Reciprocal Movement In Structuralism

Reciprocal Movement (RM) Is What Saussure Identifies As The “Structure” Of The Word

The Structure Of Language



With his analysis of language, the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure contributed greatly to the modern structuralist school of thought. Saussure instituted into language analysis the working concept of wholeness. Prior to Saussure, language was studied as an independent phenomena arising out of the individual circumstances of various cultural groups. Using wholeness as a working concept was a new idea for language theory but it was not a new idea for the already well established tradition of organic sociology as it was expressed in the works of Comte and Durkheim. This organic connection became evident in what Saussure took to be the linguistic principles at work in all languages. The purpose of language study was in fact to reveal these principles.

Saussure argued that language was a collective, orderly, and coherent phenomenon. Language, therefore, could be studied as if it were a social system that was susceptible to understanding and explanation as a whole. Saussure thought of individual linguistic units as a patterned wholeness. Words, he argued, were devoid of content when studied in isolation. Their meaningful content arose only when they were studied in relation to one another. He based his conception of the linguistic unit on the assumption that where there was meaning - in a word or sentence - there would also be structure. This idea was in conflict with the nominalist view of language that took words to be mere “names” of things. For instance:

“Some people regard language, when reduced to its elements, as a naming-process only - a list of words, each corresponding to the thing that it names. This conception is open to criticism at several points. It assumes that ready-made ideas exist before words; it does not tell us whether a name is vocal or psychological in nature (arbor, for instance, can be considered from either viewpoint); finally, it lets us assume that the linking of a name and a thing is a very simple operation - an assumption that is anything but true. But this rather naive approach can bring us near the truth by showing us that the linguistic unit is a double entity, one formed by the associating of two terms.” [Michael Lane, Introduction to Structuralism, 1970, p.43]


Saussure goes on to explain how this “double entity” must be conceived. The word, according to Saussure, unites a concept and a sound-image and not a thing and a name. In this sense, the sound-aspect of a word becomes inseparable from the meaning content of the word and the reverse also holds true. This double movement, sound acquiring conceptual meaning as conceptual meaning becomes differentiated by sound, is what Saussure identifies as the “structure” of the word. Saussure, in the following diagrams illustrates this idea.

In the diagram below imagine three circles, one around each of the joined identifiers. Then imagine an up and down arrow on each side of each circle—that’s six arrows, three pointing up, three down-- and you will have a mental image of Saussure’s diagram.



concept “tree” picture of tree
Sound-image arbor arbor



[Ferdinand De Saussure, Course In General Linguistics, Translated by Wade Baskin, 1959, p. 66-67.]

In these diagrams we see a representation of the working concept of wholeness as it becomes operationally defined in the linguistic structure of the word. Here the two elements of sound and word become intimately united, as each refers to the other. Saussure, by calling the sound-image of a word the signifier, differentiates the meaning of the word into its two components, the signifier and signified. Together, the signifier and the signified combine to form the sign i.e., the whole as differentiated from its opposing elements.


Language Depends On The Word For Its Field Of Signification-The Word Depends On Language For Its Meaning-Reciprocal Movement


The “Fixed Nature Of Wholes” Along The Synchronic Axis Of Language



Once Saussure had delineated the structure of the word, he also delineated the structure of language. For Saussure, the sign relates to language in the same way as the signifier relates to the signified. In the same way that the signifier is arbitrarily connected to the signified (any sound may be used to designate a particular meaning), the sign is arbitrarily connected to language. The word, as opposed to being a name for an object, is a differentiation in the set of linguistic units that, when taken as a whole, constitute a language. A word acquires its meaning, according to Saussure, in the way it differentiates itself from the whole, the whole being the collective expression of an entire language. We find here the same double movement constituting the meaning of the sign, as it relates to language, as we did in the relationship of signifier to signified. In this way we see how the word becomes dependent on language for its meaning and language becomes dependent on the word for its “field of signification.” Thus the arbitrary character of the sign, in Saussure’s conception of language as a rule driven and self contained system, is what permits order and meaning to arise in the world. John Sturrock, in his book Structuralism and Since, underscores this distinction when he says:

“The extremely important consequence which Saussure draws from this twofold arbitrariness is that language is a system not of fixed, unalterable essences but of labile forms. It is a system of relations between its constituent units, and those units are themselves constituted by the differences that mark them off from other, related units. They cannot be said to have any existence within themselves, they are dependent for their identity on their fellows. It is the place which a particular unit, be it phonetic or semantic, occupies in the linguistic system which alone determines its value. Those values shift because there is nothing to hold them steady; the system is fundamentally arbitrary in respect of nature and what is arbitrary may be changed.” [John Sturrock, Structuralism From Levi-Strauss to Derrida, 1979, p.10]

It is in this characterization of language that Saussure bases his distinction between langue and parole. For Saussure, parole becomes the particular acts of linguistic expression in speech while langue becomes the component aspect of language that generates meaning through the internal play of differences. In this respect language forms a system of contrasts, distinctions, and oppositions that come together in the form of pure values which, as Sturrock points out, are solely determined by how they differ from each other as they are produced in the system of language. Language, for Saussure, becomes a theoretical system operating according to linguistic rules which speakers of language must obey if they are to communicate. It becomes the job of linguistics to discover the mechanisms which make language possible.

