It’s very easy to be caught in a world of thought that is or is not. I think there’s a time and place for this, like in deciding where something begins and where something else ends. Similarly, I think there are moments for a grayscale, where it isn’t totally one side or the other, but a mix of the two; how you might want to know how something works. In myself and many others, I find there is a tendency to be caught up in the binary form of thinking, even when that isn’t applicable to the situation. A simple example of this for me would be that I would think that I either must think or act in a certain way, and there were only two ways, and I have to choose between them. This is silly, I can act or think in ways that have many bits and pieces from a variety of sources, I don’t have to be one side or the other. In the past and the present, these have been issues, but issues have resolutions, and becoming aware of the ways that black and white and grayscale thinking occur can enable a greater awareness in choices that are made. As a result of this identification, one has to delve into properly defining black, white, and grayscale, the nuances for the case in which the type of thinking will be used, and identifying when the thinking is properly and improperly used.
Black and white exemplifies the need for things to certain and exact. It is either black or it is white, and it is simple as. Grayscale opposes this by extruding ideas of fluidity and changeability. Both are required, and this can be easily understood if we think about what it takes to get to black from white or vice versa. Black is the absence of light, and if we increase the light, bit by bit, it doesn’t instantly become white, we have to continually keep adding light, and once we have enough light, total light, we are totally white, and this works the other way around too. If it takes many steps in order to reach the other side, we have to stay aware that those steps exist. We can decide how many steps we want there to be, by deciding how much light to add or take away. Both of these systems are required and interrelated to each other, at some point, we can’t add more light, and at others, we can’t take away more.
This is true and observable, and because this is the case, by ignoring one side or the other, we fail to see what could be seen, whether it is done intentionally or not is up to you. If you struggle to see the variability between two choices; the gray between the black and the white, I’d suggest you start small. You could mentally set yourself up to choose between drinking water or soda. You are mentally locking yourself down between these two choices, you must drink water or you must drink soda. However, this isn’t the case, these aren’t your only two options, there are a variety of beverages one could drink. This, of course, is under the assumption that you are merely forcing yourself to choose between these two beverages. What if we set up a situation that we would consider to be more of the forcing kind?
Suppose you are locked in a room, and you are presented with water and soda, but you can only choose between these two. You don’t know when you’ll be let out of the room, and there’s nothing in the room besides you, a glass of soda, and a glass of water, and you’ve been given instructions to drink either the soda or the water. Even in this very particular and isolated situation, you have more choices than just trying the water or the soda. There might be fear that you have to choose because you don’t know the next time, you’ll have access to a beverage, or when you’ll be out of the room, but despite the fears in your head, you can choose neither. You can ignore the instructions to choose a particular beverage, and go without something to drink. There’s another choice available besides without drinking anything in this very isolated case, which is drinking your own urine, when you eventually have to urinate. We might want to ignore the choices other than water or soda, because we perceive them as undesirable or unwanted, and maybe they are, but we can’t ignore them, because they are real choices.
Are there even more choices than what I’ve described? Yes, of course. Even in this theoretical, I’ve described no constriction to your body, so you could bite yourself and drink your own blood if you wanted to, but my intent isn’t to come up with every possible beverage that could be consumed in a very isolated situation. Instead, it’s to show that a change in how we perceive choices could be used in order to recognize what we otherwise wouldn’t want to recognize, and we can recognize as much as we’re willing to. The more we see and acknowledge, the more grayness there is. For some, it really is too far of an extreme to bite their flesh and drink their own blood, while for others, it isn’t a big deal at all. Instead of thinking in theoreticals, how could these ideas could be placed into real world situations? How about something as simple as a scale?
In a scale like, E minor, we can restrict ourselves to E, F#, G, A, B, C, and D. It is an artificial restriction, we want to play selectively only those notes, and what those notes mean to each other are within the context of E minor. Once again, it is a choice, we are choosing to play those notes in specific for a specific reason, and we use similarly will use minor as our context, because it is just as true to say this scale is G major. The point is, we can have these notes, but we can also step out of these notes if we want to, we don’t have to play these notes if we don’t want to. If you want to play B flat/A#, you can, if you want, but you’re also stepping out of the scale, and if you want to step out of the scale, you can, the note is there, it isn’t telling you that it can or can’t be used, you’re the one deciding its use. This goes onto showcase we can set up imaginary constrictions in order to execute specific actions. We could think every note is available, but it would decrease our ability to choose which notes which we want, in reference to what notes, and why. This has a real use, and it doesn’t cause any harm unless you want to step out of the scale but fear something bad will happen as a result of it. Whether we use a note or not is a relatively black and white choice. Deciding where and why we choose a note or string of notes ends up leaning into the grayscale. What other imaginary structures or systems do we use that enable us to act in specific ways?
