. In this case the magician may successfully ‘kill’ that enemy by using this method in an ‘imagined situation’ but in a real situation, that enemy cannot be killed in this way due to scientific invalidity of such a superstitious idea. Other examples of these types of invalid ideas may include invalid practical new ideas. For example, in ordinary work processes even a scientist can get such a practical new idea which can be proved a failure on its practical application. Some new business ideas based on wrong information and calculations also seem valid but these ideas fail on their practical application. Actually these were also invalid ideas. It has been stated previously that a magician who tries to kill an enemy by destroying the statue of that enemy, shall not be able to do so in a real situation due to the un-scientific nature of this idea. This idea, in its pure form, can be considered un-scientific but this same idea can be put into successful real application in certain particular situations. Suppose that the ‘enemy’ is a superstitious person and he believes that he would die if the magician destroy his statue. In this particular situation, this ‘un-scientific’ idea gets the potential of its possible successful application. The possibility exists, in this case that the magician would successfully kill the enemy by just destroying the statue of the enemy and then by just informing the enemy, in some indirect way that his statue has been destroyed during the magical process. The enemy can really die in this case. Here, actually an ‘un-scientific’ idea has been applied in a ’scientific’ manner by manipulating the superstitious psychology of the enemy. This idea was physically un-scientific but psychologically, the same idea is ’scientific’ as well as ‘valid’. There are real historical examples available, where physically un-scientific ideas were successfully applied by the prominent political leaders due to the psychological implications of those ‘invalid’ ideas upon the illiterate masses. For example, Mahatama Gandhi, a prominent historical political leader really applied physically invalid ideas successfully. His non-violence movement, which was physically invalid idea in fact, upon its practical application, gave him the expected or desired results. In this case, actually, Mr. Gandhi’s successful application of his non-violence principle, (that appears to be scientifically invalid idea) was due to the fact that this principle was applied keeping in view the psychology of people. So if scientifically invalid ideas successfully mould the behavior of people due to the psychological application of those invalid ideas upon illiterate people, then expected or desired results i.e. to control the behavior of illiterate people for the achievement of certain goal, can successfully be taken even though the idea (i.e. in physical terms) was invalid. In this case, the desired results are successfully taken because the idea was valid in psychological terms. So physically invalid ideas can be valid in psychological terms. We also can conclude that an idea may both be correct as well as incorrect i.e. correct in terms of psychological application and incorrect in terms of physical application. The final result of this discussion would be that we should consider situational ideas as invalid only if these ideas whether physically or psychologically applied, cannot give the desired or expected results, in a real situation.

So the first type of invalid ideas, as has been mentioned above, are simply un-imaginable but the second type of invalid ideas are imaginable and can give the desired or expected results in an imagined situation. These second type of ideas are invalid because they cannot give the desired or expected results in a real situation. These ideas, however can be (but un-successfully) put to practical application in a real situation. The only thing is that the desired or expected results cannot be taken in the real situation. The desired results cannot be taken but actually, even the unsuccessful attempt to practically implement these types of invalid ideas, can affect the material world negatively or positively. For example if a superstitious person wants to get some desired result lets say he wants a good crops in his agriculture land. He invalidly thinks that this objective can only be achieved if he kills any un-known person. Now suppose that he actually kills an un-known person but he does not get the desired results. In this case the desired result, although have not been taken but the material world however has been affected in a negative way i.e. an innocent person has been unduly killed. Now suppose that after killing that un-known person, the superstitious person also gets the desired results. In this case, in fact the desired result has been obtained not because the un-known person was killed; the successful desired results in this case are taken due to other objective scientific reasons, which may still be un-known to that superstitious person. So he can still think that the desired results have been taken due to the practical implementation of that idea of killing an un-known person.

