Advanced Systems-Level Problem Solving, Volume 3: Manual of Dialectical Thought Forms [2nd ed. 2023] 303140338X, 9783031403385

Citation preview

Otto Laske

Advanced Systems-Level Problem Solving, Volume 3 Manual of Dialectical Thought Forms Second Edition

Advanced Systems-Level Problem Solving, Volume 3

Otto Laske

Advanced Systems-Level Problem Solving, Volume 3 Manual of Dialectical Thought Forms Second Edition

Otto Laske Interdevelopmental Institute (IDM) Gloucester, MA, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-40338-5    ISBN 978-3-031-40339-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40339-2 1st edition: © Author, self-published 2008 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

Preface

This monograph is a child of its time. It is a contribution to Dialectical Critical Realism and thus strongly influenced by Bhaskar (1993) but also by Adorno (1999). It is further informed by M. Archer’s (1995, 2003, 2007), E. Jaques’ (1998), and I. McGilchrist’s work (2009). The monograph comprises three books all of which explain and model a form of complex thinking historically known as dialectical thinking. Such thinking is systemic as well as metasystemic. The monograph is geared toward understanding, as well as designing, open rather than closed systems. Informally, seeing the world as an open system – as we do in this monograph – means viewing it as in constant motion (Bhaskar’s Second Edge, 2E), constituted by intrinsic relationships (Bhaskar’s Third Level, 3L) and viewed from a meta-­systemic perspective from which it undergoes unceasing transformation (Bhaskar’s Fourth Dimension, 4D). These characteristics pertain to life. One might say, thus, that dialectical thinking aims to construct Life in Thought. In a time where mankind is succumbing to its self-created “data world,” dialectical thinking takes on the form of a rescue operation to save mankind from itself, more precisely, from its exclusively disembodied logical thinking in terms of which the world gleams in pure positivity since all traces of negativity have been unintentionally removed from it. By contrast, dialectical thinking explicates the notion that “reality” cannot be either described or acted upon while forgetting that it is, to speak with Bhaskar, pervaded by absences, or marked by negativity, and that human thinking therefore needs to learn to master “negative thinking” if not also “negative dialectic.” Overall, the monograph joins a genetic epistemology of – solver-centric – systems thinking to a phenomenology of work in real time, viewing “work” as a manifestation of Human Agency in the sense of M.  Archer. For this purpose, the monograph presents an epistemological equivalent of Bhaskar’s ontological dialectic, referred to as a “thought form dialectic,” and does so with a focus on the social sciences and organizations as in part constitutive cells of society. This entails putting into an epistemological perspective (and vocabulary) how as social agents individuals, groups, and teams construct the world for themselves in real time, influenced by a host of cultural and social constraints but in a way that is irreducible to them. v

vi

Preface

By showing that and in what way dialectical systems thinking includes and transcends logical systems thinking, and demonstrating in what way it is an adult-­ developmental achievement, the author establishes a relationship between “thinking” and “work,” viewing work (not only organizational work) as a manifestation of human agency. Especially in Book 2, following E. Jaques, the author shows that both thinking and work share that they require what Hegel called the effort of the concept, that is, conceptual thinking able to transcend merely logical thinking. The adult-developmental processes by which logical thinking extends itself into dialectical thinking are the main topic of Books 1 and 3. In Book 2, the author applies what today is known about human cognitive development over the lifespan and the thought-form structure of mature thinking to an inquiry into human capability and its function in organizations and institutions. Addressing the sociological and epistemic relationship of Structure and Agency introduced into sociology by M.  Archer, Book 2 focuses on human agency as “work” as well as “reflexivity,” and empirically explores the mental space in which work in real time happens, referred to as individuals’ and teams’ internal workplace, with dramatic consequences for organizational consulting and human resources management. Joined to the practice of dialectical thinking throughout the monograph, the reader finds an exposition of theoretical distinctions and empirical findings of research in adult development over the human lifespan, especially cognitive development toward dialectics. The connection made between dialectics and development is not haphazard: the monograph views not only individual but social and cultural development as dialectical in the sense of Bhaskar’s Four Moments of Dialectic, explored in all three books. In this manner, the monograph extends and deepens the literature of Dialectical Critical Realism, introducing methods of dialectical systems analysis for such diverse professional domains as long-term strategic planning, government prediction, policymaking, critical-systems analysis, and educational reform. The broad differences between the monograph’s three books are the following: • Book 1, subtitled Approaching Real-World Complexity with Dialectical Thinking, has an epistemological focus. It joins Bhaskar’s ontological notion of the Four Moments of Dialectic to the epistemological one of dialectics emerging in the human mind as it transitions from Understanding to Reason viewed as phases of cognitive development. The book’s purpose is to present what is known today about human cognitive development over the human lifespan, a topic still obscured by the dominance of behavioral belief systems, especially but not only in business. (The last chapter of the book broadens its epistemological inquiry to social-emotional meaning making which is intrinsically linked to cognitive sense making.) In this way, the book lays the theoretical foundation for Book 2 which explores the structure of the mental space in which Work happens in real time, with a focus on managing human resources. • Book 2, subtitled How to Measure and Boost Thought Maturity, adopts and critically deepens E.  Jaques’ notions of Capability and Work. Amplifying Jaques’

Preface

vii

pioneering distinctions and differentiations within the domain of human Capability from an adult-developmental perspective, the book investigates social agents’ internal dialogue about their work activities, to empirically explore the methods of mental processing they use to deliver work in real time. Introducing the notion of agents’ internal workplace as well as methods for scrutinizing its developmental structure by way of qualitative interview methods, the author sheds light on the gap between behavioral and epistemic notions of work and work design and displays the consequences thereof for professionalism in human resources management and the development of work-supporting technology. • Book 3, subtitled Manual of Dialectical Thought Forms, comprises the only existing set of tools for assessing individuals’, groups’, and teams’ present level of cognitive development toward dialectical thinking. This set of tools is what beginners in dialectical thinking and assessment need to master to become practitioners of dialectics. The book updates, refines, and expands the never published Manual of Dialectical Schemata put in place in 1981 by Michael Bopp, a student of Michael Basseches, thereby safeguarding the historical continuity of dialectics. It is a textbook for teaching and learning dialectical thinking and mastering its epistemology. For that purpose, the book presents a detailed description of four different modes (and “moments”) of dialectical thinking, each of which is associated with seven thought forms that together make up the author’s DTF (Dialectical Thought Form Framework). Examples, exercises, and practice reflections facilitate using the Manual. In general terms, this monograph presents systems thinking as the flowering of individuals’ emergent potential capability from which, over their lifetime, maturity of thought issues that lets them extend logical to dialectical thinking. In three intrinsically related books, the monograph guides the reader on his/her journey from Understanding to Reason (Bhaskar 1993, 28–37), showing the latter to be the master and the former a mere emissary (McGilchrist 2009). By delving into the epistemological intricacies of individuals’ internal workplace (Archer 2003, 2007), the monograph presents dialectical systems thinking as an achievement of adulthood whose implicit potential for untrammeled thinking lets humans transcend the “data world” that mere Understanding (logical thinking) so easily gets stuck in. By so doing, the monograph escapes committing both the epistemic and ontic fallacies (Bhaskar) in terms of which the real world shows up as an irrealist “data world” to which to succumb is potentially fatal for Human Agency (Archer 1995, 2003). Throughout three intrinsically related books, dialectical systems analysis unfolds itself as a critical discipline whose practitioners transcend positivistic views of the real world by uncovering the latter’s negativity, thereby laying bare the dialectics of Structure and Agency all thinking is framed by. The new discipline views the ways in which humans construct the world through language as fallacious if they cannot dialectically reflect upon their own thinking; as shoddy if they do not take the world’s negativity into account; and as risky to the extent that they are under the sway of epistemologically reductive models of the real

viii

Preface

world that are, intentionally or not, out of touch with what is empirically known today about the epistemic structure of individuals’ internal workplace. In sum, the reader is embarking on a journey into a genetic epistemology of dialectical systems thinking in the form of an inquiry into the cognitive-developmental structure of thinkers’ internal workplace by which they engage with structures of the real world in real time. Gloucester, MA, USA

Otto Laske

Bibliography Adorno, Th. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., & Levinson, D. J. 1950. The authoritarian personality. New York: Norton. Adorno, Th. W. 1978. Minima moralia. London: Verso. Adorno, Th. W. 1993. Hegel: Three studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adorno, Th. W. 1999. Negative dialectic. New  York: Continuum. [Negative Dialektik. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1966]. Adorno, Th. W. 2008. Lectures on negative dialectic: Fragments of a lecture course 1965/66. Malden, MA: Polity. Archer, M.  S. 1995. Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. S. 1998. Culture and agency. Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. S. 2003. Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. S. 2007. Making our way through the world. Cambridge University Press. Bhaskar, R. 1979 (1989, 1998). The possibility of naturalism. London: Routledge. Bhaskar, R. 1993. Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Verso. Bhaskar, R. 2002. Reflections on MetaReality. London: Sage. Bhaskar, R. 2017. The order of naturally necessity. University College London Institute of Education. The Authors. Hegel, G.W. 1977 (1806). Phenomenology of Spirit. London: Oxford University Press. Hegel, G. W. 2010 (1816–32). The science of logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jaques, E. 1998. Requisite Organization. Arlington, VA: Cason Hall & Co.; (2021 edition of Requisite  Organization Publishing, https://www.amazon.com/Requisite-OrganizationComplete-Guide-2021/dp/1867418932?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc= 1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER) McGilchrist, I. 2009. The master and his emissary. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. McGilchrist, I. 2019. Ways of attending. London/New York: Routledge.

Introduction

If a simple epigram could sum up what is essential to thinking dialectically it should be that it is the art of thinking the coincidence of distinctions and connections. Its essence is fluidity structured around the hard core of the concept of absence and the 1M-4D relations it implicates. (Roy Bhaskar 1993, p. 190)

Dialectical thinking is presently an almost totally hidden resource of human agency that is made invisible by its aura of being esoteric as well as because of prevailing educational systems that do nothing but job training. This is paradoxical since it is exactly in training for a job that dialectical thinking should find a place, not only in high schools and colleges but also universities, especially when preparing for work in public administration, think tanks, and corporate prediction and strategizing departments, not to speak of embarking on a political career. It is the false mystique surrounding dialectical thinking that this manual is meant to dispel. Since dialectical thinking is often opposed to logical thinking, the manual shows that and in what way dialectical thinking overlaps with, critiques, extends, and strengthens logical thinking. “Logical” and “dialectical” are strongly relational terms, to the effect that these two kinds of thinking intrinsically need each other: one cannot be without the other. Dialectical thinking is unthinkable, even pointless, without logical thinking; it presupposes mastery of the latter. More specifically, logical thinking is dialectic’s most potent tool. Being holistic and systemic, dialectical thinking uses logical thinking as the “mighty separator” it needs to link and relate what has been separated. One can only link “things” as far as one has previously separated them, for which logical thinking is the most apt tool. *** In my experience, dialectical thinking cannot really be learned from books, nor can thought forms be taught like one teaches English. Thought forms can only be elicited from an interlocutor or group of interlocutors in a real-time dialogue that is guided by a participant’s knowledge of Roy Bhaskar’s Four Moments of ix

x

Introduction

Dialectic – a person who, on account of long-term practice, has internalized these moments along with the “thought forms” associated with them in the Dialectical Thought Form Framework (DTF). To learn complex thinking and the associated craft of dialectical listening, one needs to work with a master practitioner over several months or a year, to acquire even an elementary knowledge of dialectics. All those who can claim to have mastered dialectical thinking based on this manual have undergone an apprenticeship at the Otto Laske Interdevelopmental Institute (www.interdevelopmentals.org) since 2005, some of them repeatedly over many years.