Language, Saussure informs us, is always inherited. Language forms a corpus of linguistic rules arising out of ahistorical conditions that allow a person to understand and be understood. To the extent that language succeeds in this endeavor, it is collectively determined and not susceptible to arbitrary change. This aspect of language is what Saussure calls the synchronic nature of language and it is in this synchronic nature of language where we encounter for the first time the idea of the “fixed nature of wholes.”

For many reason's I've decided to post my paper on structuralism. Following that paper, I will post a new way to understand the observer/observed relationship. Eventually, though, I will get back to posting my answers to YA questions.


Begin Structuralism Paper --preliminary remarks in Children Pain post below.

Reality Is Revealed Through The Active Construction In Which We Participate

Introductory Remarks On Structuralism And On Kant’s Philosophy



“Whatever we call reality, it is revealed to us only through the active construction in which we participate.” Ilya Prigogine, Order Out Of Chaos

Structuralism emerges from the elementaristic side of the holism/elementarism debate as an extension of the neo-Kantian position. Form, within this tradition, takes precedence over content, but in so far as structure itself is a holistic concept, the actual locus of structuralism in relation to the holism/ elementarism debate is somewhat ambiguous. I believe that within this ambiguity will be found a resolution to the holism/ elementarism debate. In order to bring this debate to a resolution, however, we must first look at the various structural models that have been described in linguistics (Saussure and Chomsky,) anthropology (Levi-Strauss,) psychology (Piaget,) and philosophy (Foucault.) My description of those various forms of structuralism will concentrate in the areas that have a direct bearing on bringing this debate to a satisfactory conclusion. With that end in mind, I would like to begin by taking a look at the philosophy of Immanual Kant.

Kant, in his attempt to synthesize the rationalist thought of Descartes and Leibnitz with the empirical thought of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, understood sense experience to be manipulated within the inherent structure of mental categories. In his analysis of this structure he concluded that there is more than one kind of knowing (Critique of-- Pure Reason, 1781, Practical reason, 1788, and Judgment, 1790) but the major importance of Kant’s analysis is found in his understanding of the logical consistency and necessity of both sensed space and time and mathematical space and time. This aspect of Kant’s philosophy, although it represented a major success for Kant, in retrospect, is not so well received.

Just as Locke was driven to his theory of ideas by the consequences of Newton’s deterministic universe, Kant had to face a similar determinism. It was not with atoms and forces which his determinism had to contend, rather, it was with the determined nature of knowledge itself. Kant’s transcendental ego, when pursued to its logical conclusion, did not allow for individual freedom. He accounted for man as a knower of the universe, but he did not account for man as a free moral agent within the universe. Kant used the presuppositional method to solve this problem: “It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will.” [Immanual Kant, The Moral Law, 1948, p.59]

In other words, he presupposes free will to allow for moral action i.e. Kant’s practical ego. This is a key concept because upon reading Kant the German champion of freedom, Fichte, was able to show that it was not the categories of understanding which allowed a person to know the universe, it was the person’s own individual will that will’s knowledge of the universe through the categories.

This statement is more than an arbitrary assessment by Fichte on Kant’s presupposed ego. The science of Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger and Heisenberg has demonstrated the error in Kant’s constitutive and hence necessary relationship between the categories of understanding and reality. Thus, science has taught us that mental categories, if indeed there are such things, are only interpretive for the measurable observable events that we identify with reality. Within the context of the scientific method, these events are hypothetically postulated and aposteriorily (to use Kant’s terminology) verified. Consequently, it is not the facts that imply the theory; rather, it is the theory that implies the facts.

The breakdown of the necessary relationship between Kant’s categories and sensed experience does not invalidate Kant’s distinction of sensed space and time and mathematical space and time. Kant’s philosophy, not withstanding its assumption of necessity, is still a major force in the world today.1


It is unfortunate, however, that Fichte’s identification of the will with Kant’s practical ego helped to supplement the deterministic portions of Hegel’s idealism and in no small way contributed to the totalitarian ideologies of Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. In a nutshell, an ego free from the constraints of reason, motivated purely through the expression of the will, identifies the is of society with the ought for society. This, in turn, became the determinism by which Hegel’s “world spirit” and Marx’s “dialectical materialism” swallowed up the individual. What began in Kant as an attempt to restore and secure the notion of a person’s free will, ended up contributing to in the brutal consequences of fascist and communist dictatorships. Here we once again see the irony of the political animal called man. But, moving in the other direction, that is, remaining under the umbrella of Kant’s transcendental ego, the more modern movement of structuralism has come to the fore.

