© David Staume 2006

The different levels of thinking

A lot has been written about different styles of thinking – Edward de Bono for example, and his wonderful Six Thinking Hats, but less has been written about the different levels of thinking.

We can consider any subject from three levels, and these can be illustrated by three cross-sections of a pyramid. The first is the base of the pyramid, which is a large square; the second is a cross-section halfway up, which is a smaller square; and the third level is the point at the top.

Thinking about a subject at the level represented by the base of the pyramid is thinking at the level of facts and figures. The area of the base of the pyramid is large, which indicates that there are a relatively large number of facts and figures available on any subject. When we think at this level, it is hard, if not impossible, to grasp a subject in its entirety, because of the vast and unwieldy array of facts and figures that confronts us. The base of the pyramid is also where the sides are farthest apart; symbolically, this indicates that facts and figures are often contradictory. Miguel de Unamuno (a Spanish philosopher and author) is reported to have said: ‘If a man never contradicts himself, the reason must be that he virtually never says anything at all.’ Contradictions are woven into the very nature of facts and figures. Unless we can rise above this level, our subject will be too large for us to fully grasp, and too diverse for us to bring together.

Thinking at the level represented by the cross-section in the middle of the pyramid is thinking at the level of laws. The area of the cross-section in the middle of the pyramid is much smaller than the area of the base, which indicates that there are significantly fewer laws than there are facts and figures. Thinking at this level therefore makes our subject easier to grasp. Reconciling the different aspects of our subject is also easier, because there are fewer contradictions at this level, indicated by the sides of this smaller square being closer together. However, a person half way up one side of the Great Pyramid at Giza will see nothing but desert, while a person on the opposite side will see nothing but Cairo. Looking at the level of laws gives a better view than looking at the level of facts and figures, but it still doesn’t give us the whole picture. The perspective is broader, but there are still sides, and therefore different points of view.

The best view, and therefore the best way of thinking, is represented by the top of the pyramid. This is the level of principles. The area here is very small, which indicates that there are only a very small number of principles, and the very top of the pyramid has no sides at all. Everyone, therefore, has the same broad and all-encompassing view. This is the only place where we can see the big picture. It is also the only place where we can truly have consensus, because arguments and wars are impossible when there are no ‘sides’ to do battle.

The unfortunate thing is that conventional thinking says that we have to work from the bottom to the top: we have to learn facts and figures before we can rise to the level of laws, and we have to know laws before we can rise to the level of principles. And so we begin gathering facts and figures, which we then slowly distill into laws, from which we might – if we’re lucky – extract a few principles. But this process won’t win us any awards for efficiency. It’s rather like trying to contact someone by opening up the White Pages at A and calling every number, in the order they’re listed. We will probably find the person we’re after, eventually, but there are better ways of finding the information we need.

We should be aware of these different levels of thinking because all of them are necessary, and each has its strengths. But the most important thing is: we don’t have to begin at the bottom. Our quest for knowledge doesn’t have to begin at the level of facts and figures.

It is possible to learn principles before either facts and figures or laws. But the only way to do this is to go to the source. The source of all knowledge is Nature, and if we learn to observe her carefully, and try to resonate or harmonize with her – we can discover in minutes what would otherwise take lifetimes.

While it’s not within the framework of this short article to elaborate, isn’t it exciting to know that it’s possible?

An example of learning at the level of principles is given in To Root or to Sprout.

If you enjoyed reading this work, please spread the word about this site.