It is also important to remember that scientifically invalid ideas shall remain invalid even in the un-explored parts of our Universe. It however, can happen that we mistakenly may treat scientifically invalid ideas as valid ones or vice versa. In this type of situations, it seems that we are bound to treat or consider our selves right in our views about such an idea. This kind of situation only can be corrected when as a result of any new information that we may get, our mistake comes to our notice and we up-date our understanding so as to bring it to the conformity with the reality. The only need in this regard is that we should keep this factor in mind for our existing views and so therefore we should respond positively towards the sources of new information.

How to make Progress — and role of our (Pakistani) Education System:

How to make Progress? And Role of Education System:

Progress means forward movement in the way of developments etc. But to move in forward direction requires that we must ‘think’ in forward direction. We cannot move in forward direction if we think in backward direction. In case we do not ‘think’ at all i.e. our thinking is ’static’, again we cannot make progress in this way. To move forward, towards the way of development, (i.e. to make progress) is possible only when we ‘think’ in forward direction.

The direction of our ‘thinking’ depends on the way we handle any new information. The usual course of handling any new information can be described in terms of following formula:

Learning = New Information + Updating the previous understanding

As a result of the application of new information, we usually update our previous understanding on the issue. In this way we ‘learn’. Learning also can be defined as “up-dating the previous understanding structure as a result of the application of new information”.

But, above is only the usual way of handling new information. All people, in all cases do not handle new information in the above mentioned way. There are basically three approaches for handling new information; (i) Regressive Approach; which is ‘backward thinking’ approach, (ii) Static Approach; where people do not ‘think’ by themselves and; (iii) Progressive Approach; which is the ‘forward thinking’ approach and is necessary for making progress.

These three approaches have been briefly described below:

1- Regressive Approach:

Every new information is viewed in such a manner as to just confirm the authenticity of old information. In this way, the structure of old information is not changed or up-dated in this case. We have defined ‘learning’ to be the ‘updating’ of the structure of previous understanding as a result of the application of new information. In regressive approach, basically every effort is made to protect and safeguard the structure of previous understanding. New information is not properly considered and evaluated. Any information that seems to be contradictory to the structure of previous information (understanding) is just rejected without proper considering or evaluating it. Since there occurs no ‘up-dating’ of the structure of previous understanding, therefore ‘learning’ also does not occur in a regressive approach of handling any new information.

2- Static Approach:

As a result of the application of new information, the previous understanding (i.e. the structure of previous information) may be up-dated but the new (resulting) understanding is not evaluated for further outstanding questions and also no new conclusions are derived. In fact, the new information, in as it is form, is just integrated in the previous mindset (i.e. structure of understanding). The previous structure of understanding is up-dated in this way. Since the previous structure of understanding is up-dated, so ‘learning’ takes place under the ’static approach’ of handling new information. But since no new conclusions are derived under this approach, so there is no or at least less scope for the generation of new ideas under this approach. Missing of ‘new ideas’ simply means that the total knowledge is ’static’ i.e. up to the level where it was before the application of new information except in case where ‘new information’ comes from direct observation of a whole new thing. Only in this case there has occurred some expansion in the total knowledge and in all other cases, ‘learning’ has been occurred only in an individual’s mind and so in this way, nothing ‘new’ has been ‘learned’ by the humanity as a whole. In ’static model’, usually, already existing knowledge is just transferred from one mind to other or others. To whom the knowledge is so transferred, does not draw his own conclusions. He does not draw his own conclusions because actually he does not ‘think’ by himself. Whatever has been told to him, he accepts it in as it is form without properly considering its detailed implications. He does not consider the detailed implications of the new information because he does not ‘think’ by himself. The ’static approach’ is so termed also because the ‘thinking process’ is ’static’ under this approach. In this approach, ‘learning’ does occur but the idea generations do not take place due to the fact that ’self thinking’ is ’static’ or absent in this case. The knowledge remains ’static’ up to the level of ‘up-dated’ understanding until another new information has come from the external world. One who follows static approach is only a follower of progressive people. Whatever the progressive people shall tell him, he shall accept it in as it is manner. No doubt he is ‘moving’ in a ‘forward’ direction because after all ‘learning’ is present in this approach. The type of this ‘forward movement’, however, is not impressive at all. The progressive people actually are ‘running’ in forward direction and our ’static person’ is just ‘crawling’ behind them. Logically he cannot overtake the progressive people. He also cannot go towards any new direction. He only has to follow the path which was already explored by the progressive people. Also he moved up to the level to which he has been ‘pulled’ by the rapid progress of the progressive people. So in this type of ‘non-impressive’ forward movement, our ’static person’ is not moving by himself. Actually he is being ‘pulled’ by the progressive people. This approach is ’static’ also because our ’static person’ is not moving by himself. He is just being ‘pulled’.