Some Thoughts About Thought Forms Most people who become familiar with this manual make the mistake of focusing primary attention on thought forms as objects outside of themselves, rather than to listen to their own internal conversations and, for the sake of deepening their notion of dialectic, work at understanding Bhaskar’s Four Moments of Dialectic (MELD, i.e., 1M, 2E, 3L, 4D; 1993). This then leads to a fetishism of individual thought forms as tools, to the detriment of a more wide-scoped grasp of dialectics as a form of holistic and dynamic systems thinking. It also minimizes their understanding of dialectical thinking as based on networks of intrinsically linked concepts unceasingly referring to each other. Furthermore, focusing on thought forms to the detriment of moments of dialectic leads to difficulties in understanding movements-in-thought, including one’s own. Movements-in-thought are triggered by using one of the four Inquiring Systems this manual elucidates (see also Book 1 Chapter 1). These systems structure the ways in which people inquire into what we informally call “the real world,” whether they center on its physical, social, cultural, practical, or psychological aspects. Mistaking dialectical thinking for being identical with “the use of thought forms” also enhances the fallacy that Moments of Dialectic can straightforwardly be reduced to, or identified with, “classes of thought forms.” This reduction wipes out the difference between ontological and epistemic dialectics and leads to committing what Bhaskar refers to as the “epistemic” or the “ontic” fallacy. Committing an epistemic fallacy consists of reducing being to human thought, while committing the ontic fallacy consists of reducing thought to being. Importantly also, thought forms are nothing in and by themselves. They merely refer to what is being thought about by their users, thus are always intrinsically related to real-world referents and antecedents. They are not simply “in your head.” They are structural pointers to the contents humans think about which is sometimes another thought but more often some dimension or aspect of the real world. Dialectical thought forms characteristically do not only refer to what positively exists but equally to aspects of reality that are presently “absent from” reality and certainly from what is merely the case.

Introduction

xi

The ability of dialectical thought forms to refer to what is not, or not yet, is one of their great strengths. Without this strength, articulating hopes about the future in one’s internal conversations would be impossible. This strength also makes such conversations “critical” of what is or thought to be, and thus sets thinking free from being subject to its positive contents of its own data and models. From this perspective, dialectical thinking is simply untrammeled thinking (Adorno, 1999). What Dialectical Thinking Accomplishes Dialectical thinking has important pre-requisites, especially those having to do with the stage of development of reflective judgment in the sense of King and Kitchener (1994), in this work named epistemic positions. Epistemic positions form a trajectory that leads from conceiving of “truth” as simply told or found or given to being understood as “constructed” in various senses. A person at an epistemic position at which “truth” is either given or found instead of “constructed” by the thinker is not going to move into dialectical thinking anytime soon. An apt way to characterize dialectical thinking is to say that it creates novel mental spaces (Thought Possibilities), not only for exercising knowledge but also the imagination. This is because of a major tenet of dialectical thinking entailing that it is impossible to describe the real world in strictly positive terms. What is called “negativity” (or “absence”) in dialectic expresses just that. The dialectical notion of the world is that the real world is, to speak with Bhaskar, “pervaded by absences.” Were it not, change, development, and transformation would be impossible. Using dialectical thought forms is powerful precisely because they can refer to what is not, or is absent, and thus can open new vistas beyond what is the case and has been thought previously. Link of this Manual to that of Bopp and Basseches’ (1981) As indicated previously, while this manual is presently the only existing one, it is not the first, only the first published, one. In 1981, in close cooperation with M. Basseches, M. Bopp compiled the first manual meant to assist in the teaching of dialectical thought forms. His manual, a doctoral dissertation, referred to its subject matter as the Dialectical Schema Framework (DSF). M. Bopp shared this manual with me in 2001. Since that year, I have further refined the DSF System based on my own philosophical studies, developmental assessments, and teaching practice at the Interdevelopmental Institute (www.interdevelopmentals.org). Since Dr. Bopp assures me that his manual, written nearly 45 years ago, is to be considered the collaborative work of his teacher M. Basseches and himself, I quote it as “BB (1981).” *** The purpose of Bopp and Basseches’ manual was foremost that of instigating research in dialectical thinking. The hope for such research has largely been disappointed, mostly because of the dominance of North American pragmatism and positivism in developmental research. A further development of dialectical thinking has, however, occurred in the United Kingdom, where Roy Bhaskar, founder of the school of Critical Realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism), published Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom in 1993. What Bhaskar calls the “four

xii

Introduction

moments of dialectic” very closely corresponds to Basseches’ four classes of schemata as well as my own four classes of thought forms. In this regard, then, this Manual is fully on track with the further development of dialectical thinking beyond teachings of the Frankfurt School, and perhaps also beyond the present “integrally oriented” teaching of Dialectical Critical Realism. In the introduction to Bopp and Basseches’ Manual, Basseches wrote (BB 1981): I greet the construction of this manual with great enthusiasm as well as gratitude. I am enthusiastic because I believe the manual will greatly facilitate the conduct of research on dialectical thinking. … Michael Bopp’s manual very accurately reflects both the intended meaning of each of the dialectical schemata, and the procedures which I followed in analyzing the interviews which were the basis of my initial work on dialectical thinking. This manual will allow researchers to either employ the exact scoring procedures which I used, or to simplify those procedures in ways that are better suited to their own research goals. I am convinced from this manual that Bopp has a sound understanding of the dialectical schema framework and how to use it. I also believe that the manual has significant potential for communicating an understanding of the dialectical schema framework and how to use it for other potential coders.

In this Manual, then, I present an amplified version of the BB Manual, enriched by my knowledge of the dialectical tradition through studies at the Frankfurt School between 1956 and 1966, my studies with Th. W. Adorno and B. Liebrucks, and my studies of Bhaskar’s ontological and epistemological model of dialectic since 2006. For those who might have knowledge of BB’s manual, I should indicate that I have simplified their original scoring procedures for the sake of practical uses in process consultation and coaching, but no more than is reasonable for making cognitive assessments in organizations effective. I have also refined the original manual in that I explicate BB’s original cognitive score further, spelling out its implications, just as I previously refined Lahey and Kegan’s scoring (Laske, 2006). To signal that the manual is an original piece of my research, I refer to it under the name of Dialectical Thought Form Framework (DTF). As does Basseches (1984), I weight thought form use, in real time and text, in a threefold manner, as weak, moderate, or strong, depending on depth of articulation through speech they manifest, as well as keeping track of thought forms absent from an interview. This is justified since thought forms together constitute a transformational system in which they relate to and presuppose each other. In general terms, the changes I introduce in DTF, compared to the original DSF Manual, are all pragmatic rather than substantive. However, as the reader knows from Book 2 Appendix 2, I introduce additional scores, derived from the generic Fluidity Index that I share with Basseches and Bopp. All in all, the changes in DTF compared with the 1981 Manual are threefold. They were initially introduced in my dissertation on transformational effects of coaching, the first study of coaching based on theories of adult development (Laske 1999): 1. Extension of Basseches’ Fluidity Index (F-score), a mere summary score, to a broader Cognitive Score (C-Score), for the purpose of indicating the ability of a

Introduction

xiii

person, to coordinate moments of dialectic with each other, thus to show to what extent a person practices balanced dialectical thinking. 2. Introduction of a Discrepancy Index (D-score) indicating the proportion of thought form uses in the critical dialectical moments (P, R) in comparison with the constructive Moments of Dialectic (C, T) [see the introductory section on “The Concept of Dialectic”]. 3. Introduction of an equilibrium of BB’s schemata throughout the four Moments (or classes) to arrive at an equal number of thought forms aligned with each moment (or included in each class), namely 7x4=28, for the sake of scoring equity. The first change permits me to determine the grasp a person interviewed cognitively has of the dialectic of each of the four moments of dialectic (rather than simply of “thought forms”). This change makes it possible to gauge the equilibrium or disequilibrium of thought form uses linked to different classes, as well as the level of coordination of C-, P-, and R-thought forms in the transformational class, T. Adhering to BB’s usage, in writing the cognitive or C-score, I reverse P (process) and C (context), putting the score for Context thought forms between the “critical thinking” moments P and R. Accordingly, the T-Score (Systems Thinking Index) following the semicolon after results for R indicates the present level of coordination of thought forms in a person’s thinking in terms of the degree of coordination of thought forms achieved.

C  Score : P, C, R; T  %  



The second change, above, is a consequence of the first. Based on the assumption that thought form classes P and R (the critical moments of dialectic) source critical thinking, while classes C and T comprise constructive thought forms, I compute the proportion of critical versus constructive thinking, looking for the presence or absence of a balance between the two in an interviewee’s thinking:

Critical : Constructive = x : y

The term critical thinking here refers to all thinking that debunks absolutes by referring to processes that brought what exists into being, and to relationships that define the relational essence of what exists rather than presuming that it is absolute and cast in stone. The third change is the most decisive one in terms of how DTF scores are computed. I augment the number of thought forms selected by Basseches by equalizing the number in each class to seven. This is a natural step to take since the thought forms in Basseches’ classes C and R are of sufficient conceptual depth and scope to make finer distinctions within them as thought forms in their own right. Conversely, I subsume a small number of thought forms under one of the seven adopted ones as a sub-aspect (Basseches’ original schemas #22 and #23). Introducing an even

xiv

Introduction

number of thought forms in each class is beneficial when evaluating the balance between thought form classes in an individual’s present cognitive profile. In summary, then, this Manual introduces three additional cognitive scores all of which derive from (and elaborate) BB’s Fluidity Index (F-score): 1. Cognitive Score (C-score) 2. Systems Thinking Index (STI, part of the C-Score), indicating the degree of coordination of thought forms in class T, thus the strength of an interviewee’s meta-systemic thinking 3. Discrepancy Score (D-score) *** I am quite aware that this Manual remains a work in progress. May it be read to shreds. I have given it 25 years of my life. May others do better than I have been able to do! Gloucester, MA, USA June 2023

Otto Laske

Bibliography Adorno, Th. W. (1999). Negative dialectic. Continuum. [Negative Dialektik. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1966]. Basseches, M. A. (1984). Dialectical thinking and adult development. Ablex. Bhaskar, R. (1993). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. Verso. Bopp, M., & Basseches, M. (1981). A coding manual for the dialectical schema framework (Unpublished dissertation). [Cited as BB.] King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. Jossey Bass. Laske, O. (1999). Transformative effects of coaching on executives’ professional agenda. PsyD dissertation (2 vols.), Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology. Ann Arbor: Bell & Howell. (Order no. 9930438). Laske, O. (2006). Leadership as something we are rather than have. Integral Leadership Review, VI(1).

