If pessimism and optimism represent free choices, then I would endorse always taking an optimistic view. My wife's cousin was visiting this summer. I'd never met her before so she was telling me a bit about herself and she said, "I'm a bit of a pessimist." I said, "Interesting. Is that by choice?" Made an immediate impact. She said she'd never thought of that.

I think some people are pessimistic by habit, but optimism I believe is overall a healthier frame of mind and probably does equip us to make better choices.

What about the entire pragmatism movement? — Isaac

Sure. Pragmatism is all about actual effects in the world. I don't see that implying any kind of relativism though, if that is what you were suggesting?

Agreed. Exploration is a valid driver of culture.

Interesting. I would assume that anyone professing any interest in philosophy would already have come to terms with the non-negotiability of truth.

Thing is, everyone knows something. Even if they don't know why that knowledge is justified.

Think about the classical division between coherence and correspondence theories of truth. Let's assume a debate between a strong coherence theorist and a strong correspondence theorist. Both can't be correct, yet both possess knowledge. The inability to codify or explicate the foundations of knowledge doesn't militate against the acquisition of knowledge.

A good share of humanity is simply irrelevant to capitalism — Bitter Crank

Just so. That's why Polanyi advocated 'substantivist economics' which considers all aspects of human existence, instead of simply monetizing life. A great idea.

Dilthey says the intention to understand precedes conceptual cognition. I'd go along with that. If it's a chicken or an egg thing then I'd say it is a primitive 'will to understand' that comes first.

Technically a minor but only one credit short of a major, with all core courses, so I voted for bachelors :)

Well, Jung has an entire book based on his "confrontation with the unconscious," The Red Book, which is a compendium of paintings, dreams, fantasies, etc. He says "The knowledge of the heart is in no book and is not to be found in the mouth of any teacher, but grows out of you like the green seed from the dark earth."

So I guess the "experience" of the unconscious has at least that much significance in Jung (for Jung).

:)

The higher-level feature of human consciousness is clearly causally effective in the world around us: we live in an environment dominated by artifacts that embody the outcomes of intentional design. The issue is that the present-day subject of physics has nothing to say about the intentionality resulting in the existence of such objects. Thus it gives a causally incomplete account of the world. — Matias

Yes, consistent with a systems theoretic interpretation. Physics (and all physical science) operates by limiting the scope of experimentation in order to obtain accurate results. The world/universe, on the other hand, clearly is comprised of "open systems." This doesn't take anything away from physical science, it just suggests that it needs to be augmented. Successes in the applications of non-linear dynamic systems theory to a wide variety of fields and problems substantiate this.

I'm also currently reading Dilthey. His project involves understanding "objectifications of spirit" and the extraction of "spiritual content from the various manifestations of life." Interesting that this fits exactly into a systems theory approach in which mind is embedded in matter. Hallmark of a good perspective I guess.

And yet suffering can seem like an eternity. More so if others appear happy. Perhaps contemplating a change of attitude is more palatable?

Sorry, I missed some of the replies! Since posting this I've read 3 books, the seminal texts by Laszlo and von Bertalannfy, and a recent survey/synopsis by Capra. I'm pretty comfortable with the conceptual role of non-linear dynamics, although the book I just started "Chaos and Complexity in Psychology: The Theory of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems" is pretty technical I have to admit.

So, I worked on a model of personality cybernetics in the 90's, basically assuming that
1. We are actively engaged in a project of evolving self-creation
2. This is enacted as cybernetic feedback loop wherein we modify/correct our cognitive functions based on experimental interactions with our environment
3. The ego tends to become an impediment to cognitive growth (and knowledge) at a certain point

Joseph Sirgy's self-congruity theory has a lot to say about personality cybernetics, with respect to assumption three.

I've pretty much put a pin in that, but it was my initial attempt at generalizing a systems approach.

For example, take this excerpt:

"Preamble - What am I?
First and foremost, I am a conscious, thinking thing. Not the states of my body, not my possessions, not any of the circumstances of my material environment, none of these things is important to me, except insofar it contributes to my conscious experience. As a thinking being, the most obvious and important factor in my self-recognition is the extent of the conscious control which I exert over my own thoughts. Different factors, material circumstances, body-states, etc., may recommend themselves to me as being "worthy of attention now" - perhaps even strongly recommend themselves - but the simple fact of the matter is that I possess a theoretically absolute discretion over what I shall choose to attend to at any moment."


Now from a more mature systems perspective, I no longer embrace this clearly dualistic approach. What I think is actually going on is that
1. Much of our cognitive processing is "pre-formatted"
2. However we can and do actively re-structure the elements involved in this formatting

From the humanistic perspective you could describe this as a "soft-determinism" or a "confined voluntarism," but the key for me is that it is a systemic perspective that synthesizes the material-mind dimensions, what systems theorists call "biperspectivism".

Are you asking why some people actually do choose "right" over "expediency"? Clearly because that coincides with a higher value in their personal schema. It sounds more like you are wrestling with the question, "how can there be a higher value than expediency?" That is quite a different question though.

Nevertheless, the evident fact is that some people do choose to act "morally," to the extent that is captured by the description "enacting a non-expedient value."

You want me to explicate Jung's entire theory of the unconscious for you?

He repeatedly describes how dreams and religious experiences link to the symbols of the collective unconscious. Take a look at Aion maybe?

Yes, the definition is, but is its extension? Sure, the collective unconsciousness houses transpersonal archetypal symbols and material, but who is to say what are the limits of the experience of those materials? I've read lots of Jung and he talks extensively about the embodiment of this material in primitive animistic religions and rituals. I really don't think you are correct in saying Jung explicitly denies this aspect.

