If you are familiar with the work of Dan Brown, you may already have read his new novel called “Origin”. The novel is as good as any he has written and contains several interesting ideas, but the reason I bring this up is a small bit where he gives an excellent example of how point of view works. I will try to describe his explanation here.

Consider that I am holding a strip of paper in front of me, and when I look down at it I see the following:

Now to even interpret this line of text on the strip of paper, I must recognize that this equation is written in Roman numerals. Not your standard algebraic notation. So before I can even evaluate the truth or falsehood of the statement, I must understand Roman math. Once I do that I can see that the statement reads “9 plus 1 equals 10” and will conclude that this is a true statement.

Now consider that you are standing in front of me, looking down at the same strip of paper. What you see is the following:

You have the same knowledge of Roman math that I do, and you are looking at the same piece of paper that I am, but you interpret the statement to read “10 equals 1 + 11” and can only conclude that the statement is false.

We are both looking at the same object, we both have the same understanding of the symbols represented in that object, but we each have the opposite conclusion as to the truth of the statement. If we work together to understand the differences in our perceptions we would find that what looked like a 9 to me looked like an 11 to you. I would say: “Its a nine.” and you would say “No! Its an eleven!”.

You might go as far as to conclude that such objects have no innate truth value, which at some level is true. Marks on a page must be interpreted before they can have a truth value. But once we all agree on what the marks mean, the the truth value becomes a matter of point of view. In our example we only disagree about one element in the equation, and it is clear what the disagreement is about. Some of the elements in social situations are complex enough that even though we may agree on what we call the elements, those names or ideas may not mean the same thing to all the participants. Consider that some people consider women to be a lesser being who must be protected by a man, while others see women as equals who can make decisions just as well as any man. These two differing points of view make it hard to discuss women’s role in society in a rational way. Is one of those points of view wrong and the other right? That isn’t completely clear given the both men and women hold both points of view. The point of view of the Society of Phred is that all human beings have equal value and equal potential. This point of view doesn’t agree with both points of view. Can there be a world in which one person sees everyone as free while another sees everyone as a slave? Since I live in a society which considers itself the most free and open society on the planet (a view not held by the rest of the world) and since I believe that society to be an oppressive slave society, it certainly seems possible for a complete society to look like that Roman numeral equation. Looked at from one side it is true (free and open) but looked at from another point of view it is false (oppressive and enslaving).

Once we accept the terms of the discussion we would all agree that adding one to nine results in ten. Maybe we just presented the problem poorly when we used Roman numerals. What we could use here is some proof that any problem can be expressed in terms that convey the same truth no matter how you look at the elements involved.

This is a somewhat fractal problem. A situation is described as the relationship between the various elements comprising the situation. But the various elements of the situation can also have point of view issues. Digging deeper elements are composed of properties which can also have point of view issues.

The whole discussion of these elements and their relationships is done with language. This suggests that with the proper language, one that reduces point of view ambiguities, a more accurate analysis of validity across multiple points of view would be available. Some sort of mathematics of point of view.

Another aspect of Point of View that should be addressed is the idea that points of view that deliver false concepts about how things work are points of view to be avoided. Any point of view that allows one element to be hidden by another removes the hidden element from consideration when it may be a pivotal element to the situation. An apparently destructive player could be far less responsible for the situation if the hidden controlling elements were apparent instead of hidden from view. A point of view that explains all behavior as conditioned absolves the players in the drama from and responsibility for the outcome. If the had no free will in the actions leading to the outcome, then they also have no responsibility for that outcome. The responsibility lies with the agency doing the conditioning. Maybe different points of view can help the Society of Phred develop the tools necessary to free humanity from the oppressive cultures that currently hold us in slaved.