Acknowledgments

This book has a complicated, if not somewhat torturous, 45-year history which begins in 1978, extends to a Ph.D. dissertation of 1981, and further to my own Psy.D. dissertation of 1999, which between 2000 and 2008 led me to a writing first draft of the DTFM (Dialectical Thought Form Manual) here before the reader. The Manual is a Survivor. This history describes the “trail of forgetting” that has been the fate of dialectical thinking to travel, in a culture of behaviorism and positivism which this monograph now hopes to bring to a happy ending in the form of Book 3, a totally updated and ontologically strengthened Manual of Dialectical Thought Forms 15 years later. I owe this manual to the pioneering work of M. Basseches who between 1978 and 1984 laid the empirical groundwork for investigating dialectical thinking as a psychological phenomenon. More specifically, when in 2001, after my PsyD dissertation on coaching at MSSPP (now William James College in Newton, MA), I began to assemble the materials for this monograph – initially published in 2008 under the “Interdevelopmental Institute” (IDM) imprint – I learned through correspondence with Dr. Basseches’ student Michael Bopp, Ph.D., that he had taken steps back in 1981 to put together a – never published – compilation of dialectical schemata. It is this compilation made by Dr. Bopp in cooperation with Dr. Basseches that is the “Urtext” of what is before the reader here. To the great fortune of those who have an interest in complex thinking, Dr. Bopp had the courtesy of sharing his compilation with me in 2001. From that time on, my endeavor to continue my studies of dialectical thinking – initiated by Th. W. Adorno in 1958 – led me to Roy Bhaskar’s ontological work on dialectics (1993). From 2006 on, therefore, my interest in the genetic epistemology of dialectical thinking – which led me to adopting a more “epistemic” than “psychological” focus on dialectics – gained an ontological dimension on account of studying Bhaskar’s work (whom I met in person in 2014) in depth. As the reader will discover, this book mingles Basseches’ epistemological with Bhaskar’s ontological dialectics, two disciplines which are as separate as they are inseparable.

xv

xvi

Acknowledgments

Dr. Bopp has assured me that his manual is to be considered the collaborative work of his teacher M. Basseches and himself, for which reason I quote its title, A Coding Manual for the Dialectical Schema Framework, as “BB 1981.” I have given 65 years of my life to studying and teaching dialectical thinking and know that this manual is still a work in progress. Specifically, it is the relationship of epistemological (Basseches, Laske) and ontological (Archer. Bhaskar) dialectic that needs further research. Otto Laske June 2023

Overview

Book 3 of the monograph is the Manual of Dialectical Thought Forms. The Manual’s original was created by M.  Basseches and his student M.  Bopp (cited as BB) between 1978 and 1981 but was never published. It was expanded and critically refined by the author since 1999 (Laske 1999) and was further enriched by subsequent studies of R. Bhaskar’s ontological dialectics. In the form presented here, the Manual has been the foundation of nearly 25 years of international teaching and consulting work. The book is the only existing Manual on dialectical thought forms in the world today. As a contribution to Bhaskar’s Dialectical Critical Realism, the Manual is a critique of scientism and other ideologies including positivism and hermeneutics. Simultaneously, it is an invitation to become a more critical user of one’s logical thinking and look out for its limitations. In this book, the Manual itself is preceded by a historical introduction and a succinct outline of the concept of dialectics. While the introduction details the historical roots of Laske’s Dialectical Thought Form Framework (DTF), the outline of the concept of dialectics provides a foundation for the practical use of thought forms in a large variety of endeavors such as systems analysis, cognitive-developmental assessment, critical text analysis, dialectical text composition, organizational strategy design, corporate planning, think tank projections, generative AI, work in the arts, and (under-)graduate teaching in management science, social science, and philosophy. At the Interdevelopmental Institute (IDM), the “royal way” of learning to use thought forms in real time, either as a dialogue partner or as a team facilitator, has been to acquire the practice of adult cognitive assessment referred to as “administering a cognitive interview” by way of three “case studies.” Such an interview requires a well-honed ability to use thought forms and is thus something a beginner initially cannot do. For this reason, students who strive to obtain an IDM Certificate of Dialectical Thinking are asked to submit at least three case studies. The learning curve in case study work is initially steep but then quickens. While the first case study takes 8–9 months to complete, the subsequent second and third case studies can be produced within 4–5 months. It is the task of the ­student/interviewer to lead a one-hour structured conversation focused on the thought forms xvii

xviii

Overview

used by the interviewee, systematically evaluate and “score” the interview, and give written feedback to the interviewee for purposes of coaching, mentoring, facilitation, or other organizational services. Case study students are taught in small cohorts of up to 10 people at most, in English, German, Japanese, and Spanish based on initial self-study (see the “Gateway” materials at https://interdevelopmentals.org/publications/). The Manual is more than a list of DTF thought forms. It is a richly commented pedagogical tool for teaching professionals to transition from purely logical to complex, dialectical thinking, first by listening to others, and second, by enriching their own internal conversations conceptually. Since 2000, the Manual has been the pedagogical foundation of teaching and learning dialectical thinking at Laske’s Interdevelopmental Institute (IDM; www.interdevelopmentals.org). The Manual comprises four chapters. • In Chap. 1, I introduce in detail the concept of dialectics in a way geared to its practical use in educational institutions, think tanks, government offices, and organizations. • Chapter 2 introduces Bhaskar’s Four Moments of Dialectic, the backbone of DTF dialectic where Bhaskar’s Moments are unfolded epistemologically, in terms of “thought forms” as first researched by M. Basseches (1984). • Chapter 3 comprises detailed descriptions, with examples, of the 28 DTF thought forms taught in the book: Process, Context, Relationship, and Transformational thought forms. • Chapter 4 comprises a set of validated tools for establishing an individual’s cognitive profile, both for the sake of cognitive-developmental research and for cognitive, in contrast to behavioral, assessment in HR departments of institutions and organizations. As a result, the Manual is of use both in empirical cognitive research and the management of human resources, especially in organizations that view work as an outflow of Capability (E. Jaques) rather than mere behavior. The Manual is also of use for social scientists who follow M. Archer’s lead in conceptualizing human Agency in terms of reflexivity, especially when developing a qualitative interviewing practice for work with different types of reflexives (Archer 2003, 2007) and other purposes. Finally, my hope is that the Manual will be helpful in bringing greater fluidity of dialectical thinking into Dialectical Critical Realism than has so far been in evidence, even in Bhaskar’s and Archer’s own work. Should this occur, it would work against the tendency in DCR to consider Bhaskar’s ontology as being in its definitive form, which I am sure it is not.

Bibliography Basseches, M.A. 1984. Dialectical thinking and adult development. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Laske, O. 1999. Transformative effects of coaching on executives’ professional agenda. PsyD dissertation (2 vols.), Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology. Ann Arbor: Bell & Howell. (Order no. 9930438).

Contents

1

 The Concept of Dialectics: A Framework for Its Practical Use��������     1 Overview of the Central Ideas of Dialectics��������������������������������������������     1 Different Views of Dialectics (See Also Book 1)������������������������������������     3 Three Models of Dialectic ����������������������������������������������������������������������     5 The Four Moments of Dialectic ��������������������������������������������������������������     6 The Critical and Constructive Moments of Dialectic������������������������������     7 Applying MELD to the Development of Human Cognition��������������������     9 Dialectical vs. Kantian Inquiring Systems����������������������������������������������    13 Digression I: Work as a Dialectical Process (See Also Book 2)��������������    16 Digression II: Actuality, Empirical Existence, and Reality (See Book 1) ������������������������������������������������������������������������    17 Equivalence of Moments of Dialectic in Bhaskar and Basseches ����������    18 Transforms and the Moments of Dialectic����������������������������������������������    19 Bibliography��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    21

2

 The Individual Moments of Dialectic��������������������������������������������������    25 The Dialectic of Context��������������������������������������������������������������������������    25 Thought Contexts������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    27 The Dialectic of Process��������������������������������������������������������������������������    28 The Dialectic of Relationship������������������������������������������������������������������    31 The Moments of Dialectic Form a Set of Relationships��������������������������    32 Constitutive Relationships ����������������������������������������������������������������������    33 Incomplete Descriptions��������������������������������������������������������������������������    34 The Dialectic of Transformational Systems��������������������������������������������    36 From Moments of Dialectic to Thought Forms ��������������������������������������    38 The Crucial Transition from the Second to the Third Order of Mental Complexity������������������������������������������������������������������������������    39 Comments on the Table����������������������������������������������������������������������������    40 Categorical Errors������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    44 Chapter Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    45 Bibliography��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    47 xix

xx

Contents

3

Thought Form Descriptions������������������������������������������������������������������    49 Section 1: Process Thought Forms����������������������������������������������������������    49 The Essence of Process Thought Forms����������������������������������������������    49 Process ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    50 Overview of Process Thought Forms��������������������������������������������������    54 Thought Form #1 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    54 Thought Form #2 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    58 Thought Form #3 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    64 Thought Form #4 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    68 Thought Form 5 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������    71 Thought Form #6 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    75 Thought Form #7 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    79 Section Summary ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    84 Section 2: Context Thought Forms����������������������������������������������������������    86 The Sequence of Context Thought Forms ������������������������������������������    88 Thought Form #8 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    91 Thought Form #9 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    94 Thought Form #10 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������    97 Thought Form #11 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   102 Thought Form #12 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   105 Thought Form #13 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   107 Thought Form #14 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   111 Section Summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   115 Section 3: Relationship Thought Forms��������������������������������������������������   117 Thought Forms in Detail����������������������������������������������������������������������   119 Thought Form #15–16 ������������������������������������������������������������������������   122 Thought Form #16 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   124 Thought Form #17–18 ������������������������������������������������������������������������   126 Thought Form #17 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   128 Thought Form #18 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   129 Thought Form #19 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   132 Thought Form #20 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   135 Section Summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   143 Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms ������������������������������������������   145 Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   145 The Blessings and Strangleholds of Formal Logic������������������������������   146 Example from Nature��������������������������������������������������������������������������   149 Example of Human Society ����������������������������������������������������������������   149 The Sequence of Transformational Thought Forms����������������������������   152 Thought Forms in Detail����������������������������������������������������������������������   152 Individual Thought Forms��������������������������������������������������������������������   154 Thought Form #24 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   161 Thought Form #25 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   164 Thought Form #26 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   168 Thought Form #27 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   172

