The Three Blind Men

I can't remember when I first heard this old Indian fable, but I believe it is ancient and Vedic and such a wonderful metaphor for a particular dimension of human conceit I refer to it often and thought I would tell it here. It exists in as many versions as any popular story or joke, including a nineteenth century version by American poet John Godfrey Saxe which contains six blind men.

But I heard it as three, and reserve the right to peform my own arrangement of the long lost original score. The story, at least as I understand it, goes something like this:

Three blind men, long time friends, had never seen an elephant, and decided it was time to change this. They engaged the help of a friend who took them to where some elephants were being tended and asked if they might be allowed to touch them. The handlers were uneasy about the risks involved in permitting blind people so close to such large animals, but they reluctantly agreed to a few moments of contact.

They were taken to one of the elephants and each man reached out and felt a different part of the animal. One held a leg, the next touched the side, and the third felt the tail. Quickly they were led away and returned home very excited about what they had experienced.

"Ah, yes," said the first man, "now I understand. The elephant is very much like a tree."

"Oh no," said the second, "You couldn't be more wrong. The elephant is very much like a wall."

"You are both terribly mistaken," said the third, "The elephant is very much like a rope."

"You old fools!" said the first, "How could you be so stupid?"

"Are you crazy?" said the second, "You are senile and have lost your minds!"

"What is going on here?" said the third, "Are you two conspiring to drive me insane?"

They continued to bicker until it destroyed their friendship and they never spoke to each another again. 

Clearly the root of the problem arises with the arrogance that insists that the data we possess about events and phenomena are complete and adequate to draw absolute conclusions. And often, these data have a sound empirical foundation and more rigorous observations only serve to increase confidence in assumptions that are as utterly mistaken as they are hopelessly inadequate. For the blind men, additional examinations and measurements of the same sites would not eliminate the misunderstanding, they would only support it. It's not a question of detail but of scope, of perspective. Observations are only as good as their frame of reference.

People seem to like the story when I tell it and insist they understand, but I've never seen it actually motivate anyone to examine their own assumptions or conditioning.

Except me. I understand completely.

The elephant is like a wall .

copyright © 2002 Dan Manthos