Wanting to give a definition, we could say that lateral thinking tends to solve problems through an indirect approach, seeing the problem not from one but from different points of view, then indirectly. Having a problem whose solution seems to predict a single path of possible thought; through lateral thinking we will go looking for other ideas and insights that might not have the rigor of logic.
While vertical thinking is analytical, the lateral one is rather stimulating; if the vertical is consequential, that is follows the law of cause and effect in a sequential direction, the lateral thought can also proceed in fits and starts. Somehow as it happens between Newtonian physics (cause-effect) and quantum theory. That is, where it is necessary to be correct and rigorous thinking is analytical; in the case of lateral thought, instead, it is not necessary to make use of classifications and definitions. Unlike the vertical, is also accepted what is irrelevant and the case has a say and it is not absolutely necessary to make use of classifications and definitions.
Vertical thinking is mathematical or logical, rational, analytical and sequential. It is based on deductions, through the considerations that seem obvious and providing a sequence of steps, each of which must be justified. This procedure may inhibit the natural development of the idea.
Lateral thinking is different from the obvious considerations and tries, through creativity, alternative viewpoints, moving away from models that we normally use for reasoning. Using alternative viewpoints. lateral thinking proceeds by logical leaps and is based on intuition avoiding default sequences.
The two ways of thinking must be complementary. During group work, for example, lateral thinking is used in the diverging phase and vertical thinking during the convergent.
So, if you deal with a problem with the method of rational thought, the results are correct but limited by the rigidity of the logic models. When requesting instead a truly different and innovative solution you have to distort the reasoning, starting from the point as far as possible, reverse the data, mix assumptions, deny certain securities and even rely on associations of ideas completely random.
Often the most difficult dilemma lies in the formulation of problems.
When facing one of these, it is common practice to delimit it within a given framing and seek a solution within it. It is accepted as a proven data that a certain line represents the boundaries of the problem, and it is within these boundaries that logical thinking searches for solution. Very often, however, these boundaries do not exist in reality and the solution may be located outside of them.
Logic to be effective needs a precise context and rigidly defined. Certain preconditions must be accepted as true and can not be questioned.
One way to apply the analogical thinking is to use the data from a situation for another situation that is easier to examine, or is more known. In this way it is possible to switch from abstract considerations to concrete analogies.
An advantage of the use of analogies is that they normally use concrete images that suggest other images more easily than abstract ideas suggest other abstract ideas, with the result that the formation of ideas happens more smoothly.
The experience and ability of probabilistic research of the intellect allow you to automatically associate elements from different alternatives until a viable solution is reached.
The existence of homogeneity among the various natural systems allows to identify appropriate models for the representation of phenomena.
Reasoning or observations in a particular field can be conveyed to another and produce interesting consequences. The activity of breaking down into elements increasingly more simple and fundamental leads to identify axioms of mathematics. The rules of composition of the basic building blocks forms the body of mathematical techniques available. Identify the principles and axioms in mathematics foundation is a major goal of philosophical research. The principle of synchronicity arises at this level and states that the coincidence of stimuli, namely the superposition of signs, is a logical element that can not be eliminated in every cognitive process. Two events interact on the basis of their ability to be weighed at the same instant of time.
In addition, two different systems can be compared on the basis of coincidences of events that occur in both. Such coincidences can identify invariances existing in the transition from one system to another. All this without the existence of a rigid relationship of cause and effect.
The synchronicity indicates a relationship between two systems of representation, without a direct link of cause and effect.
It is possible to reconstruct this relation analyzing the systems from a logical point of view and to identify the reason of the occurrence of coincidences.
Our intellect divides the continuum of the reality around us in separate units. In part, it is forced by the type of functional organization of the nervous system of the brain, which sets limits to knowledge. In part, however, it is a deliberate choice that allows us to understand things by breaking them down into elements already known. A situation that is evolving without interruption, can be arbitrarily divided into two, at a suitable place, and the half before the dividing point connected to the one that follows it with the known relationship of cause and effect.
The choice of the parts in which divide everything is dictated by the notoriety, the convenience and the availability of simple ratios with which to reconstruct the parts to unity.