3- Progressive approach:

In progressive approach, as a result of the application of new information, the previous understanding is up-dated. This up-dated ‘new’ understanding is further evaluated for the further outstanding questions. Answers to those outstanding questions are found out and new conclusions are drawn accordingly. Need for the new information is also recognized at various levels and efforts are made to get the required information. The new information so acquired again up-dates the previous understanding and the cycle continues. In this way the knowledge makes progress. Progressive approach not only is a continuous learning process, it has a greater potential of generating new ideas as well. The progressive person ‘thinks’ by himself. Since he ‘thinks’, so he draws his own conclusions. Many of such conclusions can come up to the definition of ‘new idea’. So there is greater potential for the generation of new ideas under the progressive approach. A progressive person is not ‘pulled’ by other progressive people. He, by himself seeks for new information from every potential source but he is not just the follower of those information sources. He draws his own conclusions and thus organizes his own knowledge. He makes improvements in knowledge. He is moving in forward direction in an impressive style. A static person was just crawling behind the fast moving progressive people. Our this progressive person is one of the fast moving persons. Whether or not he is actually behind other progressive persons does not matter at all. Since a progressive person draws his own conclusions, so in fact he is exploring an entirely new way. He is the leader of his own way. Actually all the progressive persons are leaders of their respective fields. Even if the progressive persons belong to same area of study, still then there is sharp difference between a progressive person and a static person. The static person is just crawling behind the progressive people and is being ‘pulled’ by those progressive people. In case of a progressive person who is actually moving behind other progressive people, even in this case, his position is far better than that of a static person. Unlike a static person he is not ‘crawling’ behind the progressive people. He is ‘running’ after the other running progressive people. Unlike a static person, he is not being ‘pulled’ by the progressive people, he is actually ‘running’ by himself. Since the static person is ‘crawling’ behind the running people, so logically he cannot overtake those progressive people. The progressive person in this case, on the other hand, is also ‘running’ behind the other running persons. He may have his speed greater than other progressive people because after all he is ‘running’ and not just ‘crawling’. So logically, the possibility exists that he may overtake other progressive persons in that particular field.

Education System:

Our formal education system basically is an example of ’static model’. Students are taught only that material which is written in syllabus books by some progressive people. Students only have to go through that written material and only have to improve their understanding of the related concepts. But that ‘improved’ understanding is considered to be the ‘upper limit’ or the ‘upper boundary’ of all what students can be expected to do. Students are not required to further improve that ‘improved’ understanding with the help of their own ‘thinking and analysis’. Any further improvement is considered possible only in a situation when the same author has written a new edition of the same book. Only this ‘new edition’ is considered to be the sole source of any kind of ‘further’ improvement in the understanding level.

In this way, what a progressive person has done, the students have to follow it. Students are required to ‘crawl’ behind that progressive person. Students (and many teachers also) remain static up to that level to which they have been ‘pulled’ by the progressive people. By themselves, students cannot (also not expected to and also not required to) go beyond.

Students are evaluated only for their ‘improved’ understanding level and it is still irrelevant to consider that if they are able to practically apply that ‘improved’ understanding or not. Students actually are bound to remain unable to practically apply their better understanding level because ‘practical approach’ is missing in this kind of ’static’ understanding ‘improvement’ model.

