It's a great mixture of Politics, philosophy, psychology, and Zen with very little big words for everyone to consider. It introduced 7 perspectives in a healthy structure, together with their relatively disadvantages in realistical functioning. I have to say, George is cool!
The seven perspectives in his paper are :
“subjective“ views
"They believe in and value the interpretation, whether individual or social, of experience more than the experience itself. In the autistic, the value of events relative to individual needs and desires is more important than truth as some of the higher perspectives would understand it. In the authoritarian, the weight of valuing has simply shifted to the social surround. "
The autistic perspective
A person taking the autistic view believes that their personal subjective perspective is, in fact, the only perspective, and that, to the extent that the consciousness of others is recognized at all, everyone sees reality this same way. It is, in other words, egocentric and self-oriented, even solipsistic.
The authoritarian perspective
An authoritarian person accepts only one social reality, and understands it as universal. Someone who does not accept the same social reality is seen as either an infant or insane. And they tend to believe in universal dualities -- black vs white, good vs bad, us vs them... -- with little room for “in between” or “both.”
“objective” views:
"They share the idea that truth has an objective existence to be discovered outside of either personal or social realities. "
The rationalistic perspective
It is an idealistic perspective in that the objective truth it seeks is held to be contained by the mind.
The mechanistic perspective
Though not disdainful of logic and mathematics, it views truth as something to be discovered outside the mind, in the world.
The cybernetic perspective
The cybernetic tends to be the most mature of the three objective views because it requires certain realizations that are rare among rationalistic and mechanistic people: The cybernetic person has fully recognized that the observer influences the observed.
syntheses of the subjective views and the objective views:
The epistemic perspective
Unlike the objectivist approaches, which insist that we subtract our subjectivity from our observations to arrive at an ultimate reality much reduced from experience, the epistemic view sees ultimate reality as all views added together, and then some!
The transcendental perspective
In a very real sense, it is a matter of dying -- or almost dying -- and returning to everyday reality with a new perspective on life.
Two exerptions & my commentation(in braces, italic font):
I. The authoritarian disorders
The authoritarian neurotic is a person who retreats from the complexity of life into the authoritarian structures of a social reality. Again, the neurotic is not a child, nor a peasant in some traditional society, so this authoritarian world-view must be supported by defensive mechanisms that help him or her to avoid full recognition of traumas and chaos. Because it is that very complexity that will lead them further towards elaborative development, it is especially the neurotic who is responding to a chaotic environment who will be most broadly effected, while the neurotic responding to specific traumas may well develop further in domains not tied to that of the trauma. (phenomenologically, authoritarian people consist the basis of human social reality, to be maintained as well as to be changed. I got a weird idea that the constructed reality is largely based on the feedback of other people which Sartre called "Hell", or animals, e.g. wolf children. So lacking of independent thinking is actually the most foundamental thing for the existance of our society and it's developement. A brilliant idea need to be supported then it may be influencial to society, but always an good idea is not likely to be generally understood among people, in such cases, a group of rigid-minded authoritarian people may be of great help, they comply well, and they tend to control and convert people who are thought different, hence there be great civilization under the Christian dogma, there were and are dictative systems to be comdemned and liberized. This sucks, coz I'm still suffering alot from my idealism, hoping people could all be wise and responsible, this ideal is a happy fever, I have to forget about it from time to time, in order to get a realistic way to hold my happy fever tight. )
The authoritarian neurotic will tend to exhibit his or her rigid sociality in one of two ways: Depending on such factors as temperament, upbringing, and specific social situation, they will be either aggressive or compliant. Aggressive neurotics, predominantly men (due to both temperament and upbringing), tend to expect others to bend to their will, and are likely to be angry and even violent if their expectations are not met. Compliant neurotics, predominantly women (again, due to both temperament and upbringing), tend to expect to yield to the will of others. They suffer from sadness and spend much of their cognitive time trying to adapt, i.e. trying accept into themselves changes that would be more efficiently accomplished by changing others (most often, the aggressive males they keep company with!).
