Sometimes while dealing with a complex issue with some extensive length and breadth we face the dilemma of whether to present a microscopic view of the issue giving the details of the parts or whether to present a macroscopic view and outline the overall contours of the problem.
This is what I am calling the Macro-vs-Micro Conundrum.
At the logical level there is no solution to this puzzle. Microscopic details are essential and important and hence these must be given. Macroscopic view is important because that that is the only way to encompass the problem and hence that is what should be presented. The end result is that we can not decide which view to present.
Even pragmatism does not offer a way out.
A pragmatic person would say that either you give the macroscopic view with some microscopic details or you give the microscopic view and quickly move towards the macro view. In both of these approaches we are still left with an additional problem - how much details to include. Practically we have failed to solve the problem.
Someone might add that the amount of details that must be included will be decided by the individual problems. This is certainly a good suggestion but it is already demanding additional details to solve the problem.
Edward Said in his book offered a solution to this enigma. There might be many other solutions but Said's solution has struck me as an elegant as well as pragmatic one. In his book Orientalism he used the personal circumstances as the tie breaker between the two alternatives. So when you are besotted with the undecidable issue of choosing the requisite amount of details between the two approaches then use your personal circumstances to decide the amount of details to be included.
Of course in this case also we shall end up deciding on the case to case basis and in that sense it is on par with the earlier suggestion but we do have now a very robust paradigm to use for tie breaking.
This is what I am calling the Macro-vs-Micro Conundrum.
At the logical level there is no solution to this puzzle. Microscopic details are essential and important and hence these must be given. Macroscopic view is important because that that is the only way to encompass the problem and hence that is what should be presented. The end result is that we can not decide which view to present.
Even pragmatism does not offer a way out.
A pragmatic person would say that either you give the macroscopic view with some microscopic details or you give the microscopic view and quickly move towards the macro view. In both of these approaches we are still left with an additional problem - how much details to include. Practically we have failed to solve the problem.
Someone might add that the amount of details that must be included will be decided by the individual problems. This is certainly a good suggestion but it is already demanding additional details to solve the problem.
Edward Said in his book offered a solution to this enigma. There might be many other solutions but Said's solution has struck me as an elegant as well as pragmatic one. In his book Orientalism he used the personal circumstances as the tie breaker between the two alternatives. So when you are besotted with the undecidable issue of choosing the requisite amount of details between the two approaches then use your personal circumstances to decide the amount of details to be included.
Of course in this case also we shall end up deciding on the case to case basis and in that sense it is on par with the earlier suggestion but we do have now a very robust paradigm to use for tie breaking.