Contents

xxi

Thought Form #28 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   177 Chapter Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   187 Dialectical Thinking as “Deep Thinking”��������������������������������������������   187 Bibliography��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   191 4

Interview/Text Scoring Materials ��������������������������������������������������������   193 Compact Table of Thought Forms ����������������������������������������������������������   193 Detailed Table of Thought Forms������������������������������������������������������������   194 Table of Questions About Thought Forms ����������������������������������������������   198 Thought Forms as Mind Openers������������������������������������������������������������   199 Thought Form Selection Sheet����������������������������������������������������������������   223 Thought Form Coding Sheet��������������������������������������������������������������������   225 Cognitive Behavior Graph ����������������������������������������������������������������������   228 Cognitive Behavior Graph ����������������������������������������������������������������������   228 IDM Interview Agreement Form ������������������������������������������������������������   229 Otto Laske Interdevelopmental Institute����������������������������������������������   229 Bibliography��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   230

Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   233

Abbreviations1

Context (mode of thinking) ⟶ DTF Cognitive development (sense making), in contrast to ED Constructive Developmental Framework (Laske) The Sequence of the Four Modes of Dialectical Thinking (Context, Process, Relationship, and Transformation (Book 3) DCR Dialectical Critical Realism (Bhaskar) DSF Dialectical Schema Framework (Basseches) DTF Dialectical Thought Form Framework (Laske) DTFM Manual of Dialectical Thought Forms ED Social-emotional development (meaning making), in contrast to CD HR Human Resources MELD Bhaskar’s Four Moments of Dialectic (1M, 2E, 3L, 4D) MMP Methods of Mental Processing (Jaques) P Process Mode of Thinking ⟶ DTF PEL Point-Elaborate-Link Sequence (in dialectical thinking) R Relationship Mode of Thinking ⟶ DTF S (Social-emotional) Stage (Kegan) STI Systems Thinking Index (in DTF cognitive assessment) T Transformational Mode of Thinking ⟶ DTF (“Transforms” = sets of tools for transitioning from one era of cognitive development to another) TF(s) Thought Form(s) C CD CDF CPRT

 See also the Glossary in Book 1.

1

xxiii

Chapter 1

The Concept of Dialectics: A Framework for Its Practical Use

Overview of the Central Ideas of Dialectics This is a book on dialectical systems-level analysis and reflection, of relevance in both the natural and social sciences, not to speak of navigating the practical and social order in which we live. The book is a child of its time which cries out for efforts of complex thinking, to effectively address the many dilemmas mankind has worked itself into by forgetting that it is an integral part of nature. Dialectical thinking of all stripes is an attempt to reconstruct Life in Thought, the most difficult intellectual endeavor humans have so far attempted. Rather than just replicating the human language world as a “data world” (as done in chatbots of whatever large language model (LLM)), dialectical thinking honors the inbuilt, intrinsic link human agents entertain with the real and real-time world, whether natural, social, or cultural. Based on language, dialectical thinking transcends language in that it explicates what natural language “cannot say” and, more like poetry and the arts, addresses the imagination. It is an artificial language based on high-level concepts aiming to spell out humans’ “internal dialogue” by which they channel right-hemisphere thinking – using left-hemisphere “logic” as a separator tool – into grasping holons. This entails keeping what is “negated” in a memory store rather than throwing it away (as in logic), making it ready to serve as the “non-A” to every thinkable A. *** Before entering in the detailed description of DTF, the dialectical thought form manual, the reader will welcome an overview of its central ideas. The best way to characterize my approach to dialectic is to say that I see it as a developmental and dialogical epistemology (theory of knowledge) that, in a Socratic way, supports deep dialogue with and between individuals and teams in real-world settings where problems are conceptualized, reflected upon, and pursued accordingly. It is this © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 O. Laske, Advanced Systems-Level Problem Solving, Volume 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40339-2_1

1

2

1  The Concept of Dialectics: A Framework for Its Practical Use

“reflection” of issues, spoken of or simply implied, that dialectical thinking optimally engenders and supports. It is helpful, at this point, to distinguish two kinds of dialectic. Let us call the first one “ontological” and the second “epistemological.” The first kind of dialectic, best exemplified by Bhaskar’s Dialectical Critical Realism (DCR), is argument-based in the sense that it clarifies and defends ontological statements made about the real world. The second kind of dialectic, here outlined, is the medium of internal dialogue, the unceasingly evolving ruminations of every individual over his or her entire lifetime. Clearly, both dialectics complement each other. But the first one is strictly academic; the second is occurring in real time and mostly outside of academic. The second dialectic is the lingua franca of self-reflection as well as group and team reflection, whether it appears in acoustic or written form. While in Dialectical Critical Realism the purpose of dialogue is to find better reasons than your interlocutor has and to tell the truth as you see it based on research, in DTF epistemological practice, the purpose is to refine people’s thinking capability and foster thought maturity whatever topic might be chosen by participants. In our time, DTF dialectic is especially relevant in the sense that “better thinking” in a global crisis is the best antidote to it. Speaking of a dialogic- rather than argument-based dialectics, the dialogue I have in mind is one that powerfully deviates from the “tell and do” culture in which we live. In contrast to this culture, whether academic or organizational, stands the culture of humble inquiry (Schein 2012). In this kind of inquiry, one humbles oneself by asking questions by which to understand other minds better, rather than falling into a culture of “tell and do” which easily leads to cognitive triumphalism. Dialectical interventions of this kind require a particular stance that is easier to adopt for mature than immature individuals and thus is an adult developmental achievement rather than something that can be learned in courses or by reading books. What requires study in a DTF dialectics is the tools by which a dialogical stance can be optimally realized. The main purpose of this manual, although it lends itself also to argument-based dialectics, is to bring discipline to Socratic dialog with clients, or the mentoring of clients. Thought form dialectic is naturally part of cognitive development over the lifespan, far transcending simple skill acquisition: it is a way of mentally growing into cognitive maturity. The sources of thought form dialectic are manifold. They comprise the writings of Dialectical Critical Realism (DCR) created by R.  Bhaskar (1993) and the Kohlberg School research in adult cognition since 1975, foremost the research by M. Basseches and his student M. Bopp (quoted as “BB”). In this manual that I owe to BB’s work, I extensively work with Bhaskar’s MELD, the four moments of dialectic, rendering them in epistemological terms based on M.  Basseches’ CPRT classes of thought forms (1984). Overall, I go back to the resources of the 2500-year-old dialectical tradition represented by Hegel, to lead the reader into the domain of transformational systems and meta-systemic thinking in which analytical reasoning is a mere tool for differentiating holistic and systemic ideas. I am helped in this endeavor by my studies at the Frankfurt School (1956–1966) and my knowledge of the Western philosophical tradition.

Different Views of Dialectics (See Also Book 1)

3

In a broader perspective on dialectics, its dialogical form can be appreciated as a way to bring dialectics to the real world of organizations and institutions in which problems of global crisis need to be tackled. To be involved with such problems based on analytical reasoning is not a promising undertaking because the complexities involved, whether they are cultural, political, economic, or organizational, will simply not yield to formal logical thought. It is quite surprising that the value of dialectical thinking as something to be taught in schools and universities from adolescence on has so far not been seen. An exception to the neglect of dialectical thinking in contemporary cognitive research and practice is M. Basseches’ work. Between 1978 and 1989, this genetic epistemologist and, later, clinical psychologist empirically harnessed dialectical thinking to practical use by creating a “cognitive interview” and an associated methodology to evaluate it. Comparable to my work in cognitive interviewing (see Book 2, Appendices 1 and 2), Basseches aimed to determine the degree of fluidity of dialectical thinking of adolescents and adults, which he scored by way of the Dialectical Schema Framework (DSF). Luckily for those interested in dialectical thinking, Basseches’ student M. Bopp undertook the task of writing a Manual for the Dialectical Schema System (1981) that complements Basseches’ own book on Dialectical Thinking and Adult Development (1984). My attempt here is to rescue the manual from oblivion due to its enshrinement in academia and thereby to foster the use of dialectics by reflective practitioners and to harness its resources to practical workplaces where untrammeled thinking is still valued. In my view this is of particular interest for the integral and DCR communities which so far have not made use of epistemological dialectics either in their writing or teaching.

Different Views of Dialectics (See Also Book 1) Dialectics is the collective name for discovery procedures lying dormant in every human mind. It is practiced not only in the Western tradition but wherever humans think. It is alive in an elementary form in Asia (Nisbett 2005). However, it looks and feels different for people depending on the era of cognitive development they find themselves in and, consequently, the inquiring system they are presently using: • From the point of view of common sense (first order of mental complexity), where contradictions are never noticed or, if so, tolerated with largesse, dialectic appears as a way of thinking by which notions such as “whole,” “balance,” and “context” can be given more precise meaning and hidden meanings can be unearthed. • From the point of view of understanding (second order of mental complexity), where contradictions are falsehoods that cannot be tolerated, dialectic appears as the violation of eternal “laws of logic” and, positively, as a means for resolving

4

1  The Concept of Dialectics: A Framework for Its Practical Use

certain inevitable paradoxes and contradictions of minds by people duly serving as administrators of closed systems (e.g., Kant). • From the point of view of reason (third order of mental complexity), where contradictions are food for thought held within a large memory store and time horizon, dialectic is a necessary extension of formal logic that uses preservative negation to relieve thinkers of the limitations they have created for themselves through adherence to formal logical thought. (Preservative negation considers contradictions not as fatal or “false” but as leading the way to thinking “outside the box.”) • From the point of practical wisdom (fourth order of mental complexity), where the three strands of cognitive development have merged and dialectical thinking has become second nature, dialectic is an indispensable tool for grasping what is real as a symbol of a much larger reality created by the mind, where the pains of understanding have ceased together with the triumphs of dialectic. Here, the human mind in its maturity returns to its ancestral home, earlier heaven, in the form of a new kind of common sense that includes dialectic as a matter of course. As is apparent, these different views of dialectics are worlds apart, as would be expected based on differences in cognitive development over the lifespan. As little as people at social-emotional stage 2 can fathom those at stage 5 of meaning making (Kegan 1982), common sense and practical wisdom are not on speaking terms, except that the latter “understands” and feels deep compassion for the former. Regrettably, most adult developmental research today is still conducted in the second order of mental complexity (understanding), even where it promotes holism, and is thus not on a par with its complex subject matter. For purposes of the discussion below, it is helpful to keep in mind the equivalence we have declared exists between Jaques’ notions of order of complexity and Bhaskarian notions of eras of cognitive development (Table 1.1). In practical terms, what is needed initially is an introduction to dialectics itself. Such an introduction entails viewing critically the assumptions of both common sense and understanding and laying the conceptual groundwork for transcending them in a consistent and organic manner. This chapter is thus a first step toward learning to work with the dialectical thought form manual and understanding its adult developmental underpinnings.