A system for me that I formally would see as black and white which has transferred to a gradient has been my willingness to trust others. I used to believe that I either could or could not trust people, and it really was that simple in my mind. This system was formed out of being hurt after extending my trust to other individuals, and through learned behavior, I decided it would either have to stay or go, and so it went, because I didn’t want to be hurt. There are many fundamental issues with this approach. For one, not all people are the same, so not all people exist to hurt me. For two, trust is not a switch that turns off and on, trust has fluidity, I can give and take certain levels of trust. It was easier to just completely turn off what is considered “trust” and instead go without it, which would stop me from being hurt by others that I shouldn’t have extended my trust to, but it didn’t stop the pain caused from others whom I didn’t trust and were still around, and obviously, I still could hurt myself. Turning something on or off is the easiest way to handle something, black or white is the most fundamental way to go about something, but in this case, I had to go deeper. Why? Trust is not something fundamental in nature, it is a concept, and concepts are built upon other complexities, and so in order to accurately adjust myself to something nuanced, I have to give it respect. I didn’t, because I was afraid, in pain, and lazy. Now I realize this, and I realize there are many systems like this one lingering about, and I’m working through those one’s too.
Just as there are systems which require gradients, there are one’s which can stay black and white. Generally, the easiest and quickest thoughts that come to mind that incorporate this black and white thinking have to do with functioning. Either I drink water, or I die. This is true, if I stop drinking water, I will die. Obviously, there are the nuances of how long I will have to go without water, where else I might consume liquids, and so-on, but the binary applies accurately here. Thinking binary, a 0 or 1, is the most simple and direct way to think, and in cases where that’s required, it makes sense. I will jump or I will not. I will think or I will not. The moment it stops being binary is when we begin to dig deeper. When we start asking why, or how, or when, or any question that requires more nuance as an answer.
So why might you, I, or anyone else, try to apply the fundamental form of thinking to things above its complexity? Like already mentioned, it’s the easiest path to take. Not only can we logically break this down, but we can feel it too. Using logicisms, we can use something simple like a number line. Maybe, 0 to 1, and now we can see the number line starts at 0 and ends at 1. Pretty simple, pretty binary, unless we want it to be more. Within this binary, there are also all the numbers between 0 and 1. There is 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, etc., up until 1, and we can keep going further beyond the decimal point to find an immeasurable number of numbers until we reach 1. Chances are, we don’t need those, we just need to see and know that 1 comes after 0, and 0 comes before 1. This is what I mean by steps within the gradient, the least amount of gradient is the purest binary, and the most is imperceivable. We know this, and when we start to think about the gradient, we start to think about the unthinkable, and we get confused, but we don’t have to go down that far, we might only have to go to the tens place.
Feeling it comes pretty simple too. I can jump right now, or I could not jump. Simple binary, once again. Not only could I just jump, but I could think about jumping, and I could think about not jumping. Now I’ve added a lot of complexity, I don’t even know how much, but I could think about many reasons why I might want to jump, or why I might not want to jump, and go on forever thinking about all the reasons jumping, the action, from me, would occur or not occur. Sometimes we need to think about the thing we’re going to do, and whether we identify it as something to think about or not is up to us. For some, deciding whether or not to jump is the biggest deal, to others, they won’t think about it, they’ll just do or don’t and immediately move on. We might feel like jumping, so we jump, and if we don’t feel like jumping, we don’t jump. The complexity increases in many ways, as we choose. We might be in an environment where jumping might wake or annoy others, or it might be hurtful to your legs, or it might cause things to fall down, and so on. This is fine to consider, but things can become problematic if we want to think about why we want to jump or not jump. Not causing issue as a result of wanting to know, but because the lack of a defined ending. A question like this can go on indefinitely, we can circle around ourselves over and over, and we would do this because we really want to know, or we really don’t want to jump or not jump, but we believe either must be chosen.
