Thinking in categories

It seems to me that we are always thinking in terms of categories of a thing, but not about the thing itself. Whenever there is a talk about something, the usual approach seems to be to talk about its categories, classifications, groups, types, kinds and so on. I am referring to the psychological matters here, the things that make up one’s psyche.

I shall give a few examples. Take habit for instance. The very word brings to mind good habits and bad habits. And the discussion usually revolves round what is a good habit and what is not. Going further, we want to know how to overcome bad habits and imbibe and sustain good habits. If we still go further, we talk about how to discipline oneself in order to get rid of the so-called bad habits. It is rarely the case when the discussion centers on habit per se and not on its various expressions which are laudable or condemnatory based on the social standards of the time.

To take another example, a religious discourse on the psychological attributes of the human mind talks about Gunas, the qualities that make up a personality. Immediately there follows a description of the various Gunas like Rajas, Tamas and Sattvik, and a method to overcome or transmute one into the other. But the question of Guna itself, the quality per se and not its expressions and classifications, is rarely addressed, if at all.

Take desire, goal, and even thought itself. The list is endless, but the treatment is the same. The question – what is thought? – is never addressed directly. Probably this is the most fundamental of all psychological issues and maybe the basis for understanding the psyche. Instead, the discussion degenerates into low thoughts, high thoughts, and transcendent thoughts and so on. Going further, there are usually recipes for controlling thoughts and going beyond thought is usually the lofty goal.

What is this urge to categorize? Is it the inability to address the issue directly? There is no doubt that categories do exist, but why is it that the discussion almost invariably is about them and not about the thing itself? Is it that the mind cannot comprehend anything except by breaking it down into categories?

Science builds knowledge through categorization. Whatever it studies must be classified, grouped, and typed and so on. Perhaps this tendency is carried over into the psychological realm?

It is said that the mind is a measure of all things. Its capacity to measure, compare, contrast, classify is perhaps at the root of all thinking? While this capacity has lifted mankind from the bullock cart to the jet plane, the psychological problems have remained much the same since the ancient times. Perhaps this approach through categorization is inadequate or even inappropriate in dealing with the issues of the psyche.