But please notice that both aggressiveness and compliance change depending on the people you are interacting with: The aggressive man is likely to become quite compliant when faced with a clear social superior; the compliant woman is likely to be quite aggressive towards her children or servants. In a traditional society, these relations operate quite smoothly, with very little overt anger or sadness, and certainly without much sadism or masochism. Among neurotics, the defensive mechanisms change the anxiety that is at the root of the neurosis into anger or sadness, even to the point of sadism and masochism. As Freud pointed out, these are just two sides of the same coin, which is the authoritarian perspective. (Hell yes! That's the situation in which surffering lead to more surfferings. An abused child tend to abuse his/her childre later on; an over-suppressed citizen tends to become a tyrant once he/she could seized any little power , a vicious circle. )
To help someone grow out of their authoritarian perspective, one must begin with authority. It is these people that are most influenced by the therapist’s status, and are particularly susceptible to suggestion. The point is to use authority to move the authoritarian beyond the confines of his or her rigid social reality, so that they might recognize the variety of perspectives possible. They are far from being ready to adopt the non-closure attitudes of the epistemic, but they can learn tolerance of others and a habit of looking for the commonalities or the broader view. They must learn to reason independently of social categories, to stop seeing all issues as black and white, to entertain an experimental attitude towards their problems, and to see the complexities of issues -- i.e. to become familiar with rationalistic, mechanistic, and cybernetic views, at least to the extent that they can move beyond their authoritarian rigidity. All this must occur within a very secure environment, one that does not engage their defensive mechanisms. (Man, it's hard to know whether the one is changing the perspective, or just trying to please you in saying expected words.)
The authoritarian neurotic is a person who retreats from the complexity of life into the authoritarian structures of a social reality. Again, the neurotic is not a child, nor a peasant in some traditional society, so this authoritarian world-view must be supported by defensive mechanisms that help him or her to avoid full recognition of traumas and chaos. Because it is that very complexity that will lead them further towards elaborative development, it is especially the neurotic who is responding to a chaotic environment who will be most broadly effected, while the neurotic responding to specific traumas may well develop further in domains not tied to that of the trauma. (phenomenologically, authoritarian people consist the basis of human social reality, to be maintained as well as to be changed. I got a weird idea that the constructed reality is largely based on the feedback of other people which Sartre called "Hell", or animals, e.g. wolf children. So lacking of independent thinking is actually the most foundamental thing for the existance of our society and it's developement. A brilliant idea need to be supported then it may be influencial to society, but always an good idea is not likely to be generally understood among people, in such cases, a group of rigid-minded authoritarian people may be of great help, they comply well, and they tend to control and convert people who are thought different, hence there be great civilization under the Christian dogma, there were and are dictative systems to be comdemned and liberized. This sucks, coz I'm still suffering alot from my idealism, hoping people could all be wise and responsible, this ideal is a happy fever, I have to forget about it from time to time, in order to get a realistic way to hold my happy fever tight. )
The authoritarian neurotic will tend to exhibit his or her rigid sociality in one of two ways: Depending on such factors as temperament, upbringing, and specific social situation, they will be either aggressive or compliant. Aggressive neurotics, predominantly men (due to both temperament and upbringing), tend to expect others to bend to their will, and are likely to be angry and even violent if their expectations are not met. Compliant neurotics, predominantly women (again, due to both temperament and upbringing), tend to expect to yield to the will of others. They suffer from sadness and spend much of their cognitive time trying to adapt, i.e. trying accept into themselves changes that would be more efficiently accomplished by changing others (most often, the aggressive males they keep company with!).