[1. In his ontological structuralism, W.V. Quine, a person of major significance in the defining aspects of today’s philosophy of science, establishes a Kantian position when he takes structure (mathematical form) and events of confirmation to be the ultimate ground for knowledge. Quine informs us that the structural aspect (the categorical aspect) of this knowledge as it relates to verification is, in addition to being Kantian, is also uncertain. He says, “Science ventures its tentative answers in man-made concepts, perforce, couched in man-made language, but we can ask no better. The very notion of object, or of one and many, is indeed as parochially human as the parts of speech; to ask what reality is really like, however, apart from human categories, is self-stultifying. .....We saw that reference (structure) could be wildly interpreted without violence to evidence. We see now that that is just part of a wider picture. Presumably yet more extravagant departures, resistant even to sentence-by-sentence interpretation into our own science, could conform equally well to all possible observations.” W.V. Quine, The Journal Of Philosophy, Volume LXXXIX, NO. 1, January l992]


Structuralism Extracts Meaning From Phenomena

Conflicting Opinions




Metaphorically speaking, it has been said that the structuralists have built incredible mansions for people to live in and, indeed, the mansions have been built and the lights are on, but, we might want to ask the question: Is anybody living in these mansions? Out of the five structuralists I will discuss only Chomsky and Piaget appear to be actively seeking the mansion’s inhabitants. As our lesson on Kant warns, finding these inhabitants takes extraordinary care.

Structuralists understand experience on two levels. Phenomena is first encountered by a given, arbitrary level of experience, and second, phenomena is then integrated (transformed) into communicable levels of experience. There is little disagreement by structuralists concerning this point. Structuralism prescribes a method for understanding how to extract meaning from phenomena. However, that may be the only assertion they agree too since, on the whole, structuralism constitutes a diverse agenda of pursuits. By way of an introduction De George gives us the following perspective on structuralism:

“Structuralism has been described as a method, a movement, an intellectual fad, and an ideology. Each of these characterizations is in part valid. For structuralism is a loose, amorphous, many-faceted phenomenon with no clear lines of demarcation, no tightly knit group spearheading it, no specific set of doctrines held by all those whom one usually thinks of as being associated with it. It cuts across many disciplines--linguistics, anthropology, literary criticism, psychology, and philosophy. For some it gives hope of uncovering or developing a common basic approach to the social sciences, literature, and art which would unify them and put them on a scientific footing, much as the “scientific method” grounds and unifies the physical sciences.” [ De George and De George, The Structuralist: From Marx To Levi-Strauss, 1972, p. xi]


In a l986 lecture delivered at the University of Melbourne, Australia, the renown sociologist Anthony Giddens had the following to say about structuralism:

“Structuralism, and post-structuralism also, are dead traditions of thought. Notwithstanding the promise they held in the fresh bloom of youth, they have ultimately failed to generate the revolution in philosophical understanding and social theory which once was their pledge.” [ Anthony Giddens, Social Theory and Modern Sociology, 1987, p. 74]

I disagree with Giddens!

Reconciliation Post 3rd of 3

The Living Logos

Obviously, life is the precondition for speech, but what are the preconditions for life? In Cosmology we know that we are connected to a friendly universe (at least from the point of view of the observer asking why). Why are the parameters of the universe –the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism etc. (so far, three dozen and counting)—so fine-tuned to the existence and survival of life? This connection to a friendly universe is just one of the “connectivity problems” that must be dealt with. In quantum mechanics we know that our knowledge of the collapse of the wave function, Bohr’s complementarity theory, the measurement problems in quantum mechanics, etc. are all interconnected with our participation in the event—as the “agencies of observation.” But here’s the connectivity stumper, we also know that our participation in an event (at the quantum level) instantaneously connects us to an event (theoretically) at the other side of our space/time continuum. That connection presupposes a whole different kind of connection. Many people are working to solve that problem. Bohm’s implicate order, just to mention one theory, addresses the complexity of that problem. I, on the other hand, recognize that in “this whole different kind of connection” there may be no answer to this problem. Rather, if you want to call it an answer, this answer will come in the form of recognition of the precondition for any answer whatsoever. In brief, here is the rest of my theory:

After much consideration, I ended up using the negation of not-being-- a double negation-- for the precondition of life. In a double negation an affirmation is implied. What is being affirmed? At minimum, it’s simply the logical space of implication. I can’t really talk about the significance of this space until I fill in more of the theory (that will come with more posts). It’s what occurs on the other side of this space, however, that I want to talk about now.

The easiest way to describe my theory is to take a structuralist approach. This approach tends to emphasize “wholes” and “totalities” –ultimately the ground for everything. The double negation becomes, in this respect, the innate structuring capacity of all structures, and as such, characterizes the synchronic axis of all phenomena. This axis may be thought of as unconstructed, but even so, it circumscribes all phenomena (content) by its form. In other words, everything that we know about the universe takes place between the two Nots.

For the most part, I take a systems view of phenomena. Things change as they move away from equilibrium and, over time, become more complex. Structurally, this is called diachronic movement. Personally, I call this movement liberating. I call it liberating because, once a sufficient level of complexity is reached, and a shift in structure occurs, life gets liberated. At conditions far from equilibrium, life progresses within a different structure—the structure of continuity and discontinuity (death). Freedom and complexity expand within this new structure, and, on a level of sufficient complexity, once again, the structure of life shifts. The “space of the implicative-affirmative” gets liberated in this new shift of structure. The implicative-affirmative space, the auto-catalytic attribute of the double negation that circumscribes all phenomena, in this second structural shift, gets birthed in the phenomenal world. This phenomenal space of affirmation has become the “workhorse” that builds civilizations. Anthropologically speaking, at the time when animals refused to passively accept the environment and instead began to actively transform it,--that was also the time when animals acquired the mental space of the implicative-affirmative’s symbol-generating capacity—the birthright of inquiry, analysis, conscience and imagination.