Students themselves do not analyze or evaluate what is written in the syllabus books. They view the written text only from a single angle. Practical situations always require analysis of situation from maximum possible angles. Since students do not do that, they remain unable to handle the practical situations.

Students only have to ‘follow’ the progressive people so they are bound to remain behind those progressive people. Whatever ‘milestone’ they have covered, in fact has already been left behind by those progressive people. The situation is the worst in the case of static minded teachers. In fact static students are still in a better position than to the one which is held by the static minded teachers. Students are ‘improving’ their understanding. They go to next class and ‘further improve’ their understanding. But the static minded teachers – they actually, even are not ‘improving’ their understanding. They are just teaching the same material which was already known to them. They are just teaching the same material over and over again and from year to year. Since they are required to teach the ’same’ material under this education system, so actually they are not in need to generate any new ideas in the related subject. So the static minded teachers are not even doing what is being done by the static students because students after all, are improving their understanding level from year to year but these teachers are at the same level of understanding for the most part of their respective careers.

Suggestions for improvement:

The situation can be improved and this static education system can be transformed into a better progressive system. Following are the necessary points or steps that are required for this purpose.

i. Class room should not be only lecture based. There should mainly be formal discussion activities in the class rooms. Every student should be required to give his/ her opinion on the topic. He/ she also should be required to identify further necessary areas of investigation in the current topic.

ii. There should be discussion groups who can choose different topics for the discussion.

iii. Evaluation of students should be based on their participation level and their performance in the discussion activities.

iv. For every discussion topic, all students should be required to write down their own analysis, opinions and conclusions in the form of thesis.

v. However, half the class time can be devoted to lectures also.

vi. Written examination system must have to be thoroughly changed. Only those subjects or topics should be evaluated in written examination which otherwise cannot be evaluated. Even in such conditions, written examination must have to be analytical oriented i.e. not just descriptive or calculation oriented.

Progressive information handling approach actually is simple and easy as compare to the static approach. In the static approach, one has to go through all the contents of, lets say, syllabus books because the maximum goal in this approach is to get satisfactory understanding of all the contents of that knowledge which is already available in those syllabus books. To acquire the understanding of all the contents of syllabus books, using the static approach is a tedious task. With relatively more effort, the maximum result is only a ’satisfactory’ understanding of the already existing knowledge.

In the progressive approach, on the other hand, the progressive person only has to choose the issue or topic which is the most interesting for him. Then he has to analyze all its related aspects. He has to mentally organize all the related information in a proper, meaningful and in a systematic and consistent manner. For a progressive person, it is not difficult at all to choose the issue or topic for his analytical activities. Progressive person is the one who ‘thinks’ by himself. In this way, the most ‘interesting’ subject or topic for this person would be that issue or subject etc. about which he ‘thinks’ in his spare time. Under this approach, since the progressive person has to choose that subject or topic, for his analytical activities, which happened to be the most interesting subject for him and since the most interesting subject for him is that one about which he already ‘thinks’ in his spare time so in this way he would choose the subject, for his analytical activities, about which he already ‘thinks’ in his spare time. As a result, this progressive person would acquire a definite purpose and a proper line of action for himself. Having a definite purpose in his mind, he himself shall search for maximum information about the subject or issue from whatever sources of information that shall include not only the syllabus books on the subject but shall include other non-syllabus sources of information that would include direct observations as well. In this way, he may has to go through all the contents of those syllabus books along with also consulting the non-syllabus sources of information. He also has to generate new ideas about the topic/ issue. The successful search of the information from all the available sources of information shall result in ‘linear expansion in knowledge’ whereas the new ideas shall result in ‘parallel expansion in knowledge’. He also has to critically analyze the issue which shall result in ‘improvement’ in knowledge because such critical analysis shall ‘improve’ the ‘accuracy level’ of knowledge on the issue.