But please notice that both aggressiveness and compliance change depending on the people you are interacting with: The aggressive man is likely to become quite compliant when faced with a clear social superior; the compliant woman is likely to be quite aggressive towards her children or servants. In a traditional society, these relations operate quite smoothly, with very little overt anger or sadness, and certainly without much sadism or masochism. Among neurotics, the defensive mechanisms change the anxiety that is at the root of the neurosis into anger or sadness, even to the point of sadism and masochism. As Freud pointed out, these are just two sides of the same coin, which is the authoritarian perspective. (Hell yes! That's the situation in which surffering lead to more surfferings. An abused child tend to abuse his/her childre later on; an over-suppressed citizen tends to become a tyrant once he/she could seized any little power , a vicious circle. )
To help someone grow out of their authoritarian perspective, one must begin with authority. It is these people that are most influenced by the therapist’s status, and are particularly susceptible to suggestion. The point is to use authority to move the authoritarian beyond the confines of his or her rigid social reality, so that they might recognize the variety of perspectives possible. They are far from being ready to adopt the non-closure attitudes of the epistemic, but they can learn tolerance of others and a habit of looking for the commonalities or the broader view. They must learn to reason independently of social categories, to stop seeing all issues as black and white, to entertain an experimental attitude towards their problems, and to see the complexities of issues -- i.e. to become familiar with rationalistic, mechanistic, and cybernetic views, at least to the extent that they can move beyond their authoritarian rigidity. All this must occur within a very secure environment, one that does not engage their defensive mechanisms. (Man, it's hard to know whether the one is changing the perspective, or just trying to please you in saying expected words.)
II. Societies
Societies do not have epistemologies; only individuals do. So we should not expect our taxonomy to so neatly reflect societal development as it does personal development. We can, however, place societies on the basis of the level of the mass of a society's people, or at least the level of the power-elite. Permit me to go out on a limb:
1. At the autistic level, we can only expect anarchy moderated by instinct -- something I doubt has ever truly existed in the history of human beings.
2. At the traditional level, we find a large number of societies that Sorokin (1937-1940) calls, perhaps euphemistically, familistic: They tend to be universalistic, have realistic conceptions of the corporate "person" (i.e. the tribe, the state, the race...), tend to assume free will, and take a cyclical view of history. Modern "isms" that might be so characterized include absolute monarchy and fascism.
3. At the rationalistic level (Sorokin calls them "mixed") we might find constitutional monarchy and republicanism, as well as capitalist economics.
4. At the mechanistic level, we have what Sorokin call the contractual: Singularism predominates, as does a nominalistic conception of the corporate "person," a belief in determinism, and a progressive approach to history. Modern "isms" might include federalism, representational democracy, and welfarism.
Beyond this point we run into a problem finding examples or even conceptions.
5. Cybernetic societies, we might predict, should be slightly less efficient and somewhat more person-oriented than the mechanistic societies. We might expect referential democracy, meritocracy (in the best sense), and moderate socialism. Sorokin does mention "harmonism," including a dialectic approach to history, as a higher synthesis of the familistic and the contractual. (sounds so dangrous, hmm, is it my fear of chaos, asall the conventionalists' fear of chaos, that leads to the insecure feeling of a social struction in hypothesis?)
6. At the epistemic level, we might expect a decentralized, participatory democracy and a "grass roots" capitalism (communism at its best!). As it should be considerably less efficient than the mechanistic, we can expect its arrival only when the world is safe from physical and economic aggression, and indeed only when others find it in themselves to tolerate such developments. (I don't trust in human, nor should you. One could be perfectly moral only when everyone is perfectly moral. )
7. And, finally, the transcendental society would presumably be an anarchy in the most positive sense. I suspect this will forever remain an ideal. (anarchy? I think we don't need to do anything, only DEATH could led human into anarchy.)
All this said, it should still be understood that all the perspectives, if they are indeed in some way universals, should be represented in all societies, from the most primitive to the most futuristic. Of course, the expression of each perspective will differ tremendously from society to society: The “mechanistic” in a primitive society may be represented by the practical, down-to-earth views of the village craftspeople, the “epistemic” by the leadership skills of a chief, and the “transcendental” by the ritual of the shaman. And perhaps the rationalistic and cybernetic have little meaning for a pre-literate culture.
On the other hand, some of what makes today’s life difficult can also be understood: In a society as complex, pluralistic, and swiftly changing as ours, it may become increasing difficult for many of us to face and transcend the “chaos” of our lives. It is a serious question, I believe, whether more and more of us will suffer from alienation and mental illness as we move into our future. I like to think that speculating on our psycho-social future in this way may help us deal with these problems successfully! (You do think so? or you have to think so? yeah, we have to believe in something seems imporsible for us, sometimes we call it "hope", sometimes, "mental illness".)