Table 1.1  Equivalence of nomenclatures used in this book R. Bhaskar Common sense Understanding Emergence of dialectics (in late adolescence) Reason Practical wisdom

E. Jaques [as interpreted in DTF] First order of mental complexity Second order of mental complexity Third order of mental complexity Fourth order of mental complexity

Three Models of Dialectic

5

Three Models of Dialectic We can conceive of dialectics in different ways. Each model of dialectics bestows selective emphasis on one or more of the elements being modeled. In the case of dialectic, which has a complex historical tradition, three recent models stand out: 1. Adorno’s model (1966, 1999) 2. Basseches’ model (1984) 3. Bhaskar’s model (1993) Of these, only the second model is developmental, while the first and third models are not. They represent, however, dialectical thinking at its best. Adorno’s negative dialectics is foremost a critique of ontological as well as positivistic scientific thinking and is based on a close early twentieth-century reading of G.W.  Hegel (1770–1831). Basseches’ model is based on Piaget’s notions of the development of formal logical thinking and his central notion of equilibrium. It carries Piaget’s inquiry into the genesis of human knowledge beyond early adulthood in the sense of genetic epistemology. The third model is grounded in an in-depth study of the dialectical tradition since Plato with a focus on G.W. Hegel, who brought it to a peak. Importantly, in all models, “thinking” is viewed as preceding, as well as determining, doing, but in a sophisticated way that equally focuses on action in the form of mental action. For readers of this book, Adorno’s work is most likely “over their head” but also not “practical enough” to matter since it does not answer the North American question: what can you do with it? The most salient focus of Adorno’s work is culture critique and a critique of “identity thinking” in the sciences as well as in society at large, as well as his exemplary teaching of dialectical thinking together with M. Horkheimer. In Bhaskar’s model, emphasis falls on dialectic as a means of bringing to light what is hidden, fragmented, ideologically distorted, and absent in the sense of “incomplete” and “unfulfilled.” Dialectic is seen as an orienting axiological framework of philosophical thought delivering a set of tools for discovering new freedoms for society, as well as deeper insights in natural and social sciences. In its reality-focused emphasis, this model is indebted to Marx’s dialectic more than the Frankfurt School. In Basseches’ model, emphasis falls on the dialectic nature of development, both of thought and the social construction of reality. Here, the awareness of process (unceasing change) and of the transformational nature of thought and reality leads to an emphasis on reaching an equilibrium either in thought or through action in the social world. This equilibrium is “realistic” in that it comprises awareness of many different facets of what is experienced as real. Bhaskar’s and Basseches’ models are fully complementary. They are bound together by the high value they place on human freedom, both freedom from shackles and freedom to venture out into a more transparent world. Both models see the world of organizations as constructed by thought and therefore open to change. As

6

1  The Concept of Dialectics: A Framework for Its Practical Use

a result, both models are also models of practical reason. This entails that they refuse to separate “fact” and “value” and are critical of positivistic science. In practical terms this means that they consider human agency as a primary constituent of reality and hold human reason responsible for the shape the world is in. In terms of methodology and procedures available for refining adults’ thinking, both models are based on a common understanding of what I will henceforth call, following Bhaskar, the four moments of dialectic.

The Four Moments of Dialectic Thinking in the third order of mental complexity approaches knowledge and truth, thus “reality,” from four interrelated perspectives called process (P), context (C), relationship (R), and transformational system (T). These four perspectives can be rendered by four associated maxims: 1. 2. 3. 4.

P: Everything is in unceasing motion (process). C: Everything comprises layers and is part of a bigger picture (context). R: Everything hangs together, sharing a common ground (relationship). T: Everything (closely considered) is a transformational system, combining aspects of process, context, and relationship (transformational system).

These maxims point out that there are no “things,” only FORMS in the world. The fourth maxim presupposes the previous three. As Bhaskar states (1993, 9): Each level in this dialectic is preservative [of the others]. 4D (=Transformational System) presupposes 3L (=Relationship) presupposes 2E (Process) presupposes 1M (Context) [in this order, that is: C > P > R > T].

As a result, to think of reality exclusively in terms of process, or context, or relationship, is a simplification that distorts the very essence of things as forms. The four perspectives – P, C, R, and T – can be separated conceptually and given separate names, but in truth they form a system that exists only, and only remains identical with itself, by way of constant transformation. Therefore, all thinking that does not take the relatedness of the four moments and their merger in real forms into account is one-sided, incomplete, deceptive, ideological, and a distortion of reality. The figure’s internal and external arrows link the moments and hold them together. This is simply an artifice of a two-dimensional depiction of the MELD moments, for the sake of spelling out their internal dynamics. Viewed externally, the transformational moment (T) presupposes the “illuminative” moments in the order of C > P > R > T. What does not exist (C) cannot be thought of in terms of either process (P) or relationship (R). Viewed internally, the dimensions of P, C, and R originate in T and are thus moments of the transformational system the moments form. Secondarily, the internal moments indicate that T is situated at a meta-level in the sense that it both precedes and is the point of coordination for the P, C, and R.

The Critical and Constructive Moments of Dialectic

7

Reason strives to grasp things real as being alive and must therefore account for what exists in terms of all four moments of dialectic simultaneously. In pragmatic terms, therefore, the internal arrows point out that to think dialectically, C, P, and R need to be coordinated with each other. Coordination of moments is the hallmark of dialectic, which is itself a transformational system (organized whole). This entails that, taken separately, the moments fail to render the life of whatever it is that is said by a thinker. This is not as far removed from experience as it sounds. If you want to understand a beehive or any other living body, you can’t stop short at describing only its structure or its environment (C). You also need to pay attention to the processes that bring the hive into being and make it vanish (P). Finally, without describing the relationship between the hive’s main components – the queen, the drones, and the worker bees – you have not fully described the hive (R), not to mention the low degree to which you have described what makes it a living system (T). The requirement of “requisite organization” (coordination) of the MELD moments applies to all of reality, including social reality. How one views, and acts in, organizations and institutions is not understood before all four dimensions represented and named by the moments of dialectic have been explored (Bolman and Deal 1991). References to the four moments in the social world abound, e.g., in attempts to understand organizations in the second order of mental complexity (Book 2; Jaques 1998): 1. Process: “We are focused on change management.” 2. Context: “We are focused on the global economy.” 3. Relationship: “We cannot separate what happens in Tokyo from what happens in New York since they are part of the global financial network.” 4. Transformation: “We need to keep abreast of changes all over the world, whether demographic, political, financial, or other, see them in context, and understand their relationship.” These buzzwords take on transformational meaning only in the third order of mental complexity, the domain of reason. The main difference between understanding and reason is that in the latter, a concerted effort is made to pull different perspectives together, rather than letting them stand by themselves, in isolation.

The Critical and Constructive Moments of Dialectic The way the MELD components are arranged in Fig.  1.1 suggests speaking of “upper” and “lower” moments of dialectic. The upper ones (upper left and right) provide tools for “critical thinking,” while the lower ones (lower left and right) provide tools by which to “construct” reality. These ways of thinking are complementary: one cannot be critical of something that has not been constructed, thus does not exist.

8

1  The Concept of Dialectics: A Framework for Its Practical Use

Process [P]

Relationship [R]

Context [C]

Transformational System [T]

Fig. 1.1  The four moments of dialectic

To be thinking critically entails understanding that something exists either as the result of an ongoing process or of being in relationship with something other, outwardly different. In both cases, the fixity of what is thought about dissolves, either because one can derive it from the form it took in the past or because it is seen as inseparable from its other or opposite. For instance, to “criticize” a national government, we point to how that government has behaved in the past and say that it has changed in a direction for the worse. We are thinking in terms of dialectical process thought forms. Or else, we can compare one government to another national government, thereby thinking of it in terms of thought forms of relationship. Either we are approaching that government in terms of external relationships it maintains with other comparable governments, or we see it in a relationship (say, to the people) that makes a government what it is, as in a democracy. In both cases, we behave critically toward the government, thinking in terms of the upper moments. We cannot criticize what does not exist. There needs to be some context we can address, some “intransitive” reality independent of the knower (Bhaskar 1993) that includes the aspect we are talking about. This something is “simply there” only if we hold a spectator view of knowledge, but not when we undertake thinking actions. For instance, we can think of the government as the context in which our political life takes place. The government consists of different “branches” or institutions or “parties,” and these entities stand in a certain relationship to each other. The different government institutions also form hierarchies, for instance, the courts. There is a supreme court, and there are federal courts, state courts, etc. As we describe the government and its branches, we are making use of the lower moments of MELD. As long as we see what we describe largely as a static system, we remain restricted to context thought forms. Only when we coordinate thinking in terms of the upper moments as well as context can we fathom the nature of government as a system. A few formal characteristics of dialectical thinking will have become evident by now: 1. Dialectics is a discovery procedure used by reason by which it transcends understanding.

Applying MELD to the Development of Human Cognition

9

2. Dialectical thinking uses what is absent, missing, and hidden but can be named as a guide to finding out what something is, why it has been hidden, how to reveal it, where it comes from, what its environment is, what it is related to, and how it maintains its identity. 3. Dialectical thinking is generative in the sense that it constructs what is presently absent or lies in the dark but within one’s time horizon. 4. Dialectical thinking is a kind of modeling, not so much causal modeling which remains restricted to a single dialectical moment, but transformational modeling in which several moments of dialectic are coordinated for the purpose of grasping the “transformational” complexity of the real world as well as of thought itself. 5. Dialectical thinking transcends actuality (what factually “is”) in search of what is real in the sense of transformational systems. (Factuality is not reality.)

Applying MELD to the Development of Human Cognition From what the author understands of Bhaskar’s moments of dialectic, it is a natural step to view them epistemologically as classes of thought forms and thereby differentiate them further, simultaneously enriching epistemic dialectics ontologically. Each of the moments can be thought of as giving rise, in human consciousness, to a variety of thought forms that differentiate and articulate a particular moment’s main focus. A thought form, called “schema” by Basseches (1984), is a high-level concept that captures the essence of an idea expressed through speech. The thought form names the movement in thought that can be thought to have generated the speech fragment that articulates it. It captures the sense generator rather than the meaning generator (Kegan) of human speech. Thought forms are epistemic structures that undergo real-time transformations, namely, in human movements in thought connected to the real, social and physical, worlds. They capture oscillations of consciousness that can be “summarized” or “commented upon” by higher-level concepts without loss of complexity since they are abstractions. Thinking based on thought forms can be viewed as establishing a network of concepts that forms an organized whole (Gestalt) in which thought content and structure remain intimately connected. A thought form can be seen as a high-level concept that can be expressed by many different lower-level concepts that it is intrinsically related to. This is diagrammed in Fig. 1.2. What a two-dimensional diagram such as the figure above cannot render is the fact that the concrete individual instance referred to by a dialectical concept is not being “subsumed” under more abstract concepts in the sense of formal logic. Rather, the concept “lives on” as an element of an ongoing dialectic of which it is a part, thereby doing justice to the fact that no single concept ever completely exhausts the richness of the content it refers to. This is spelled out by Adorno’s notion of dialectics, namely, “negative dialectics” (1999), which is imbued with systemic thinking safeguarding the richness of what concretely exists and what no concept can exhaustively render (even in dialectical form).