Relativity Theory And Quantum Phenomena Reconciled

Let the following quote from David Bohm provide the underlying context for what I am about to suggest:

“Relativity and quantum physics agree in suggesting unbroken wholeness, although they disagree on everything else. That is, relativity requires strict continuity, strict determinism, and strict locality, while quantum mechanics requires just the opposite—discontinuity, indeterminism, and non-locality. The two basic theories of physics have entirely contradictory concepts which have not been brought together; this is one of the problems that remains. They both agree, however, on the unbroken wholeness of the universe, although in different ways.” (The Reenchantment of Science, p, 65)


“Relativity did away with space and time as the backdrop of deterministic motion of mass points,” says Laszlo (p.80, 2004), “but it preserved the unambiguous description of the basic entities of the physical universe.” By basic entities of the physical universe, I assume here that he means those entities that do not show signs of discontinuity, indeterminism, and non-locality. Opposites are necessary in order to preserve “wholeness” in my theory, so discontinuity, indeterminism, and non-locality become just as essential for a description of the real world as determinism, continuity, and locality. Looking specifically at the different levels of negation in my theory may shed some light on the contradictory aspects that separate Relativity from quantum physics.

Since it’s all about implicative space, we begin with double negation—the ground level. An affirmation is implied on this level. Double negation connects, not only to affirmation, it connects to other levels of more complex affirmations by way of the negative space of those same affirmations—their own unique negations. Life is embedded in one of these negations and self-consciousness is embedded in another one of these negations. In other words, the negative space that separates here also permits its opposite while being simultaneously connected to the “ground state of double negation”. So now we may ask: What are the pre-conditions for this state of affairs?

Enter Relativity with its conditions of strict continuity, strict determinism and strict locality. In life’s negative condition, the environment, locality is certainly necessary. In self-consciousness, continuity and determinism—the conditions necessary for a physical event-- become its negative condition. Thus, determinism and continuity allow for the reductionist methods of science to work; that is, until science penetrates deep into that area where the integrity of the physical universe breaks down, where the deterministic motions of mass points no longer exist!

At the depths of the “material world” there exists a fuzzy world that exhibits behavior only when we observe it. There we find a physical reality with no uniquely determinable location, a physical reality that exists in several states at the same time, a physical reality structured by a mathematical equation. Do we find there also the “ground negation” that connects all subsequent levels of negation and affirmation to---the affirmation that connects everything? If we do then the connectivity problems found in our experience at the quantum level begins to make sense. In the theory of dialectical freedom’s structural form, two “forms” stand out as a way to better understand the contradictory concepts that have not been brought together in Relativity and quantum physics.

The same physical attributes (discontinuity, indeterminism, and non-locality) that characterize self-consciousness characterize also the “ground negation.” At “ground” implication remains open, while in self-consciousness, implication opens up the world-historical-process. In other words, the negation that lies at the center of self-consciousness, the negation that permits our capacity to solve mathematical equations, lies also at the “ground level” of our experience with quantum physics. Because observation (affirmation) takes place in the space of continuity, determinism and locality-- self-consciousness’s negative space— there is an unavoidable clash of worlds—the world of continuity, determinism and locality (Relativity) clashes with the world of discontinuity, indeterminism, and non-locality (quantum physics). Bottom line—Relativity accurately describes natural phenomena. Einstein’s equations, when applied to the world of physical events, provide accurate information concerning our status as participating agents in the physical universe. Likewise, quantum mechanics accurately describes natural phenomena. Only the phenomena being described are “fuzzy” because, as it is throughout freedom’s dialectic, the space that separates also embeds and connects. In other words, on the quantum level, self-consciousness confronts its own ground condition in the form of the “phenomenal strangeness” of quantum physics.

Ultimately, from its most holistic perspective, dialectical freedom’s structural form tells us: Were it not for the negative space/condition of determinism, continuity, and locality, the human consciousness of discontinuity, non-locality, and indeterminism (opposites are necessary to conserve wholeness) would not be free in a world of our own experience (by degrees, experience of our own choosing), seeking truth, justice, and religious meaning!