A report shows how two sides were combined together before the division. If this is repeated several times, the parties end up taking an own identity.
As soon as the convenient units, the intelligence units, receive a name, that ‘freezes’ them and immobilize permanently.
Then it becomes necessary to consider reality as a brick building each of which expresses its origin: an arbitrary conceptualization made previously.
Dear Anne,
your message is full of intelligent and sensible ideas that I perceived while proceeding in their reading .Here are some thoughts aroused by your expressions. They are put in casually and be you to evaluate their affinity with the content of your thoughts.
It came to my mind Erich Fromm who said: “Awareness means that the person does what he learns by himself, experimenting, trying, observing others and, in the end, forming a conviction rather than having an irresponsible "opinion". But it is not enough to decide on the general principles. Beyond this any of us must be conscious of the balance of forces within himself, and the rationalizations which conceal the unconscious forces”. In a society like that of today, contemplation is the embankment that ensures a level of water that satisfy thirst and purify the lake built as a reservoir from which our consciousness can draw.
For each of us it is necessary to have an inner confidence, the courage to commit ourselves in the knowledge that everyone has a gift to offer others, have a place to occupy in society, even though they have a small sign to be left in the history of 'humanity’.
Years ago, in the middle of '68, Paul Feyerabend argued from the University of Berkeley that to silence different views from those dominant means rob mankind of the possibility to get closer to the truth. That is why science should be organized to continually generate alternatives, give strength to anomalies and stimulate controversy. He calls it the principle of proliferation "Invent, and elaborate theories contradicting the dominant point of view, although this is generally accepted and well confirmed." There is nothing to fear from the competition of ideas, what we must fear is conformism and stagnation. Not only science should be organized in this way, but also the institutions that housing them - and as you know, for Feyerabend, it is the whole society.
We can make use of the contribution of philosophers. For brevity I will limit myself to the so-called "continental" and those defined as "analytical” philosophers. The problems they are dealing with are internal to certain formal theories, They are linked to a deep human need for orientation: placement in the universe and especially in time of human history. Who we are, where we are, and how we got here? This is the kind of questions you are interested in as a continental philosopher. The answers to these questions consist in part in telling a story, especially a history of culture, and in part in shaping an image of contemporary society. Even the ‘continentals’ practice an activity that looks at ' conceptual analysis' theorized by many analytical philosophers but for them to analyze a concept is once again to make history, for the continental concepts have their history; those who are dealing with the analytical, are pale ghosts, precipitated aggregates of a rich and complex story. The typical analytical philosopher, in turn, will consider questions affecting the continental school, too vague to provoke a serious investigation, and in any case the philosopher is not sufficiently equipped for the history of culture or for social analysis (analytic philosophers believe that the price of the lack of specialization is incompetence, and perhaps have a problem here, because it may be that there is something inherently generalist in the vocation of philosophy).
Dear Anne, thank you for your contribution and have my best regards, Gianrocco
Dear Anne,
thank you for your well-structured contribution. I take this opportunity to add some few sentences stimulated by your comments.
As soon as the convenient units, the intelligence units, receive a name, that ‘freezes’ them and immobilize permanently, then it becomes necessary to consider reality as a brick building each of which expresses its origin: an arbitrary conceptualization made previously.
For example, we use language to describe our ideas, but it is composed of predefined words and historically accepted by an entire culture.
The availability of words and names conditions strictly how to tackle a given question.
The rigidity of the designation is linked to the severity of classifications which in turn determine a required setting of the problem. Often the most difficult dilemmas lies just in its formulation.
When facing one of these, it is common practice to delimit within a given scene and seek a solution in it. It accepts as a proven datum that a certain line represents the boundaries of the problem, and it is within these boundaries that logical thinking research solution. Very often, however, these boundaries do not exist in reality and the solution may be located outside of them.
The logic to be effective needs a precise context and rigidly defined. Certain preconditions must be accepted as true and can not be questioned.
One way to apply the analogical thinking is to use data from a situation to another situation, it is easier to examine, or to be more known. In this way you can switch from abstract considerations to concrete analogies.
Best wishes, Gianrocco
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Images