10

1  The Concept of Dialectics: A Framework for Its Practical Use

CONSCIOUSNESS Class of Thought Form (Dialectical Moment) Individual Thought Form

Base concept [1] Concept 1

Concept 2

Base concept [2]

Base concept [n]

Concept [n]

(Speech) Content Fig. 1.2  Structure vs. content in dialectical thinking

An example, taken from a cognitive interview, should be helpful here: For a long time, I operated from the position that the real truth could be found, and people would embrace it, once it was pointed out to them. I proceeded on the basis of “me versus them.” But increasingly, I realized that I cannot save other people’s truth, and that they have to save their own. And this took me to a different take on things where I proceed more from a “me and them” point of view. I now take where people are in their own development more fully into account and honor the multiplicity of perspectives people develop. This has considerably lightened my burden. Because I no longer have to prove the truth to them, I conceive of my efforts as including them from the outset, weighing the evidence they bring to their views, and making allowances for whatever they might see that I for some reason cannot.

If one were to summarize this passage in terms of a thought form, rather than mere content, one could say “the speaker sees multiple perspectives as the best way to understand what is ‘true’ about something, including evidence from many different sources.” Emphasized is the need to assume an intellectual context that functions as a “bigger picture” in which single individuals’ ways of seeing the truth is embedded. We are dealing with a thought form of class context. Individuals holding multiple perspectives are part of that context. Another example is this: I tend to have very quick, visceral reactions to things, and coaching has helped me to step back and have a look at what’s before me, and not necessarily act so quickly. Because what happens when you react is that you lose track of connections, links, and relationships. Acting emotionally is like cutting the Gordian knot. So, I have become much more circumspect with things, more aware of what I am leaving out of consideration when just forging ahead. Rather than saying: “What you propose does not work for me,” I now ask: “Why does somebody think this way?” What is this opinion or decision linked to, and what may be the politics behind it? In short, I am making an effort of bringing what has been said or seen into relationship with my own goals and values, and so I end up with a much richer

Applying MELD to the Development of Human Cognition

11

picture of what is going on. I now understand that my own opinions can’t really be separated from those of others because we are living in the same universe of discourse.

The second speaker’s statements clearly have a different emphasis. He is pointing to the relationships that exist between opinions, specifically to the limits of separation between them as belonging to the same universe of discourse. One could say the speaker sees that there are limits of separation between different opinions, thereby pointing to a common ground they all share. There is an inkling of that in the first quote, but too weak to see it as expressing a relationship thought form. In the example of two thought forms, above, the first is a “constructive” and the second a “critical” thought form. The examples demonstrate that one can go through a transcribed interview and “find” (infer, construct) thought forms that fall into one of the moments of dialectic, respectively, or else two coordinated thought forms. To do so requires two things: • To listen to people’s speech in terms of MELD and its associated thought forms. • To think of each moment of dialectic as comprising different articulations of the same overarching “idea” or “base concept,” namely, of process, content, relationship, or system. In terms of the second requirement, we can refer to a particular moment as a class of thought forms, meaning that there is a countable (and, for research purposes, finite) number of ways in which each moment can be expressed in speech. Clearly, one can speak of process in different ways, all of which might adhere to the same thought form. This is what is meant by saying that the thought form is a structure (or, dynamically, a form) and that the individual occurrence, event, or situation pointed to is “just content.” The main expertise to acquire for the sake of cognitive interviewing and scoring is thus, as in the social-emotional domain, one of separating out what is mere content and what is structure, where the latter is represented by thought forms belonging to one of the four moments of dialectic or a grouping of such moments. In analyzing real-time or transcribed speech (text) in terms of dialectical thought forms, we are moving on a meta-level to what is said, modeling speech content – and thus worldly content – by the thought form (or thought form configuration) that pervades what a thinker has been thinking about – his/her content – viewing it as a definable pattern of thought. Since, according to Fig.  1.1, the classes of thought forms refer to each other and presuppose the transformational moment (Bhaskar’s 4D), it clearly makes no sense to think of the different classes of thought forms (TFs) as separate “buckets” containing a specific number of thought forms. That is also the reason why a simple identification of MELD components (1 M, 2E, 3L, 4D) with logical classes of thought forms is not cogent. The ontological moments of dialectic identify a higher level of thinking than the logical thought form classes representing them for practical use. Moments define the dialectics of human consciousness in its wholeness. By contrast, thought forms belong to a finite selection from a much broader set of conceivable thought forms that are with certainty only incompletely represented by the Dialectical Thought Form Framework. The selection that occurs in DTF is a pragmatic one, whether for research or

12 Fig. 1.3  Hierarchy of the elements of DTF dialectic

1  The Concept of Dialectics: A Framework for Its Practical Use

Moments of Dialectic Classes of Thought Forms Individual Thought Forms Concepts Representing Individual Thought Forms [Speech Content; Text]

practice. Its purpose is to facilitate and systematize “analyzing” [interpreting] and “scoring” cognitive interviews (texts) and, more generally, intervening critically, as a mentor, in real-time situations for the sake of boosting partners’ or interlocutors’ sense making. Thought forms find their most potent use in dialectical systems analysis where they potentially give rise to “epiphanies” (see L. Wollersheim’s Foreword to the monograph in Book 1). The identification of MELD components with classes of thought forms is thus no more than a practical expedient. In truth we are looking at the much broader configuration of elements shown in Fig. 1.3. Here again, the depicted hierarchy is a logical one. As a closed system, it does not satisfactorily convey the dynamics of the dialectic we are talking about which is found in the human mind itself. The unceasing oscillations between the four moments of dialectic cannot be conveyed in a two-dimensional graphic representation. Equating the moments of dialectic with classes of thought forms is misleading for another reason. In addition to the “epistemological” reason, above, the “ontological” reason is that the moments structure the reality of which we are a part, not just the reality we happen to “think about.” In short, we are daily experiencing the moments of dialectic as something that makes our experience of the world what it is. And although in logical thinking we do our utmost to separate and isolate the moments, we are ultimately totally unsuccessful in doing so. As social agents, we are simply overtaken by the dynamics of the real world. And the more “dialectically” we think, the closer we are to those dynamics, and the more “realistic” we are as thinkers. As a result, when we say of an individual thought form – such as multiple perspectives or limits of separation – that it is part of a particular class of thought forms and thus expresses a particular moment of dialectic, we need to keep in mind that: 1. All moments of dialectic are related to each other and form an organized whole. 2. The P, C, and R classes of thought forms taken by themselves represent lopsided views (reductions) of the T moment (i.e., the transformational dimension of dialectics). 3. A speech utterance or text fragment may reference two or more moments of dialectic simultaneously, even to different degrees (scored with different weights, such as TF #7 [0.5] & TF #21 [1.0], a scoring that would convey the embedding

Dialectical vs. Kantian Inquiring Systems

13

of a set of (e.g., social) relationships in a dynamic process one of which is “constitutive” of the relationships it is associated with, with the process being described at a lower level of specificity [0.5] than the relationships themselves [1.0]). 4. Scoring interviews in terms of moments of dialectic represented by classes of thought forms is a way of approximating as best one can the dialectical gist of a segment of discourse, using logical distinction as a tool for revealing what transcends logical reasoning, a paradoxical undertaking.

Dialectical vs. Kantian Inquiring Systems In real life, our notions of possibility and potential are severely restricted. This is so because it is assumed (and taught) that thinking is “declarative,” i.e., descriptive, rather than generative and dynamic. Whether inductive or deductive, declarative thinking is a very narrow mode of thinking in which “complication” and “complexity” are typically identified. By contrast, we can view dialectical thinking as a tool that helps us with understanding the dramatic changes that are our daily bread in the real world, giving us tools for anticipating and capturing change in the world and our lives. Importantly, it is an error to mistake dialectical thinking for being “abductive,” or identifiable with abduction. Although learning to use abductive thinking is an important step (C.S. Peirce et al. 1998), such thinking typically does not rise to the level of preservative negation of dialectic (although it potentially could). In its use of linear causal modeling, it does not essentially deviate from declarative thinking. It is thus purely hypothetical, rather than partaking of the dialectics of reality itself. As R. Martin explains, stressing the provenance of this thinking from the Kantian inquiring system (2007b, 146): In essence, abductive logic seeks the best explanation – that is, it attempts to create the best model – in response to novel or interesting data that doesn’t fit an extant model. Deductive and inductive logic might prove such a model true or untrue over time, but in the interim, abductive logic generates the best explanation of the data. That’s why I call the process of using abductive logic “generative reasoning.” This process inquires after what might be, and thus is modal in intent. It employs abductive logic to leap beyond the available data to generate a new model.

Dialectical thinking is quite different from this kind of generative reasoning. It does not concern thinking about what might be, but what IS in a more comprehensive sense than is typically implied by the term. As shown in Fig. 1.4, “what is” is the result of processes, past and ongoing, in which what exists is embedded. It is part of a larger context that frames it. Its elements are intrinsically and extrinsically related to each other since they share a common ground. For this reason, dialectical thinking does not speculate about what “might be,” nor does it give causal explanations (but rather criticizes them), but rather pays attention to what IS.  From a perspective including not only

1  The Concept of Dialectics: A Framework for Its Practical Use

14

REASONING

Declarative [Logical]

Deductive

Conjunctive (‘or’)

Dialectical [Inquisitive]

Inductive

Serial (‘if’)

Parallel (‘iff’)

Abductive (‘what if?’)