Our Children’s Children Will Inherit An Exponential Rise In Pain And Death

I know this was supposed to be the 3rd of 3 posts concerning a way to reconcile the seemingly contradictory logics that Relativity theory and quantum mechanics bring to their unique descriptions of physical reality, but that post will have to wait until next week. You see, I’m also posting at Yahoo (Yahoo 360 is crashing, it takes 10 tries just to get a post to post) and since this weeks Yahoo post concerns my reasons for why I think it is important to reconcile these two antithetical descriptions of physical reality (untie the knot so to speak), I decided to include my Yahoo post here (a no brainer decision for me). Anyway, at Yahoo, I’m not talking about physics, I’m talking about structuralism, but I think after next week’s reconciliation blog, the connection between the two blogs will become clearer. Laugh out loud (I’m so traditional; I can’t bring myself to use an abbreviation). I’m laughing because it doesn’t matter to those who are not reading this whether it is clear or not. I admit, though, I like seeing my ideas and life stories on the web, even if my ideas, feelings, and life stories are buried under the weight of a global humanity that is saturating the web with their own individual stories, feelings and ideas. Now that I think about it, does putting yourself on public display (even if you are not in the public eye, so to speak) make you an exhibitionist? There are worse things in life I suppose. No matter, though, it all comes down to the same thing—I like seeing my work, self-expression, important ideas, and ramblings--on the web. I guess it’s about possibility, no matter how improbable. Laugh out loud.


Our Children’s Children Will Inherit An Exponential Rise In Pain And Death

Preface And Preliminary Remarks--Structuralism Paper
April 1994


Blight weighs heavy upon the land. Exactly when this blight started and what will follow in its wake is uncertain. We do know, however, that this blight has physical, psychological and spiritual dimensions. It is all encompassing. It cannot be seen in its totality, but we know its negative forms. We know that it manifests in environmental disasters, disproportionate wealth distribution (poverty, mental illness, homelessness), disease, war, etc. We know that it has impacted negatively and, in some cases, completely destroyed the human beings capacity to feel compassion, solidarity, and love. We know that rampant materialism is fueling today’s global marketplace, a marketplace that is itself immune to any authority other than the one that applauds the dollar as an end in itself. We also know that manmade catastrophes e.g., acid rain, burning rainforests, polluted water, depleted ozone, endangered species (and now—global warming) etc., are in the vanguard of the blight’s devastating effects. Unless something is done to mitigate or reverse this blight, our children’s children will inherit an exponential rise in pain, suffering, and death.

A contributing factor to this blight, though certainly not its cause, may be found in the unstable ground upon which knowledge is based. This unstable foundation becomes readily apparent when we ask the question, “Where is the foundation of knowledge, the knowledge of the world that we inhabit? This question cannot be answered without encountering incongruities, and these incongruities, as they relate to our physical universe, spill over into what we take to be our most reliable knowledge concerning psychological and sociological realities. What we are left with, as a result of these incongruities, is at least five different scientifically identifiable worldviews. For instance, the logical positivists, from the Vienna circle of Carnap, Frank, Reichenbach, and others, believed that science is not about discovering the true nature of reality; rather, for this school of thought, the significance of science is found in the establishment of the “connections between mathematical and physical signs (which they call symbols) that can be elaborated through the external senses and scientific instruments, concerning that experience which appears to us as the external world.” [ Seyyed Hossein Nasr, l968, p.20] Science, from this perspective, is more about the validation of the meanings we attach to our experience of the world, and less about validating the real (physical) world that we inhabit.

Along these same lines, the operationalist worldview of science (Bridgman) ties the significance of scientific knowledge to the operations that define scientific concepts. In so far as these operations produce reliable data, the operations, according to this viewpoint, become the ultimate matrix for scientific knowledge. However, the viewpoint of another group of scientists (Poincare, Duhem), contrary to the positivism and operational schools of thought, believe that scientific concepts are irreducible mental concepts that are subjective in nature. Science, for this group, becomes a way to scientifically communicate the content of repeatable and reliable experiences. Scientific knowledge, from this perspective, is conceived more as a language for communication then knowledge of objective reality. Also, contrary to the positivistic school of thought, the neo-Kantians (Cassirer, Morgenau), hold to the notion of irreducible concepts of science, but treat these concepts from within the context of “as if” they existed. In this way scientific constructs become regulative in nature and are subject to alteration as experience dictates. This point of view stresses an ever increasing knowledge of, at bottom, an unknowable universe.

The fifth point of view concerning science is the logical realist viewpoint, which embraces a realistic interpretation of mathematical and physical constructs (Northrop, Grunebaum). The emphasis here is placed on the correspondence between the concepts of mathematical physics and a real, knowable, aesthetic universe. Nasr informs us:

“Northrop especially seeks to show that both the Newtonian-Kantian world of mathematical physics and the qualitative vision of nature emphasized by Goethe, which he calls natural historical, and whose knowledge is immediate and aesthetic rather than abstract and mathematical, are ultimately real. The world is order or cosmos rather than chaos, one that is alive as an organism and at the same time governed by law. But once again in this school it is emphasized that the knowledge derived from the sciences is the way that leads us to an ultimate knowledge of things. There is no hierarchy of knowledge, only knowledge of the corporeal domain which determines knowledge as such.” [ Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Encounter Of Man And Nature, l968, p.20]

The lack of consensus concerning the nature, scope, and significance of scientific knowledge suggests to me that we are at a turning point of major historical proportions. This turning point has not come too soon. I hope it has not come too late. I agree with Northrop’s logical realist interpretation of scientific knowledge. However, in my thesis, I include a hierarchy of knowledge, which, ultimately, must be understood as the philosophical and methodological ground from which all knowledge follows.