Does Jung actually say it has nothing to do with this? Certainly Jung writes about oceanic feelings and having such experiences.

I would characterize this as the challenge of uncertainty. How is it that what is presentationally and logically most given is reflectively most elusive?

Formation of the Historical world in the Human Sciences
Dilthey's Selected Works, Volume III

The original PC-acuity. I like to say, if you push special treatment for minorities to its logical conclusion, we all become minorities, at which point we all become equal again. Which is the way it should be. So much less complicated and more effective!

Right. But we can exchange reasons and debate them. It's not a matter of faith, after all. If you have an argument for God that you find convincing, I'd be happy to take a look at it. — Echarmion

Based on the sum total of my experiences (which may not coincide with yours) I have sufficient evidence of connectivity which transcends the domain of ordinary scientific discourse. Trivially, neural networks operate by leveraging 'hidden dimensions' of connectivity also, so while this may not rise to the standard of scientific proof, it is evidence, nevertheless. And I certainly extend my hypothesis to include the strong possibility of there being forms of consciousness far more advanced and therefore toto caelo unlike ours. Possibly not limited in space and time like ours. And I conceive this to be 'close enough' to the most general form of the notion of God.

As was said, it all depends how you define "God," doesn't it?

Since there is thus no good reason to assume God exist, the reasonable thing to conclude is that God doesn't exist — Echarmion

That is just Daniel Dennett's argument and I didn't find it convincing when he delivered it. Reasons for believing are ultimately contingent on the entire body of an individual's knowledge. If I find a good reason to believe it is sufficient for me. If Dan Dennett (and you) don't, then you speak for yourself.

Same thing with the whole debate about the oranges growing inside of toothpick crystals etc.? — Terrapin Station

Of course not. I established my criteria of epistemic adequacy and cumulative knowledge already. You're statement is just...flippant.

The whole debate hinges not on the actual existence of God, only the possible existence of God.

For me the biggest single argument is the cumulative nature of knowledge. Knowledge about quantum fields would be meaningless to a mesolithic hunter. Is the argument that God is unknowable in practice, or in theory? If you argue that God is theoretically unknowable, then you would have to concede the possibility that (S)he exists. If you argue that God is unknowable based on the current state of our knowledge now, then the same thing.

Atheists must assert that they currently possess adequate knowledge to be able to comprehend everything that is possibly knowable right now, before declaring that God does not exist. Which is of course absurd!

Sorry, that was an FB rant, I try not to tirade in here
since you are interested though
"Capitalism is the philosophy of the rich. And it is working: the rich are definitely, undeniably getting richer.

So if capitalism is working, then why hasn't it solved the world's problems? Because obviously, money is not the answer.....

Just because having enough money is good does not mean that having even more is better. Wealth is an addiction, just like crack cocaine or heroin.

I am not anti-capitalist, I am pro lets eliminate poverty and pollution."

If you are in your eighties, and your partner of many decades passes away, you should absolutely have the right to follow. I think that counter-example is intuitively simple, real, and solid.

Did you know that probabilistic calculations actually don't apply to some natural systems?

I just finished reading a section in "The Systems View of LIfe" describing the creation of artificial cells. Basically, they dump a minimal set up proteins along with an encapsulating agent (a lipid) into a container. Cell formation requires that all the components become encapsulated together. The number is about 90 and statistically, this should never occur (i.e. all 90 elements becoming encapsulated in the tiny spaces involved.) However it does happen. What occurs is that some membranes have NO encapsulated elements while others get the full set.

The hypothesis is that what is going on is a non-linear dynamic system, the formation of the cell aligning with what is called a "strange-attractor" which represents a stabilized condition of the overall system.

So statistical/probabilistic computations do work for classical closed thermodynamic systems, but not necessarily non-linear ones....

Indeed. My latest rant is that capitalism is working, because it is making the rich richer. What capitalism is NOT doing however is solving our problems.

So yes, I'd agree

Isn't the welfare state an expression of our mutual obligations?

Mill believes that obligations of 'perfect justice' create duties which give rise to 'corresponding rights in assignable persons'. Seems a reasonable characterization.

Another tidbit you might find cool. After doing a lot of reading on cybernetics and neural nets, something struck me. Neural nets are "trained up" by a trial and error (or self-correcting but same thing) process of matching specific inputs to desired outputs. What this implies is that there must be "hidden connections" existing between specific data in our cognitive fields. In other words, the dimensions of our perception and/or cognition are much more limited than the actual dimensions in which events occur.

So, in this context, you can really see how relaxing the constraints on cognition could potentially be very...enlightening.

I believe the expression is pearls before swine....

I think that reality as we experience it is a construct. We are experiencing an interevolution of mind and matter. Sometimes loosening the categories can be informative.

I wouldn't do it. I don't even like being 'plugged in' to my phone....

This article may be of interest, hippocampal neurogensis and memory:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.12920

As long as it's the right strain with some coffee it puts my focus through the roof, reading and writing.

Agreed, sounds like stoner talk to me. Thats that thing that people do when they like something and so create a bunch of culture and ritual and bullshit about it. — DingoJones

Mannheim would say that you can't create culture, rather it emerges spontaneously from its milieu.

Not that I believe in any of that bullshit.

When I read especially difficult material (right now I'm working on Dilthey) I prefer just a touch of caffeine and cannabis. It is less like reading and more like being subsumed in the flow of ideas.

That doesn't answer my question about "organization systems theory"?

Yes, I'm pretty well-acquainted with the various applications of systems theory at this point. Just wondering about this OST. I suspect the poster is just referring to the application of systems theory to organizational theory.