Closed Systems

Process

Context

Relationship

Transformation

Open, Transformational Systems

Fig. 1.4  Two basic kinds of reasoning

epistemological but ontological elements, therefore, I would distinguish two basic kinds of reasoning. As shown, two different kinds of thinking, “declarative” and “dialectical,” interact with each other to capture open transformational systems. While, in one sense, dialectical thinking is a world apart from both deductive and inductive thinking, it is nevertheless in communication with both since they can become moments of the dialectical inquiry process. In this way, the Kantian inquiring system can become an ingredient of the dialectical one, serving as a tool for making “dialectical comments” (Bhaskar 1993) and integrating epistemic structures of analytical reasoning. The creative role of abductive thinking in the dialectical process lies in gathering strands of deductive and inductive thinking into the realm of hypothesis formation, thereby opening the flood gates to dialectical inquiry. All modes of declarative thinking ultimately lend themselves to inclusion in a dialectical inquiring system. The decisive difference between the two modes is that between a focus on closed and open systems. Just as the four moments of dialectic are all separate but inseparable elements of the overriding dynamic of reality and thought (Bhaskar 1993, 392–393), the various types of inductive thinking, when adopting illuminating thought forms of class process, context, and relationship, ultimately feed thinking in terms of open, transformational, rather than closed, systems. The decisive turn occurs when it is understood that the neat distinctions between process, context, and relationship made in declarative thinking ultimately drive thinking toward the dialectical dynamic they are meant to keep out. This is because consciousness is an organized whole. The

Dialectical vs. Kantian Inquiring Systems

15

distinctions made by logical thought are only possible because what they distinguish is intrinsically linked as different within a common ground synthesizing unity and diversity, the one and the many. All concepts in use are elements of the overriding dynamic of consciousness, and this dynamic is a dialectical one. The reader may ask himself on what grounds dialectics can be so powerful. The answer is that dialectic is what makes the world “go round” ontologically and that human thinking is an attempt to catch up with the world as it unceasingly changes, something that is better understood in Asian than Western cultures (Nisbett 2005). Since the moments of dialectic are the overriding reality, dialectical thinking can equally use deductive, inductive, and abductive procedures to form a picture of the world. Dialectical epistemology is constellated with dialectical ontology. Accordingly, thinking is realistic to the extent that it is dialectical. Overall, then, we can speak of dialectical thinking as the mainstay of thinking in the third order of complexity. Such thinking: • Transcends epistemic fallacies and category errors that abound in the world of analytical reasoning, scientific or not • Is most effectively taught when acknowledged as an adult developmental achievement and thus linked to developmental thinking • Can use deductive, abductive, and other formal logical tools in the service of discovering hidden dimensions of social and physical reality • Is highly sensitive to the unceasing change occurring in the real world, both in nature and society • Aims to view what is experienced as “real” in as broad as possible a context comprising multiple perspectives • Is keenly aware of relationships between what formal logical thought rigidly separates as isolated entities • Tracks changes that occur in the process of transforming existing systems in the direction of higher equilibria of the elements that compose the system. What developmentally gets sorted out over the adult lifespan is the initially “bewildering” simultaneity of perspectives one can hold on things. These perspectives are shown to be separate but inseparable and become increasingly coordinated. Usually referred to as imagination, dialectical thinking is a trans-modal awareness of complexity in the world, held in check by constraints of formal logic. When these constraints have been recognized and mastered, adults develop the ability to escape them without strictly violating them, but rather canceling, including, and transcending them. This ability increases over the lifespan, as does the awareness that the many constructs of human thinking can never exhaust the richness of concrete instances of reality (say, of a dahlia) that we try to subsume under our concepts (Adorno 1999). Mature human thought typically focuses attention on more than one moment of dialectic at the same time. How exactly attention is focused is not only an educational but also a cultural issue. For instance, it has been shown again and again, most recently through studies of blood flow through the thinking brain, that East Asian

16

1  The Concept of Dialectics: A Framework for Its Practical Use

cultures emphasize interdependence and promote a holistic rather than analytical view of things (Nisbett 2005, 176): There is a dialectical tradition of a kind that has held a place in Western thought since the time of Kant, Fichte, and Hegel. … But Westerners tend not to be aware of the strength of their commitment to some logical principles that conflict directly with Asian dialecticism. These include the law of identity, which holds that a thing is itself and not some other thing, and the law of non-contradiction, which holds that a proposition can’t be both true and false. The Western insistence on this pair of logical principles and the Eastern spirit of dialecticism are, on the surface at least, in direct opposition to each other.

“On the surface of it” is an important subclause since any opposition, as the one between Western and Asian thinking, is only a moment within a developed dialectical inquiring system. While this “moment” can of course be hypostatized as an unyielding opposition by ideologists, the limits of separation between the two modes of thinking will ultimately become apparent to dialectical thinkers whether Asian or Western. However, at this moment in history, dialecticism remains, for Westerners, a countercultural expertise, not only in business schools but beyond. It violates interpretative conventions absorbed through Aristotelian schooling, which focuses on declarative thinking and isolation, not integration, of thought-things: “objects with attributes.”

Digression I: Work as a Dialectical Process (See Also Book 2) The interplay of the four moments of dialectic forming a dynamic whole (Basseches 1984; Bhaskar 1993) throws an interesting light on the notion of work. While, as we have seen, it makes good sense to conceptualize work, following E. Jaques (1998), as the exercise of reflective judgment and discretion, when focusing on the intrinsic structure of work, we find it shares a link with dialectics in the sense that it is an absenting of (doing away with) absences in the sense of the Bhaskar model of dialectic. Through work, all that which is presently missing, unfulfilled, incomplete, in need of repair, or desired in the world can be put in place and its absence thus erased. This points to a dialectical core of work through which what is absent from life is recognized and then put in place, or remediated, by work. This certainly was Marx’s philosophical credo. In this respect, “work” equates with human agency focused on the emancipation from specific constraints that hinder human flourishing. This emancipation takes place in the shape of transformation “from unwanted, unneeded and oppressive to wanted, needed, and liberating states of affairs, especially structures,” whether individually or collectively (Bhaskar 1993, 282). In this sense, dialectic is an orienting axiological framework that declarative thinking, established as it is, does its best to keep away from or is at least noncommittal about. The relationship of dialectical thinking to work is threefold: 1. Dialectical thinking is based on conceptual work (Hegel’s “conceptual effort”). 2. Work itself is an “absenting of absences”; its dialectical core aims at transformation, not at mere performance (as which it is “managed” in capitalistic societies).

Digression II: Actuality, Empirical Existence, and Reality (See Book 1)

17

3. Since social reality is based on thought forms, it is open to change by human agents to the extent that they can think dialectically and act upon dialectics they can grasp.

 igression II: Actuality, Empirical Existence, and Reality D (See Book 1) From an ontological point of view defined by the four moments of dialectic, with Bhaskar we can distinguish three different aspects of what we typically refer to as “real”: • Actuality • Empirical existence • Reality I call actual all that is in people’s minds as being “real” without further dialectical inquiry, a surface structure predominantly rooted in contextual thought forms. Paradoxically, in this contextual mode of thinking, factual being determines knowing, although it is itself the product of a formal logical thinking process. Disavowal of this process is upheld by a spectator view of knowledge whose pieces are moved around one’s mental space like pieces of furniture. Actuality is an outcome of the human mind’s self-imprisonment; in the administered world of our lives, it is for most the only existing reality, supported by the virtual world of the Internet which does nothing but duplicate, if not exacerbate, it. Put differently, actual is anything from which dialectics has been omitted by identifying “reality” with certain individual sense-experiences and snippets of formalistic thinking following the law of identity and noncontradiction. These knowledge ingredients appear in the guise of reified “facts” or frozen (hypostatized) ideas that champion the isolated individual (or collection of individuals) as the root of truth (Bhaskar 1993, 4). The dynamic of the moments of dialectic has been lost, submerged into a logically categorized surface structure that poses as “what is the case” suggesting that it is identical with “what is.” With Bhaskar, I call empirical that which is actual and is, in addition, considered as being grounded in unalterable (scientific) “laws” that are independent of the content they are thought to determine. Here the sense maker is a collective subject, namely, a “scientific community” that has a defined methodology for finding “truth.” Since the methodology is grounded in formal logical thought, as in actualism, all dialectic is being studiously avoided so it cannot intrude on the picture of reality that is created. In medicine, this shows in the so-called side effects that testify to the terrible simplification that has occurred in implementing research findings. In adult developmental research, it appears in the form of formalistic theories such as stage theories that look for neurophysiological mappings rather than to explore the history of human language and society.

18

1  The Concept of Dialectics: A Framework for Its Practical Use

Real is the outcome in transformation of all four moments of dialectic, held by thought in a mental space large enough to encompass absences and contradictions, procedurally the four classes of thought forms representing reality in human thinking. Reality is the flow within the space in which the moments of dialectic intrinsically interact as moments of the thinking process. In this sense we can say with Bhaskar that reality is punctuated by absences (1993, 392) or, as Basseches might say, in search of equilibrium through further development. From Bhaskar’s point of view, reality is something that falls short of its full potential, while in Basseches’ perspective, it is seen as being in motion toward higher levels of integration of diversity and complexity. In both cases, reality is something that falls short and is momentary, held in a presence that has already changed when we get to it and whose identity lies in the aspect of change on account of which we experience “what is” as fleeting and evanescent the more the older we become (Cook-Greuter’s construct awareness).

 quivalence of Moments of Dialectic in Bhaskar E and Basseches It is relevant from a historical point of view to note that Bhaskar (1993) as well as Basseches (1984), without knowing of each other’s work, arrive at the same four moments of dialectic. The difference between these two writers lies in their naming of these moments, but also in their purpose, which is ontological and empirical research, respectively. The equivalence between their different classifications is seen below (Bhaskar 1993, 392–93; Basseches 1984, 74): • • • •

C: Bhaskar’s first moment (1 M) is Basseches’ form (DTF “context,” C). P: Bhaskar’s second edge (2E) is Basseches’ motion (DTF “process,” P). R: Bhaskar’s third level (3L) is Basseches’ relationship (DTF R). T: Bhaskar’s fourth dimension (4D) is Basseches’ metaform (in this book, “transformational system,” T).

The sequence of moments, above, is deliberate. Without the existence of context (“things real”), that is, the physical and social world, there would be no dialectic, no change, and no relationships. There would also be no change if reality as context was without absences that cause gaps to be filled in. Therefore, the moments of dialectic structurally follow each other in the sequence in which they are presupposed by transformational systems, namely:

C>P>R>T

(“T presupposes R presupposes P presupposes C”), starting with context (C) and proceeding to process (P), relationship (R), and transformation (T) There is another reason for putting the context moment first. It is, in a way, the easiest moment to grasp since everyone understands the necessity of existence.

Transforms and the Moments of Dialectic

19

Except for attempts to prove the existence of God in the Middle Ages, the question whether something exists or not is not considered an issue in formal logic; it has become a nonissue. Most people naturally describe the world in terms of things rather than forms, and for that reason, they naturally lapse into context thinking, assuming that all that is needed is a neat description of things (Descartes’ error). In praxis, it therefore requires extra care in evaluating interviews through DTF, to separate a merely logical description of context from a dialectical one.