The above mentioned activities apparently may seem to be more tedious than to that of the static approach, but the fact is opposite. Since the person who is doing all the above mentioned things for the sake of a ‘definite purpose’ i.e. analysis of issue/ topic/ subject etc. for which he is personally interested, so he shall take all these activities lightly. He has a definite purpose and a proper line of action. He does not have to memorize/ understand all the boring and un-interesting topics of syllabus books though he might has to go through even more new information materials as may be offered by any set of syllabus, for the performance of his analytical activities.

It has been mentioned in this discussion that the progressive person, first chooses a subject of interest and then start analyzing various aspects of that ‘interesting’ subject. It may seem that this progressive person shall keep himself confined up to the search and positive responsiveness towards only those information sources that are directly related to his own area of interest. This may be true as for as the so called ‘professionalism’ is concerned but this, however is not true in the case of a progressive person. Progressive approach is different or rather opposite to this so called ‘professionalism’. In this professionalism, efforts are made to get expertise/ specialization in only one field of study through reading/ analyzing only those subjects that are directly related to the main field of study. Subjects having no direct link/ relationship with the main field of study are considered to be ‘irrelevant’. Study/ analysis of ‘irrelevant’ subjects is avoided because it is considered just useless for the achievement of the main objective, which is to get expertise or specialization in only one field of study. In this way these ‘professionals’ willingly keep themselves limited within the framework of their area of ’specialization’.

As previously has been stated that the progressive person not only has to get maximum possible information on the topic, he also has to generate new ideas as well. In this way, he actually has to make ‘improvements’ and ‘expansions’ in knowledge. This objective is possible to achieve if his approach is compatible with the optimum functioning system of human mind. For the optimum functioning, human mind can accommodate any amount of information whether relevant or irrelevant provided that too much burden of un-necessary memorization of the ‘material objective information’ is avoided. This fact has been explained in another section of this thesis. Idea generation process does not require ‘material objective information’ as its input but idea generation process shall function at optimum level if more and more information, whether relevant or irrelevant to the main subject, is continuously integrated in the mindset. For the optimum functioning of the idea generation process, it is only the ‘material objective information’ which is not used as input but more and more ‘abstract objective or subjective information’ however is compulsorily required irrespective of the fact that it has any direct relation with the main subject/ issue or not. Since a progressive person, unlike a ‘professional’, also has to generate new ideas and since the optimum functioning of the idea generation process requires continuous additions of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information except only un-necessary (i.e. irrelevant) ‘material objective information’, so in order to generate more new ideas, the progressive person shall not confine himself in getting only the ‘relevant’ information. He would be requiring ‘irrelevant (abstract) information’ also for the generation of more new ideas.

Human mind’s working principle is the ‘identification’ of similarities and associations between various sets of information and then manipulating those ‘identified’ similar or associated sets of information in a way which ultimately results in the formation of ‘knowledge’. We know that the concepts of ’similarity’ and ‘association’ do not have any rigid meanings. Human mind is able to identify (or detect) ’similarities’ and ‘associations’ even in those sets of information that belong to totally different or even opposite fields of study. Thus we are able to detect similarities and associations in those two sets of information, let’s say, one of which belongs to the study of Ethics and the other belongs to the study of Mechanics. Now consider a person who is a ‘professional’ in the field of Mechanics and being a ‘professional’, he considers the study of Ethics to be useless for him because the study of Ethics would be ‘irrelevant’ to his profession. In this case, since this ‘professional’ shall not study Ethics so he shall remain unable to identify that ’similarity’ or ‘association’ which exists between the contents of Mechanics and Ethics. Since this ‘professional’ does not identify the similarity (or association) between different sets of information so no manipulation operation can be performed by his mind because mind can perform manipulation operations only on ‘identified’ similar or associated sets of information. Since the ultimate result of the manipulation operations by the mind on the ‘identified’ similar or associated sets of information would have to be the formation of particular ‘knowledge’, so this ultimate result shall not be taken by this professional because in this case no such manipulation operation has been performed by the mind due to his non-identification of existing similarity or association between the contents of Mechanics and Ethics. In this way this ‘professional’ shall remain unable to conceive that new idea (most probably this new idea would have to be related to his own area of study) which was possible to be conceived by him if he did not avoid studying Ethics. As a result, this ‘professional’ actually would be acquiring expertise/ specialization only in already existing theories of his subject and he would not actually be further identifying/ exploring more new issues related to his own subject.