Societies do not have epistemologies; only individuals do. So we should not expect our taxonomy to so neatly reflect societal development as it does personal development. We can, however, place societies on the basis of the level of the mass of a society's people, or at least the level of the power-elite. Permit me to go out on a limb:
1. At the autistic level, we can only expect anarchy moderated by instinct -- something I doubt has ever truly existed in the history of human beings.
2. At the traditional level, we find a large number of societies that Sorokin (1937-1940) calls, perhaps euphemistically, familistic: They tend to be universalistic, have realistic conceptions of the corporate "person" (i.e. the tribe, the state, the race...), tend to assume free will, and take a cyclical view of history. Modern "isms" that might be so characterized include absolute monarchy and fascism.
3. At the rationalistic level (Sorokin calls them "mixed") we might find constitutional monarchy and republicanism, as well as capitalist economics.
4. At the mechanistic level, we have what Sorokin call the contractual: Singularism predominates, as does a nominalistic conception of the corporate "person," a belief in determinism, and a progressive approach to history. Modern "isms" might include federalism, representational democracy, and welfarism.
Beyond this point we run into a problem finding examples or even conceptions.
5. Cybernetic societies, we might predict, should be slightly less efficient and somewhat more person-oriented than the mechanistic societies. We might expect referential democracy, meritocracy (in the best sense), and moderate socialism. Sorokin does mention "harmonism," including a dialectic approach to history, as a higher synthesis of the familistic and the contractual. (sounds so dangrous, hmm, is it my fear of chaos, asall the conventionalists' fear of chaos, that leads to the insecure feeling of a social struction in hypothesis?)
6. At the epistemic level, we might expect a decentralized, participatory democracy and a "grass roots" capitalism (communism at its best!). As it should be considerably less efficient than the mechanistic, we can expect its arrival only when the world is safe from physical and economic aggression, and indeed only when others find it in themselves to tolerate such developments. (I don't trust in human, nor should you. One could be perfectly moral only when everyone is perfectly moral. )
7. And, finally, the transcendental society would presumably be an anarchy in the most positive sense. I suspect this will forever remain an ideal. (anarchy? I think we don't need to do anything, only DEATH could led human into anarchy.)
All this said, it should still be understood that all the perspectives, if they are indeed in some way universals, should be represented in all societies, from the most primitive to the most futuristic. Of course, the expression of each perspective will differ tremendously from society to society: The “mechanistic” in a primitive society may be represented by the practical, down-to-earth views of the village craftspeople, the “epistemic” by the leadership skills of a chief, and the “transcendental” by the ritual of the shaman. And perhaps the rationalistic and cybernetic have little meaning for a pre-literate culture.
On the other hand, some of what makes today’s life difficult can also be understood: In a society as complex, pluralistic, and swiftly changing as ours, it may become increasing difficult for many of us to face and transcend the “chaos” of our lives. It is a serious question, I believe, whether more and more of us will suffer from alienation and mental illness as we move into our future. I like to think that speculating on our psycho-social future in this way may help us deal with these problems successfully! (You do think so? or you have to think so? yeah, we have to believe in something seems imporsible for us, sometimes we call it "hope", sometimes, "mental illness".)
Honestly, I believe that the struggling in chaos is inherent in our highly evolved brain, reality will never been well defined as could be universally accepted. "Reality" a word doomed to be taken partially by everyone, once a perspective is practiced, one is about to face some kind of disturbulance. The development in our civilization is rooting deeply in problems and pain. We are doomed, to lust for a non-existing paradise(something sublime and whole), the lust itself is Humanity, it's so concrete that will never collapse, even being built on a collective dream. We will get use to it, just like our ancesters got used to the endless wars, humans' ability in adapting is amazing, let's rest on the chaos , if possible, enjoy it with a peaceful smile.
0 评论:
发表评论