How do we break through black and white thinking? Every time you recognize yourself creating a black and white thought or maintaining a black and white system, remember it, make mental note of it. If it happens again and again, you’ll learn that it happens because of a certain reason, or in relation to something else, and when that occurs again, you’ll be aware of it for next time. I’d like to say I have a premonition of when the thing is going to happen and when my mental work will actually come into action, but this might not happen for everyone. It’s less of an expectation of the thing that’s going to happen, but instead, a feeling that I’m going to recall my thinking. My altered ideas will begin to take priority over the old ones, and I will begin to think in a less black and white way.
We also learn through other experiences. We might have a black and white thought, and we can recognize the thoughts immediately, and then we can choose what to do about it, but we also will have to be aware what those thoughts are and if they’ll lead to external actions. Like mentioned, jumping or not jumping, I can realize I immediately jumped, to jump, and then recognize I was between jumping or not jumping, and finally came to the conclusion to jump. I might wonder how I came to that conclusion. This is something to be wary of as well. We might end up getting caught too far into the grayscale, of all the possibilities, of all the nuances, digging endlessly deeper trying to find all the more reasons that led to the action, or the thought, and so-on. Pragmatically identifying when to start to stop and when to dig deeper can yield results that have real impacts, like in mathematics.
Mathematics, while far from my strengths, has taught me that everything can be broken down into little chunks. We learn this even without math, but mathematics does this in a very direct fashion, and we can use this awareness to break down things outside of the context of mathematics. The number-line was a simple example of digging deeper within two sides, finding all the other numbers between those two, and choosing when to keep looking for numbers or cease the search. We can take a high-level example and slowly break it down, not too dissimilar from having a complex idea and then breaking it down into its fundamental aspects. In mathematics, we have addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division as our fundamentals; arithmetic. We can have an exceedingly difficult problem, which can only be correct or incorrect, but there are many more incorrect answers than correct ones. The context is the problem we’re attempting to solve, and so what is correct or incorrect should stay within those confines. Assuming we have the knowledge to break it down, we will, step-by-step, until we reach our conclusion. If we don’t, we have to figure out how to break it down ourselves.
Breaking it down ourselves can work. Assuming we know how to break it down, we just do, whether that’s because we learned it by playing around, trying to solve in all the ways we’ve used to solve things before, or we have been taught by someone else. There were moments in school, at least for me, where I would be presented with a problem that was related to the content being learned, but adjusted or augmented so I would have to alter my thinking in order to solve. I would use the information I already had, but I had to also use my brain beyond the steps already learned. Yes, I would have to use those steps, and see what I could do with those steps in order to reach this conclusion, but how I would have to use the steps, I wouldn’t have practiced before. Like said, not great at mathematics, and in situations like these, I’d fail miserably. I wanted to know the steps in order to reach the conclusion, not be asked to think how to reach the conclusion myself, and change my tools around if necessary. That’s silly, but I think many think like this. They want all the steps in order to reach their solution, and if presented by a problem that they can’t solve exactly with the steps they know already, they will shut-down or refuse to solve the problem.
At one point or another, you require more information in order to solve whatever it is anyway. There is an important positive correlation to note here. When we increase the difficulty of the mathematics, the prerequisite knowledge in order to break down the complex problem also increases. Thus, we will have to be educated to the point in knowing what systems and tools to use in order to break down the problem down to its rudimentary qualities. If you present someone with only basic algebra knowledge a calculus problem, they won’t know what to do. The information used to describe the problem, and the problem itself, which must be solved, would probably come off as esoteric. Nonsense that doesn’t make any sense, and it only makes sense if you have the knowledge of calculus. This too, happens outside of mathematics, or we believe it to happen. Having problems seemingly impossible to solve by our own hands, lacking the tools required in order to reach the correct answer.
There are two takeaways. For one, when solving or breaking down the problem, we use the tools we know in order to reach a conclusion that is black or white. Right or wrong. Using these tools, we break down the problem, into smaller and smaller aspects. Really, all we’re doing is breaking down the problems into smaller aspects of the binary, more layers of black and white. We continually do this until we don’t have to, until we’ve reached our conclusion, but it was only through breaking down the complex problem did we realize that the problem was more than right and wrong, it was many instances and aspects of right and wrong. For two, we sometimes don’t know how to break down the complex problem. Like in school, we’re taught how to solve, even if in a really poor way, and through this teaching, we learn the information, and then apply it to problems that will be presented in front of us. It was only through having someone educate us that were we able to solve, and if your educator sucked, you could use other tools in order to learn the tools in order to solve. Whether that would be the internet, friends, or a textbook.