The task before the progressive person is not just to get expertise only in the already existing theories of his subject. The task before him is to move forward. To move forward, by himself, the progressive person has to look forward, beyond the boundary limits of already existing theories. He has to identify more new issues so that he may perform analysis of those newly identified issues. Proper analysis of those new issues is possible to do if the progressive person regularly conceives/ generates new ideas. As previously has been stated that optimum functioning of the idea generation process requires continuous additions of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information except only un-necessary (i.e. irrelevant) ‘material objective information’. But only this continuous addition of more and more information of every sort alone cannot stimulate the idea generation process to function at optimum level. Idea generation process can be stimulated for its optimum performance by first having outstanding issues/ problems/ questions etc. in mind and then by regular and continuous acquisition of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. Here, it should be noted that most of the times, it shall be the acquisition of that ‘irrelevant’ information that would help in identifying new issues/ problems/ questions relating to the main subject of interest as has been explained in the previously stated example where the professional in the field of Mechanics would possibly become able to find new issues in the subject of Mechanics just if he did not avoid studying Ethics. So the proper sequence of all this process identified here is that first the progressive person shall choose a subject of interest. Then he shall engage himself in acquiring more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. The acquisition of the ‘relevant’ information shall result in ‘linear expansion in knowledge’. The acquisition of ‘irrelevant’ new information, on the other hand, shall help him in the identification of new issues/ problems/ questions etc. relating to the main subject of interest. By keeping these outstanding issues/ problems/ questions in mind, the progressive person shall continue to engage himself in acquiring of still more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. Now at this time, he would be fulfilling both the essential requirements of the optimum functioning of the idea generation process which are (i) presence of outstanding issues/ problems/ questions etc. in mind; and (ii) regular and continuous acquisition of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. The new ideas that shall be resulting due to the ‘optimum functioning’ of the idea generation process in this way would be having the basis, the important component of which was that newly acquired ‘irrelevant’ information. In this way, the acquisition of ‘irrelevant’ new information shall ultimately result in ‘parallel expansion in knowledge’.

We know that idea generation process basically is an analogical process. It means that it is not in the best interest of a person, who really wants expansions in his knowledge, to keep himself confined to the study of only one subject/ issue even if his main objective is to get expertise/ specialization in only that subject because if he studies other subjects also, he in this way, possibly can expand his knowledge about the main subject/ topic just by making analogies with even ‘irrelevant’ topics. It means that more and more general knowledge can help in making him more and more specialist in any particular field, which usually has to be his own subject of interest. To become more specialist in his own subject of interest by adopting this strategy is possible when that person is acquiring more and more general knowledge while keeping the outstanding issues/ problems/ questions of his own subject of interest in mind. If the person studies only one topic, he expands his knowledge only in linear mode. But if he studies more and more topics/ subjects, he is expanding his knowledge about the main subject of interest in both linear as well as in parallel mode. In linear mode also because the apparently irrelevant topic may have direct connections or relations with the main subject of interest. And in parallel mode also because by having more diverse sets of information in mind, he becomes able to draw more valid analogical inferences.

We can conclude, on the basis of above discussion that progressive approach may prove to be more time consuming than to the static approach but this progressive approach, however is not tedious. Progressive approach offers more comprehensive results than can be offered by the static approach. Progressive person not only forms new knowledge, he also gets better, clear and more transparent level of understanding. That much transparent level of understanding is not possible to get in the static approach because in the static approach, analytical activities are missing. Only self analytical activities can give a better understanding level.