Science and technology are regarded with the highest esteem, so much so that the “good in society” and technological advancements are linked necessarily, but that is not the only measure of a “good society.” Take away the aesthetic values of nurturing, generosity, compassion, kindness, and love etc., and the “good society” wouldn’t even exist. The hierarchy of knowledge that I am about to suggest not only functions as a bridge connecting scientific knowledge to “caring aesthetic values,” it also speaks to the worst aspects of science and runaway technology,-- the reduction of “goodness, love, and beauty” to stimulus/response mechanisms, the dehumanizing of the humanities, and the dehumanizing of humans.

From a structuralist perspective, my thesis holds that thoughts (scientific knowledge being a subset of thought) and the physical world are both structured along synchronic and diachronic axes. The concepts of synchronic and diachronic are understood, typically, from a structuralist point of view; that is, the synchronic perspective looks at a system, or structure, as a functioning given. Investigations carried out from the synchronic perspective do not focus on the change that is occurring within an object or institution; rather, the investigation concentrates its focus on the a-historical condition that gives rise to the present functioning of an object, institution or system. Investigations carried out along the diachronic axis, on the other hand, focus on the evolutionary currents that contribute to the ongoing change of everything that is not considered synchronically. Traditionally, structuralists have chosen to pursue their investigations along the synchronic axis while ignoring the diachronic axis. In this paper I will investigate the heretofore ignored possibility that the synchronic axis of investigation evolves diachronically. In other words, if structure evolves into complex transformations of itself then the diachronic experience of this evolving structure may indeed produce a hierarchy of knowledge, -- a hierarchy of knowledge that will not only ground scientific knowledge, but also ground ethical and spiritual knowledge as well (spiritual knowledge being a subset ethics).


Preliminary Remarks

When I started this paper I searched for a theme broad enough to enable me to discuss structuralism within the context of my own philosophy. After considerable reading on structuralism I discovered the holism-elementarism debate as it is described in Don Martindale’s book, The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory. I recognized this theme as doable for me because it allows for the extrapolation of the structural aspects of the holism/elementarism debate as it arises in every historical epoch. However, it soon became clear to me that the dichotomy of holism/elementarism did not suit my needs as well as the synchronic/diachronic distinction, or the defining characteristic of structuralism, so, for the most part, I have used the synchronic/diachronic distinction throughout. However, midway into my paper the synchronic/diachronic distinction morphs into an even more general distinction. Ultimately, this morphed version can be identified in the “who participates in what” dichotomy, or, more specifically, in the “reciprocal movement of context dependent forms.” In either case, however, it all leads to that bridge which, on one level, connects reason to emotion, while, on another level, separates reason from emotion. A lot of territory is covered here, so I will begin by letting Martindale introduce the language of holism/elementarism.



Few Decisions Are More Basic Than The Comparative Importance Assigned To The Individual/Collective

Martindale Quote
Introduction To The Holism-Elementarism Debate


“Human society places unusual demands on socialization, for without the continuous manning of its positions as they become vacant through illness, retirement, and death, it would simply melt away. However, since most societies only require a fraction of what any given individual could offer, much human potential is unused. A major problem confronting every human society is to prevent unused human energy and imagination from being employed against it. All human societies also place demands on the means of social control. The more complex the society the more serious its control problem.

“The representatives of every society inevitably seek to strike some kind of balance between the latitude or freedom permitted to the individual and the requirements of society. The theoretical limits represented by anarchism and authoritarian absolutism are rarely approached in practice. Furthermore, the line between individual and collective requirements is constantly shifting. In the formative period of a new collectivity considerable scope is usually permitted the individual. Often when a collective is in danger of falling apart in the last attempt to retain control authorities may place a virtual straitjacket of restrictions on the membership. When this fails the result may be revolution or collapse into anarchism.

“There are few decisions more basic made by students of human social life than the comparative importance they assign to the individual and to the collective. Do they take the social system or the individual to be the primary reality? All students of human social life inevitably recognize both. However, it makes significant difference whether one treats individual as the primary reality, considering social life merely as what they do together (elementarism) or whether one sees the social system as a reality sui generis with laws of its own viewing the individuals who compose it as the raw materials from which a society is made. From the time of the origin of the conflict to the present, the tides of battle have surged back and forth between the holists and elementarists.” [Don Martindale, The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory, 1981, p. 605-606]

Reconciliation 2 of 3

FREEDOM JOURNEY

A Homecoming Story

Humans, like other animals, assimilate information from their environment as they adjust these schemes of assimilation to better accommodate their environment. What makes humans unique in this process, however, is their capacity to create symbolic models of their environment that permits humans to mentally accommodate their environments, at least in part, without stepping out of their “mental space.” Discontinuity or non-being occurring in being, allows mental modeling to occur, and that brings us to another important by-product of b~b ~bb, the human experience of time. The time that so perplexed Parmenides, Augustine, and Kant naturally follows from the experience of b~b~bb, or the fleeting experience of past, present, present, present…..etc.

