There Are Two Kinds

From Zanecorpwiki

There are two kinds is a saying about as popular as it is maligned. At it's best, the construction gives us a new framework from which to view things. At it's worst, it's projects a terribly reductive, narrow, and naive view of the world.

In practice, the way to understand the idea is not in the sense that all X are are only Y or Z but all X can be understood in terms of Y and Z. The former formulation leads to a reductive collapse through it's exclusivity. Non-exclusivity is foundation of the second formulation and key to understanding the best use of there are two kinds.

There are two kinds is, at it's best, an expression of dimensional thinking which allows us to place subjects along an axis. In order to keep from oversimplifying to the point of absurdity, we must simply bear in mind that the current dimension is not the only dimension.

Let's consider the physical world. All objects are either to my left or right is a true statement. If we imagine a plane bisecting one's body and defined by the vertical and dorsal axis, then all objects in the world are an one side of that plane or the other. Equivalently, all objects can be placed on the horizontal axis defined by my own body.

This does not mean that this is the only thing all objects are. In fact, whether an object is to my left or right is not very interesting, nor does it even tell us that much. We don't even know much about the location of an object. For that we need to define both above/below, back/front, and distance, and we need to know these relations with greater than Boolean precision.

Besides illustrating how a thing exists in many dimensions simultaneously, the example also shows that sometimes we need more precision than a simple a or b conception allows. There are two kinds shouldn't be used to try and define things, but as a tool for understanding or simplification.

For instance, if you have a budget of $10,000 to spend on a new car, it is perfectly appropriate to say There are two kinds of cars in this world: those I can afford and those I cannot. Indeed, conceiving of cars in this manner is probably the most useful starting point there could be.

There are two kinds conceptions are also useful in terms of defining dimensions. For instance, while saying objects are to my left or right is not useful for locating objects, it may be useful in terms of describing the nature of three dimensional space. There are two kinds of businessmen, those who seek to maximize return and those who seek to minimize risk can illuminate a dimension of the business world which is useful for understanding the difference between entrepreneurs and bankers.

There are two kinds is essentially a spatial conception. It can be used to both define space. I.e., what makes up the space? The (perceptible) physical world is made up of three dimensions. In Damp;D, characters had 6 basic dimensions (strength, dexterity, constitution, charisma, intelligence, and hit points).

For most real world applications, the definition of space is hard. Not only because things tend to have many dimensions, but also because you can define different sets axiomatic dimensions. For instance, in physical space, we can define position by XYZ, or by rotation, incidence, and distance (a polar system).

This is great, because some problems are much easier to solve in one system of definition than in the other. The problem comes when we talk about other stuff and don't realize we're using different axiomatic sets. A planar guy would be perfectly valid in saying, Why do you keep talking about angle of incidence, it's irrelevant! and the polar guy would be equally right to say, How can you say that? It's absolutely vital!

Of course, when talking about other things, like love, happiness, business, etc. what's vital and what isn't or when you're talking about different axiomatic sets is much harder to see. Largely because we don't know to ask the right questions and falsely believe that there is only one right way of looking at something.

The truth is that in a given situation, there is an optimal way of looking at something. The idea of two kinds can sometimes be a great tool to put us in the right mindset for optimizing the decision making process. But this doesn't mean the meandering proof is wrong, it's just a different path.

The two kinds allows us to see in ways we hadn't before, to simplify understanding, and to optimize decisions. Rather than a reductive and limiting concept, it is most properly a tool for a fluid, dynamic understanding of things.