We have seen previously that the progressive person has a definite purpose and a proper line of action for him. The ‘definite purpose’ is to move forward, beyond the boundary limits of already existing theories and the ‘line of action’ is to make expansions and improvements in his overall knowledge with particular emphasis on the main subject of interest, first by identifying new outstanding issues/ problems/ questions relating to main subject of interest and then by continuously acquiring of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information, and finally by doing analysis of the information so acquired, as well as of those new ideas that shall be conceived by him during all these processes. ‘To move forward’ also have another sense and this is continuous ‘upward shift’ in the ‘overall understanding’ and ‘level of abilities’. Up-grades in the ‘overall understanding’, under progressive approach is relatively a routine matter because progressive approach is a continuous learning process and the process of learning involves up-grades in the overall understanding. Whereas the ‘upward shift in the level of abilities’ has specific meanings in this context. As we already have identified that the task before the progressive person is to move forward. He has to move forward, not only beyond the boundary limits of already existing theories but also beyond the limits of his own maximum abilities. But can a person really go beyond his own maximum abilities? The answer to this important question would be No, if asked from us and we are to answer the question while keeping in view the real implications of the static education system. Under this static education system if a student remains unable, even in some case – due to certain un-avoidable reasons, to get passing marks in the examinations, he would not be allowed to take admission in the next class even in case where courses offered for study in the next class happen to be relatively easier and more interesting for him than to that of the previous class. In this way that student would be considered, by this static education system, to be not able to do such a task which actually be at much below the level of his maximum abilities. The actual problem with this static education system is that this system cannot identify the levels of students’ abilities and so cannot take any effective steps for the improvements in those levels. This system only can do whatever is more convenient to do. It is quite easy to devise a rigid syllabus, then to teach only the syllabus subjects to all the students, then to force all the students to get themselves familiar (only) with the contents of those subjects and then making ‘assessments’ about the levels of students’ abilities on the basis of such types of examinations which are quite easy to conduct and whose purpose is only to check the compliance of students’ understanding with those syllabus contents. In this way if the ‘level of abilities’ in case of a student is found to be ‘in compliance with’ the syllabus requirements, then he would be considered to be able to go to next class. Being ‘able’ to go to next class would be considered to be equivalent to the ‘upward shift in the level of abilities’ of that student, under this static education system. In this way the answer to the question that whether a person can go beyond his own maximum abilities or not would be positively answered by this education system itself.

In my opinion, the real answer to the question that whether a person can go beyond his own maximum abilities or not, would be yes but not in that sense in which this question is ‘positively’ answered by the education system. A person can really go beyond his own maximum abilities if he actually achieves his own maximum level. To become able to go beyond his own maximum abilities, by a person, may not make proper sense at first instance. But to become able to achieve his own maximum level by that person does make proper sense. A person can achieve his own maximum level if he successfully performs that task/ activity etc. such that to perform that task/ activity was possible only if he would have applied his maximum effort and ability. Once this maximum level is achieved, now onward it is no more the ‘level of maximum ability’ of that person. Now onward, the ‘level of maximum ability’ of that person would be located somewhere at a higher level than before. That person, as a result of this ‘upward shift’ in his ‘level of maximum ability’, becomes able to perform such a task/ activity which was impossible to be performed by him previously when his relatively lower level of ‘maximum ability’ could not let him perform ‘higher level’ tasks or activities. Now when he is at a ‘higher level of maximum ability’, some of those ‘higher level’ tasks/ activities are no more at ‘higher level’ for him. And obviously there shall still be infinite number and kinds of those tasks/ activities which would still be beyond the scope of this new and improved level of abilities. Now again when this person shall ‘achieve’ his new ‘maximum level’, he would become able to perform still ‘higher level’ tasks/ activities and this cycle shall continue in this way. A point, here, needs to be clarified. It has been stated that after when a person ‘achieves’ his own maximum level, that person as a result becomes able to perform those tasks/ activities etc. which were impossible to be performed by him previously. This point actually does not give any such meanings as for example before when a syllabus book was not formally taught by the teacher, it was ‘impossible’ for students to understand the contents of book. We earlier stated that ‘up-ward shifts in the level of abilities’ have specific meanings in this context. In this example, if we keep ’specific’ meanings of ‘up-ward shift in the level of abilities’ in mind, we shall not conclude that before when particular syllabus book was not formally taught by the teacher, it was ‘impossible’ for the students to understand the contents of that book. By keeping the ’specific’ meanings in mind, our conclusion would be that it was within the range of normal abilities of students that if taught by a teacher, they were able to understand the contents of that book. So if students understand some new syllabus contents in this way they actually do not cross their ‘level of maximum ability’. The maximum level for them is still at the same point where it was located previously.