Temporality comes to us by way of our senses and by way of constructed, logically consistent, scientific models used to measure time. On an operational level, human time is merely a by-product of the discontinuity that follows from the experience of b~b~bb, but, so too, language, number, logic, and self-awareness is also a by-product of this experience. The human temporal moment then, carries within itself not one account of temporality i.e., the video time of sequential physical events; it also carries within itself “the center of action,” as Piaget calls it. Mind and identity are discovered in this “center of action,” (personal identity being that degree of permanence that we experience in the midst of constant flux). But, more importantly, the forward movement of knowledge is also discovered in this liberated and liberating space that gets called “time.”

We are born into a world of knowledge and knowing, and knowledge expands as a consequence of time, but the real throttle of this knowing process--the actualization of what is unique in human freedom, lies in our capacity to actualize our own non-being. Simply put, every time we ask a question we actualize in the question our own non-being. Whether we like it or not our knowledge expands, but when we ask a question we accelerate that expansion by detaching ourselves from being in our capacity as non-being in order to more fully appropriate the world around us. Our passive experience of time does not produce a great deal of knowledge, but because we bring the logical relationships implicit in freedom’s structure to bear on an event, we are free to create judgments (and the values which arise from those judgments) concerning the significance and probable cause of an event. These judgments are determined valid across a continuum that ranges from sensation divorced from theory, at one end, to sensation reinforced by the most advanced and respected scientific theory available. There are no guarantees that the answers we propose in response to our questions will match up with corresponding events, yet scientists have a pretty good track record when it comes to the discovery and confirmation of these answers. In experience that is not accountable to scientific confirmation, however, we determine, via our judgments and emotions, appropriate behavior. It is at this level of preferred behavior, this level of "willed consciousness participation" (as it is called by Owen Barfield), that we encounter our potential for the highest order of expressed freedom—our ethical and moral judgments. There is a way to understand the appropriateness of these kinds of judgments when they are understood from within the perspective of b~b~bb, but that digression will have to wait.

In brief, in our ability to step outside of our “mental space” (break with our past) and ask questions, we acquire the capacity to overcome the obstacles that restrict our freedom. When the step up to b~b~bb first occurred there was not much that separated humans from other animals, but after 100,000 years of actualizing freedom’s latent potential, we, the species Homo sapiens, are enjoying a wealth of freedom(s). The history of civilization records, albeit partially, the actualization of this “coming of age process.” To put this in the perspective of little miss—think of all the hard work and sacrifice that she put into her struggle to obtain her PhD.; her task accomplished, she was rewarded with emotional, psychological, and financial freedom. Winning our freedoms is never easy. It begins with an obstacle and, with hard work and some luck, it ends with more freedom. There is one certainty that is inescapable, however; freedom is the rock and we are all Sisyphus; and we remain as such until the end of the journey, the journey home.

The pictures above suggest that we might already be home. But, if that’s the case, then the meaning of “going home” evaporates. However, if we are able to appreciate our true identity then we are already home; and further, since all things intellectual and emotional are connected with this home, we will find freedom, beauty, and completeness there; and love, being that which liberates, will also be included in this homecoming experience. But, there are many of us who have not achieved a genuine appreciation for our true identity (I include myself here). For those of us who are moving in this direction, but are not quite there, we will celebrate our successes and try not to repeat our failures. As we progress, we will gain more personal freedom and, hopefully, we will help others do the same. We will do this, help others, because in the human dimension all share (some more, some less) the intuitive sensitivity and religiously felt compassion that flows through all love, caring, happiness, and reverence.

Relativity Theory And Quantum Phenomena Reconciled 1of 3 posts

Something a little different here. This is something I just finished writing, so I thought I would blog it. I've divided it up into three posts so I'll get back to posting my answers to questions in a couple of weeks.


FREEDOM JOURNEY

A Homecoming Story


A young child may desire more freedom, but what she lacks in freedom, she makes up for in family connections. Eventually, she comes of age, leaves home, and gains more freedom. She’s still connected to family, but that connection does not interfere with her new found freedom. Desiring even more freedom, she goes off to university, earns her PhD, and obtains employment and a compensating salary befitting her educational accomplishments. In other words, she has earned her freedom, but in the process, she has left family connections behind, or, perhaps a better way to say this is she left behind the stifling aspect of freedom denying family connections. This liberated lady, soon thereafter, weds, has children, and begins anew this process which sustains and perpetuates life and her family linage. But, more to the point here is that increased freedom, at every turn, requires a break with the past. Sociologically speaking, these significant breaks with the past are called “rites of passage.” But, for the purpose of this homecoming journey, these breaks, these freedom generated “rites of passage,” both define and produce new dimensions of freedom – a change in kind, not degree, of freedom.

From start to finish freedom is embedded in a process that evolves more freedom, but, in the beginning, this freedom is spread out and weak. Let ~~b represent this weak, but totally connected freedom. In this evolutionary sense, ~~b represents not only freedom, but the freedom inherent in the physical universe (small amount of freedom, lots of connectivity). When freedom breaks with its past and takes a step up to a new dimension, it includes and transcends its own limiting condition (the symbol, ~~b, represents both freedom and freedom’s limiting condition). Since freedom’s structure is preserved across all the changes of freedom, new dimensions of freedom always occur within their own negative space/condition. In other words, when ~~b includes and transcends its own dimension, ~~b becomes b while occurring in its own negative space, or ~b. We call this higher dimension of freedom life.

