Perspectives. In almost every human difficulty, the root of every problem is the point of view. It could sound like something wicked. In effects, it could be so.I think the problem is not a different point of view, but how certain people build own perspective.
Prefacing I nearly never have a unchanging opinion about the human being, my experience has put anyway some firm points:
1) human being's praticses and lifestyles change from parallel to parallel across the globe on we live;
2) human being's decisions are unreliable and in every context you cannot be sure if, what and when exactly a decision will be made and if, what and when exactly it will be turned in the action as you expect;
3) every human creation works only in the world created (or interpreted) by humans.
So, (1) introduces a set of praticses and lifestyles and (2) a subset in which we have an unpredictable movement of billions of elements (the human beings). If we consider that by now each tradition has lost his geographical identity due to the interracial melting pot, we could try to define the concept in this way: a primordial set (we can call it "the human world") with some subsets like tradition, praticse and lifestyle; another primordial set that we could define "the human rules" where are placed constants created and named by the human being like the time, the weather, the measurements, the animal names, the plant names, the inventions, the various classifications about discoveries and so on... At this point, try to unite the sets "human being's world" and "human rules". When you'll have done this, try to create for your own the relation between the subsets you consider relationables and write the reason of each relation choice.
The result will be:
1) your personal set of reasons about the subset relations, or rather your point of view about your surroundings;
2) a big set derived from the "world" and "rules" sets, called "Quality" and, currently, humanly unintelligible.
Quality has no explanation for the class of human beings, because until today men give importance to the numbers and, in effects, numbers and formulas give the illusion that almost everything, in theory, can be in the right place at the right time. Try to imagine a tree before the first man decided to call that funny thing "tree". It is the quality. Man, once assigned a name, has studied every kind of discovered tree, deducting that, to be considered as such, every of it needs to possess some fundamental features : roots, trunk, branches, twigs and leaves. He has put these features in a subset called "morphology" owned by the subset "tree", differing for example from the subset "morphology" derived from the subset "plant"...But...What could happen if tomorrow a new tree with tomato fruits were discovered? The subset of trees should be changed drastically, but...where would you put the new arrived? In which category? Plants? Or trees? Or maybe a new category? And how to explain the difficulty to give a correct place to the new arrived?
It's not fiction, because a similar event happened when a new kind of animal was discovered: the platypus. It was discovered by the researcher Shaw in 1799. Until that date they were considered mammal species the animals having, among other features, the presence of tits and hairs. The platypus has got features shared with mammalia and others common with the birds, for his way of reproduction laying eggs instead of giving birth to live young. Moreover, he has got a terrible poison under his foots, strange feature for a mammalia. The platypus discovery had a negative impact on the rigid scientific rules about the animal classification. Scientists decided to create a new category entirely dedicated to the platypus.
The human chaos in the set called "Quality" was represented by the platypus right in that time. Other scientific misunderstandings have occured during the history, recently too. For example, the modern method of medic research gives too much importance to the virus theory, as demonstrated in the failure of the "legionella" and "salmonella", considered initially diseases caused by improbable viruses (and for which every researching effort was done); in effects, after the failure of the virus way, different studies brought about the discovery of new bacteriums.
So, to come back to the speech about the perspectives, they are only the perception we have about environment, but an rigid opinion made by numbers and theory, in a subset depeding by a set where elements are in perpetual chaos and revolution, can only block temporarly the evolution itself of the "human world" subset, just because the "rules" set is an illusion.
For further details, I suggest you a book by Robert Pirsig, "Lila", in which the theory of "Quality" is well-analyzed.
Fellow men that speak their language with aristotelic methods should add a good portion of "free-heart-feeling" method. Not for human peace (it's another illusion) but to give a possibility to the elements of the subset "human beings" to swim easily in the invisible ocean named "Quality".
