You - I - We

Interdependence was popularised by Steven R. Covey in his "Seven Habits ..." book [1]. Basically, it means that human beings (as well as organisations, and nations) need each other to thrive.

From You to I to We.

First is dependence - the ‘you’ phase, where the child looks to others for its safety, wellbeing, and pleasure. If someone withholds, the child is deprived. With caring others, the child thrives.

Second is independence - the ‘I’ phase, where the child develops into adolescent and young adulthood. If all goes well, the young adult develops independent traits - taking responsibility, making sound decisions, and becoming self-reliant.

Third is interdependence - the ‘we’ phase, where the independent adult chooses to increase their circle of concern, to include ever widening groups of people.

Interdependence is the recognition that people – and the social system within which they exist – are mutually dependent. We cannot function alone, we need social cohesion and the work of others to thrive.

And for the group or social system to be viable it needs us to make our contribution. Only independent people can choose to be interdependent.

(Paraphrased)

While this staging is neat, real life is messier. Children may be more independent as toddlers than as teenagers, and teenagers more interested in looking after their peers and the world at large than adults. But, in general, yes, adults are expected to care about others and themselves - it is a sign of greater emotional maturity.

Compare with Vidura Niti in the Indian/Mahabharata context.

NOTES

[1] Covey, Stephen R. 2004. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People : Restoring the Character Ethic [Rev. ed.]. New York: Free Press.

Occam's Razor (PoP) and turiya

In scientific research there is an old [1] idea known as Occam's Razor or the Principle of Parsimony. Basically, it says choose the simplest conceptual model that explains all the data. Mathematically, prefer the equation with the smallest number of terms to describe something. E.g., E=mc^2 describes the maximum energy present in a mass 'm' using just one other term 'c'.

Similarly, the elegance of Advaita lies in its theoretical notion of everything in the universe arising from just one single thing. Unlike Einstein's equation, though, it is not possible to test, let alone prove that through "objective" experiments. A bit like the Big Bang theory! [4]

Advaita, while parsimonious in its axioms of initial (or eternal) state, does end up resorting to earlier concepts from Sāṁkhya (which has two foundational entities) to explain our world. Thus Māya is practically the same as Prakṛti, and Ātma, or Jīvātma, the same as Puruṣa. 

In Sāṁkhya, consciousness and non-consciousness are eternally separate and so it is easy [2] to understand that states of mind (a non-conscious thing) are different from a state [3] of consciousness. Thus, jāgrata, svapna, and suṣupti - all mental states - are different from turīya. Or they are orthogonal to turīya. Turīyātīta, posited as another state of consciousness, subsumes easily into turiya in combination with a different mental state.

NOTES

[1] Traced back to Aristotle per Wikipedia.

[2] Sāṁkhya is a realistic philosophy which does not deny the existence of anything, including mental states.

[3] Strictly speaking, consciousness, or Purusha, in Sāṁkhya is absolutely non-interactive. So there is only one state.

[4] But see first comment below - at least one prediction of the Big Bang theory has been tested and proven, and so it is more valid than, say, the steady-state theory. In general, though, it is not theoretically possible to prove a theory - it can only be disproven.