Freedom, in this new dimension, takes on all the characteristics of living matter, or, what sustains and perpetuates life also sustains and perpetuates this new dimension of freedom. This higher dimension can be compared to the experience of little miss leaving home. When freedom takes its first breath of fresh air, it is akin to little miss surveying a new world, one without parental authority hovering over her head. In this new dimension, freedom continues to expand and the result is the creation of massive amounts of biological complexity and diversity. Life, however, never escapes the conditions that inhibit and limit its expression, nor does it escape the grim reapers shout to cease and desist. But, what a success story it has become, there is hardly a place on earth where life cannot survive, but more to the point, life evolves more freedom.

Over the course of evolving brain sizes and mind boggling complexities, freedom, once again, incorporates and transcends the conditions which inhibit its expression, and it does so in a way that preserves structure (structure that implies wholeness). When living matter escapes the conditions that inhibit and limit its expression, it transcends its own ~bb by including it in a higher dimension. We are familiar with this dimension of freedom because we are the experience of it. When non- being occurring in being gets experienced in the negative condition of being occurring in non-being, an implied identity (~bb) gets embedded in a physical event (b~b). In other words, what is being described by this higher dimensional of freedom is self-consciousness occurring in an environment of physical facts. In this higher state of freedom the human being can anticipate future possibilities (imagination), communicate via language, reflect on what is and ask why, analyze problems and solve them, and form judgments on a wide variety of topics. In fact, all the mental processing that gets called “mind” is a by-product of b~b~bb. In a word, self-consciousness implies identity and identity implies knowledge, and all this knowledge exists in an environment that is continually giving up its secrets to inquiring minds that want to know.

Social Q

American Dream dilemma?

I have mixed feelings about this. People, for the most part, are just trying to survive (I guess you can tell which class I come from). However, there is an American dream and it is worth going after. If it becomes the sole motivator of one's life than all I can say is--how sad! Life is far to important to let other people decide one's life for her or him.

For those who possess intense "life sensitivity," life is always an adventure, and for a special few, this sensitivity becomes a trans formative experience, a force for the "good." Unfortunately, however, a life of transformation is only experienced by a few. The rest of us (speaking for myself at least) spend our lives existing half in the "common universe" and half outside that same universe, --but (and this is a "big but"), at least I know the difference.

Would this be a good system for the world?

A long time ago some people believed that it was possible to achieve a society based on the following premise: From each according to ability, to each according to needs. Really, though, we cannot expect Santa to deliver what is not in his bag of goodies; that said, I am 100% behind the idea that a more "just society," a society with a more equitable distribution of wealth, is possible. However, without the political will success here is remote if not impossible. Why is there no political will? --Because we are talking about an idea that incites revolution. So, maybe we should put on our Christmas wish list, way at the top, a wish for more equitable distribution of compassion to all, and to all, happy holidays.

What determines a society?

According to Marx, the economic determinate is the meaning behind society, people have to eat (barter, profit, etc. keep people alive and bring them together). Every society deals with the negotiated relationship that defines the "collective" and the "individual." How this relationship is dealt with flushes out the particulars of society,-- democracy, fascism, communism, dictatorship, etc.

The line between individual and collective requirements of society is constantly shifting. A major problem confronting every society is to prevent unused human energy and imagination from being employed against it. The representatives of every society inevitably seek to strike some kind of balance between the freedom permitted to the individual and the requirements of society; the more complex the society the more serious is this control problem. In the beginning of the collectivity considerable scope is usually permitted the individual, but when a collective is in danger of falling apart maintaining control becomes a top priority. In the last attempt to retain control authorities may place a virtual straitjacket of restrictions on the membership. When social control fails, so does society.

What was life like of a soldier in the concentration camp?

Based on the book "Man's Search for Meaning" (Frankl) who survived the camps, the worst camp jobs were carried out by those prisoners who got extra food, cigarettes, and other privileges. That situation allowed some of the soldiers to look away (separate themselves from the horrors). There were sadistic soldiers, however, who took pleasure in inflicting pain and death upon the prisoners. It was to Frankl's credit (a psychiatrist before becoming a victim) to be able to see humanity in the same people who contributed to the most despicable behavior imaginable.

Should Hiroshima have gotten bombed? Please don't troll off this question, please don't!?

No. There was a movement started by the scientific community to not drop the bomb. A number of the "maker's of the bomb" would have signed on to that option if it were not for the Government's Herculean effort to keep those ideas and the petition away from Los Alamos. Instead of dropping the bomb on city(s), the petition called for a demonstration of the bomb on an uninhabited island so the Japanese could choose to surrender. That was the moral option to this very difficult decision, an option that never saw the light of day. Hypothetically, if no surrender came after the bomb was demonstrated then I still don't believe the bomb should have been dropped but I probably would have agreed to it knowing full well that I would never be able to live with that decision for the rest of my life--war is hell.