It would be only through your awareness that you could realize that the seemingly complex or impossible problem has the capability of being broken down into smaller parts. And like said, if increasing the difficulty and complexity of mathematics, the need for more knowledge also increases, as one would require such in order to solve the more elaborate problem. Something else props up in this cognizance. Most of the time in mathematics that we move onto the next topic, it requires the past knowledge in order to solve the new problems presented, along with learning new tools and information which will be used with the problems held within the topic. This happens almost every time. Even though this might be the case, what we know and are certain of is our foundation, which, of course, is arithmetic, and so, in most problems, this is simply known as the cane on which all other tools lean on. Without the cane, they could not stand on their own.
The problem being solved, which we consider to be binary, right or wrong, requires knowledge of specific tools and an ability to break down the problem into smaller parts. The binary breaks down into more sets of binaries, continually breaking down until we cannot break it down further. How much breaking down occurs is dependent on how much deconstruction is required in order to reach a solution or simplification. What was once seen as only black and white, the solution, and so the problem in need of solving, ends up being many layers of gray. The gray is only found when noticing all the parts required to build the solution, and so, the same tools required to break it down.
In every case of black and white, there is always a further layer below what we thought was simply two options. What was once simple is now complicated. As mentioned, numerous times, fundamentals are pretty close to the binary on or off, but we don’t know that for sure. It works, and we see the results of it working, but we don’t know what we don’t know, so whatever is below what we already know would be presumably gray area. It’s a choice to dig deeper or not, and sometimes, it isn’t worth it to dig deeper. At what point do we stop searching for more gray? When is enough? When do we know we shouldn’t even bother in the first place?
This is where black, white, and grayscale thinking can work together with action and inaction. If you are in a soft-lock, unable to do anything, because you so utterly focused on all the gray that could be for the thing being thought, it’s probably best to cut yourself off. This is the greatest extreme in the gray, obsessing over every layer, looking for ways to get below the layer you’re at already, and continually doing this, to the point of dysfunction. I stop searching for gray when I find that I’m going in circles. If I get stuck in circular thought, there’s no escaping it other than stopping, and the worst part about stopping is that it feels like failure. I was unable to get what I wanted, and I had to accept that wasn’t going to happen, and so all the time spent searching and questioning has been a waste as well. In reality, this is sunken-cost fallacy. By stopping, you no longer have to going in circles anymore, and stopping the cycle is the only way to regain control, despite the circular thoughts telling you that control is within the cycle.
In many cases, enough is when we recognize that with what we have now, we will be unable to find further grayness. Whether it be because of a lack of tools, knowledge, or capability, we have to be wise enough to recognize that continuing on is superfluous. This is a moment where it’s okay to think and recognize where this has happened, so that you can catch yourself from falling into the same loop. Within thought, there is a limit to what we can do, and how much we can search. We forget, get lost, and thoughts that had arisen with less knowledge will persist despite the introduction of the new. Thinking might be an inactive process on its own, but when mixed with action, one can externally see their own growth, their own thinking, and then perceive themselves in a new way: from the outside, in.
Sure, that’s just how perception works, that’s how we think about ourselves, but we can get caught up thinking from the inside in. The inside comes from outside, so it doesn’t make sense to start where the internal doesn’t actually begin. The internal begins on the outside. The idea is that, if we start focusing only on the inside, we stop looking at the inside, because the inside began from where we would consider the outside, and then it allows for a loop to begin. At that point, you should stop, before you end up in a loop. The outside is before we do whatever we do to the outside to make it considered the inside. Bringing in the outside allows for the inside to change, and with change comes progression, without this change, the inside stagnates, and this idleness is what causes the cycle.
There are times where we shouldn’t bother with grayness or digging as far as possible. For me, I’m not going to dig all that deep for something like, let’s say, finding the perfect shower temperature. I could continually adjust the knob, trying to find the perfect temperature, or what I would consider perfect, but I don’t. I’m content with it being a little too hot, or a little too warm, because no matter what, I’ll get used to whatever the temperature is. It would be pointless to keep adjusting to find a temperature that’s perfect, and then I know that exactly that temperature is what I want each time. I could spend hours in my head thinking about what temperatures I like, which one’s I dislike, what temperatures I can handle depending on the difference in temperature between myself and the water, and so-on. For some, this might be worth it, if having the perfect shower temperature is important to them, but for me, it isn’t, so I don’t. What is important generally dictates whether or not we will look beyond the black and white.