But what is that ’specific’ meaning of ‘upward shift in the maximum ability’? First of all we should clarify that we are considering here, only the mental abilities and we are not addressing the issue of improvements in ‘physical’ abilities of persons. By the term ‘mental abilities’ we mean such abilities of persons as ability to understand new and strange things/ situations, ability to handle and solve new and puzzling problems/ situations, ability to generate more complex new ideas and/ or to formulate new theories etc. Keeping in view the issue of improvements in these types of abilities which are related to mind’s performance, the meaning of ‘upward shift in the maximum ability’ can be considered to be like as to become able to understand those things/ situations, or to become able to handle and solve those problems/ situations, or to become able to generate more complex new ideas, and/ or to become able to formulate new theories such that previously it was out side the scope of maximum ability of the person to perform any of these tasks. Previously the person, in this case was not able to perform any of the above mentioned tasks. But now if he has become able to perform any of these tasks, then it means that actually he has crossed his previous level of maximum ability which also means that there has occurred ‘upward shift in the maximum ability’ in case of this person.

Thus in the case of example given in the previous paragraph, lets say that person first successfully handles a complicated issue such that to handle that issue was possible by him only if he applied his maximum efforts and skills. Before handling the issue, that person was in a state of doubt. He was not fully confident that he could successfully accomplish the task. If he did not apply his maximum effort and ability in order to accomplish the task, he would still remain in state of doubt in the possibility of successful accomplishment of that task by him. The state of doubt shall continue and the person shall remain in trap of his already existing vision. But if he apply his maximum efforts and in this way brings himself out of the trap of his previous limited vision, that person as a result would get a new broader vision about his next objectives. Those next objectives were outside the scope of his previous limited vision. Previous vision was limited because its corresponding objectives were still un-accomplished. Now when previous objectives have been accomplished the person’s vision has been broadened due to the fact that he has got such new objectives for him which were simply outside the scope of his previous level of maximum ability. Now the level of his maximum ability would be located at some higher level. His new maximum vision would be showing him those objectives such that to accomplish those objects would have been considered by the person just close to something impossible. He again would be in need to apply his (better) maximum ability in order to accomplish those near to impossible objectives. He would successfully accomplish those new objectives also when he would apply his new better maximum ability. He again would get still broader vision for him and some new objectives shall come within the range of new broader vision. In this way the person shall continue himself in a ‘forward’ movement.

So in order to move in forward direction in a real sense, a person should prefer to undertake to perform only those tasks which should appear to him close to impossible to be successfully accomplished by him. The tasks which may seem to be ‘close’ to the impossibility actually are not quite impossible to do. Such tasks can possibly be performed provided the person uses his maximum effort and skill in order to accomplish those tasks. If the person continues to engage himself in the performance of just routine type of tasks such as those which are normally assigned to students by the static education system, he shall continue to remain at the same level of his maximum ability. He would be having his vision static and fixed at a particular level. He shall not undertake to accomplish the maximum possible objectives so those objectives may remain ‘close to impossible’ throughout his career.