Deciding what to focus on digging deeper and finding further grayness based upon what you deem important can be dangerous. This is because what we consider important, changes with time, and when we have moved on from something being considered important or significant, we have to actively make sure we aren’t digging so deep into that thing, whatever it is, in the present. If we change, we also have to change our systems of thinking, because we don’t, things will get out of whack, they won’t make sense anymore, and the more distance in time that goes between the change in your perception of importance and your identification of grayness will bring an incredible amount of confusion. You might end up spending a huge amount of time digging, finding out why this is, but you wouldn’t have had to do that if you had tracked your changes from the beginning. Although we can’t track all things from their origins, so finding out why we consider certain things more important than others can be especially difficult, but we can attempt to define specific things in reference to a personalized hierarchy.
How we define something as important? Generally, importance itself is a grayscale, we don’t list things as equally important. There are cases where we do this, and it’s pretty inevitable. It sometimes becomes an issue when we are stuck applying the same level of importance over many things that are actions that you have decided must be completed within a time-frame. For instance, I might say I want to play bass, learn Japanese, write, read, learn better video editing and photo manipulation skills, and maybe some other things. I want to do all of these things within a single day. If I can’t do this, and I considered these all of equal importance, then I’m going to be upset. The reality is, if I’m planning to do so many things that take up a certain amount of time, and I don’t have the time to fulfill all of those things, and I considered them all equally important, then I have to readjust my system. I can either have all of these things be equally important, but be cognizant that they can’t be executed all in one day. The problems occur when I emotionally ignore the reality of the situation and then try doing it continually, hoping it will somehow work. Rather, I must acknowledge the alternative methods, like doing certain things on certain days in order to maintain a balance that is achievable.
That’s great and all, but we haven’t even clearly defined what is important or not important. What I have demonstrated is that this is up to the particular person, but most people probably think things that are important are things that must be done over other things. It’s a means to give priority, although not everyone has the same set of priorities. Not everyone thinks that the most important thing to do is read, but there are those who do think that way, and if they act in accordance to that, all is well, but if not, it’ll upset their minds. Whatever the case, this plays into the fact that if you find something important, you probably want to know the grayness withheld in it, which itself can be another long and agonizing task. If it’s important to you, then you’ll end up really getting into it, really wanting to know and feel the thing, its nuances, and all that it has to offer. This is where you have to be careful, because even in the midst of doing this, you could be at a point in development where you can’t find the further grayness before working on or understanding other things first. Once again, it comes down to noting when you find yourself going in circles. Learn your cycles, and learn to leave them instead of being enraptured by them
Significance to us is all subjective, and due to this, we have to be careful once again. Being social creatures, we’re going to socialize, and just because we value something doesn’t mean someone else will value the same thing, or if they do, not always to the same level. This is a place where the grayness can impact other people.
The difference in what you consider important to someone else is wholly relevant. If you don’t consider it important what kind of bread you’ll eat, but your partner does consider it important, this can lead to frustration and friction between both sides. If you don’t consider it important, and don’t care, but have to put up with someone else caring, then learn to be okay with it, don’t be upset over it. Just as this exists, there will be times where you and a partner, or a friend, will consider something similar important but will have different views. How you reached either of your conclusions depends on some huge variety of variables, and you might think your view of gray makes more sense, but be understanding and willing to accept this might not be the case, despite how much time you might have spent trying to dig deeper and understand whatever the thing is.
Black, white, and gray-scale thinking is awfully complicated. How we think about things, when we think about them, to what extent, all play a part in deciding how we are going to do the things that define what we want to be and how we are going to be the people we are. Instead of being so caught up in the gray, we can decrease or destroy our view of the gray completely if it helps us do the things we want to do. Just the same, we can think in varying levels of grayness in order to reach closer to an understanding that satiates us. It is only through experience and a willingness to change how you perceive either of these sides, if you could even call them sides, that you will learn how to find all the gray in the black and white, and the black and white in the gray. It’s a process that requires ongoing effort, but with effort, comes reward, and awareness is a reward with immeasurable value.