Transforms and the Moments of Dialectic Before delving into the dynamics peculiar to each of the four moments of dialectic, I need to clarify the relationship of the four moments as part of dialectical transforms. By “transforms,” I mean sets of tools whose use takes the developing mind from one era of cognitive development (or phase of dialectical thinking) to another, thus transforming individuals’ worldview and moving it closer ontological reality: • • • •

Common sense to understanding: logic or L-transform Understanding to reason [1]: illumination or I-transform Understanding to reason [2]: remediation or R-transform Reason to practical wisdom: P-transform (Fig. 1.5)

As indicated, the L-transform, comprising formal logic (including abductive logic), paves the way for a transition from common sense to understanding, thus from the first to the second order of mental complexity. This “transform” is inherently instable just because of its intrinsic rigidity originating in the identity principle that it follows. Both the I- and the R-transform characterize the third order of mental complexity (reason). In this manual, the fourth transform, that of practical wisdom, is a boundary notion that I would equate with Bhaskar’s earlier post-philosophical wisdom (1993,

Common Sense L-Transform

I-Transform Dialectical Comment R-Transform

Understanding

Dialectical Reason P-Transform Practical Wisdom Fig. 1.5  The four eras of cognitive development and their transforms

20

1  The Concept of Dialectics: A Framework for Its Practical Use

22) and his later MELDA (2002). For me it describes the peak of dialectical thinking experience in the sense of adult cognitive development. In this sense, I would put it above Cook-Greuter’s construct awareness that only negatively describes the lacking capacity of language to grasp thought objects beyond formal logic but no more. In this manual, the notion of practical wisdom is meant to signify the full integration of analytical reasoning into dialectic in the sense of Hegel’s return to life (post-­ philosophical wisdom), to indicate there exist elementary kinds of mature thinking that are not dialectically schooled but nevertheless highly complex based on experience of the human condition over the human lifespan. For me, the term signifies an integration of all strands of cognitive development, thus the peak of dialectical thinking, but with the further Hegelian connotation of a thinking that gains its closeness to life by throwing off the shackles of philosophical thought discipline. The four transforms together comprise the totality of human thinking. In their sequence, they point to the endpoint of adults’ cognitive development. Without such an endpoint, it is impossible to appreciate and understand the steps along the way and the riskiness of the journey thinking undertakes. One cannot understand valleys without the peaks around them. While “wisdom” is most often characterized by a mix of social-emotional and cognitive elements (with a muddled emphasis on the former), there is, I believe, good reason for conceiving of wisdom in purely cognitive terms. Wisdom comprises both stance and tools and cannot be reduced to either. From the perspective of this book, the hallmark of wisdom is the integration of logical and dialectic ways of thinking, not simply some social-emotional stance circumscribed by using cognitively undefined concepts. Because of such integration, the fetters of formal logical thought are shed without forsaking logical thinking. Although not too much is known yet about the P-transform, there is beginning empirical research that is promising despite its almost complete lack of constructivist dialectical thinking (Baltes 1987; Baltes and Staudinger 1993, 2000). This research is a needed complement to E. Erickson’s life task of “integrity in the face of death.” The reader now understands that the decisive cognitive watershed for adults – including for work in the sciences – is the transition from the second to the third order of mental complexity (Jaques) or, in Bhaskar’s terms, from understanding to reason. S(he) may wonder why this transition relies on two different transforms rather than one. This has to do with the nature of dialectic as outlined in this book. In transcending and including formal logical and abductive thinking, the first dialectical step is to question the notion of “falsehood” (thus of logical negation), ingrained in us through conventional Western schooling. In adopting a notion of negation as something that relates what is negated to that which it is negated by or in reference to, further thought discoveries can be made that would otherwise remain taboo or forbidden. Making thought discoveries becomes possible when one abandons the spectator view of knowledge which, in terms of King and Kitchener’s theory of reflective

Bibliography

21

judgment (1994), does not happen before reaching their stage 5 (of 7). When this step is taken, the first move in thought is to turn to critical thinking in the sense of inquiring into the origin of something we are told exists and/or is true, as we do in using process thought forms. Alternatively, we can inquire into what the relationship is between what exists or is thought to be true to something intrinsic to or inseparable from it, as we do in using relationship thought forms. In both moves, we illuminate what exists or is thought to be true through critical comments. A third tool for illuminating the reality we think about lies in inquiring more deeply into the nooks and crannies of what we address as the present situation or context we find ourselves in and make observations about. Using context thought forms, we can gain a clearer picture of causation, part and whole, stratification, and other aspects of what lies before us. Without illuminating context by using process and relationship thought forms, thought cannot “remediate” the gaps and fissures that are hidden in context, through which changes that fill these gaps and fissures unceasingly occur. Illumination and remediation thus constitute a dialectical pair, much like antithesis and synthesis operating on the ground of a conceptual thesis rooted in context. We are now ready to explore the dialectic of each of the four moments of dialectic.

Bibliography Adorno, Th.W., E. Frenkel-Brunswick, and D.J. Levinson. 1950. The authoritarian personality. New York: Norton. Adorno, Th.W. 1978. Minima moralia. London: Verso. ———. 1993. Hegel: Three studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ———. 1999. Negative dialectic. New  York: Continuum. [Negative Dialektik. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1966]. ———. 2008. Lectures on negative dialectic: Fragments of a lecture course 1965/66. Malden: Polity. Baltes, P.B. 1987. Theoretical propositions of lis-span developmental psychology: On the dynamics growth and decline. Developmental Psychology 23: 611–626. Baltes, P.B. and U.M. Staudinger. 1993. The search for a psyology of wisdom. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2: 75–80. ———. 2000. Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist 55: 122–136. Basseches, M.A. 1978. Beyond closed-system problem solving: A study of metasystemic aspects of mature thought. Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University. Ann Arbor: UMIO, #79/8210. ———. 1980. Dialectical schematas: A framework for the empirical study of the development of dialectical thinking. Human Development 23: 400–421. ———. 1983. Dialectical thinking as a meta-systemic form of cognitive organization. In Beyond formal operations. Late adolescent and adult cognitive development, ed. M.L.  Commons, F.A. Richards, and C. Armon, 216–238. New York: Praeger. ———. 1984. Dialectical thinking and adult development. Norwood: Ablex. ———. 1989. Intellectual development: The development of dialectical thinking. In Thinking, reasoning and writing, ed. E.P.  Maimon, B.F.  Nodine, and F.W.  O’Connor. White Plains: Longman.

22

1  The Concept of Dialectics: A Framework for Its Practical Use

———. 2005. The development of dialectical thinking as an approach to integration. Integral Leadership Review 1: 47–63. Bhaskar, R. 1979 (1989, 1998). The possibility of naturalism. Routledge. ———. 1993. Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Verso. ———. 2002. Reflections on MetaReality. London: Sage. ———. 2017. The order of naturally necessity. University College London Institute of Education. The Authors. Bolman, L.G., and T.E. Deal. 1991. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Cook-Greuter, S. 2010 (1999). Postautonomous ego development: A study of its nature and measurement. Integral Publisher. Hegel, G. W. F. 1977; 1806. Phenomenology of spirit. London: Oxford University Press. ———. 2010; 1812–1816. (Translator: G. Di Giovanni) The science of logic. London: Cambridge University Press. Horkheimer, M., and Th.W. Adorno. 1997. Dialectic of enlightenment. London: Verso. Jaques, E. 1998. Requisite Organization. Arlington: Cason Hall & Co.; (2021 edition of Requisite Organization Publishing, https://www.amazon.com/Requisite-Organization-CompleteGuide-2021/dp/1867418932?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc=1&smid= ATVPDKIKX0DER) Jaques, E., and Cathryn Cason. 1994. Human Capability. Falls Church: Cason Hall &. Jarret, L.S. 1998. Nourishing destiny: The inner tradition of Chinese medicine. Stockbridge: Spirit Path Press. Kegan, R. 1982. The evolving self. Harvard University Press. Laske, O. 1966. On the dialectics of Plato and the early Hegel. Doctoral dissertation (German), Munich, Germany. Laske, O. 1999. Transformative effects of coaching on executives’ professional agenda. PsyD dissertation (2 vols.), Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology. Ann Arbor: Bell & Howell. (Order no. 9930438). ———. 2005. Measuring hidden dimensions (vol. 1): The art and science of fully engaging adults. Medford: IDM Press. Available as a pdf in section C of https://interdevelopmentals.org/publications/; republished 2023 by Wolfgang Pabst science Publisher, Lengerich, Germany, together with its German translation, entitled Potenziale im Menschen Erkennen, Wecken, und Messen. Cited as ‘Laske 2023a’ (English) and ‘Laske 2023b’ (German). ———. 2006. Leadership as something we are rather than have. Integral Leadership Review, VI(1). ———. 2007. An integrated model of developmental coaching. In The wisdom of coaching, ed. R.R. Kilburg and R.C. Diedrich. Washington, DC: APA. ———. 2008. Measuring hidden dimensions (vol. 2): Foundations of requisite organization. Medford: IDM Press. Available at section C of https://interdevelopmentals.org/publications/ ———. 2010a. [Editor] Erwachsenenentwicklung und Arbeitsfähigkeit: Beiträge zur Messung, Unterstützung, und Management von Humanpotential. (Adult development and capability: Contributions to measuring, supporting, and managing human capital). Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspsychologie. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publisher. ———. 2010b. On the autonomy and influence of the cognitive line: Reflections on adult cognitive development peaking in dialectical thinking. In Proceedings, integral theory conference, Pleasant Hills, CA. ———. 2014a. Reconocer, Despertar, y Medir el Potencial Humano, Spanish translation of volume 1 of Measuring Hidden Dimensions. Gloucester: IDM Press & Ben Pensante, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Available as a pdf at https://interdevelopmentals.org/publications/ ———. 2014b. 心の隠された領域の測定 成人以降の心の発達理論と測定手法. Japanese translation (Yohei Kato) of volume 1 of Measuring hidden dimensions. Gloucester: IDM Press. Available as a pdf at. https://interdevelopmentals.org/publications/ ———. 2015. Dialectical thinking for integral leaders: A primer. Tucson: Integral Publishers.

Bibliography

23

———. 2021a. CDF: A social-science framework for understanding human agency. CAD Lecture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gZSrQXXZgM ———. 2021b. Dialektisch leben. Radio Evolve podcast found at https://radio-­evolve.de/podcast/ dialektisch-­leben/ Laske, O. 2022. The Osaka interviews. https://interdevelopmentals.org/the-­osaka-­interviews-­ regarding-­cdf-­the-­constructive-­developmental-­framework/ Laske, O. 2023a. Measuring hidden dimensions: The art and science of fully engaging adults. Wolfgang Pabst Science Publisher (forthcoming reprint). ———. 2023b. Potenziale im Menschen Erkennen, Wecken, und Messen (German translation of 2023a by R. v. Leoprechting & Otto Laske). Wolfgang Pabst Science Publisher (forthcoming reprint). Laske, O. 2023c. Reshaping cognitive development as dialectic social practice via Bhaskar’s four moments of dialectic and Laske’s dialectical thought-form framework (DTF). In Metatheories of the 21st century. London: Routledge. Laske, O. 2023d. (Books 1, 2, &3). Advanced systems-level problem solving. Springer. ———. 2023e. How to boost and measure thought maturity. Springer. Martin, R. 2007a. How successful leaders think. Harvard Business Review. Reprint R0706C. ———. 2007b. Opposable minds. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Nisbett, R.E. 2005. The geography of thought. London: Nicolas Brealey Publishing. Peirce, C.S., et al. 1998. The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings 1983–1913. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Schein, E. 2012. Humble inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Chapter 2

The Individual Moments of Dialectic

The Dialectic of Context The dialectic of context is that of an intransitive world existing independently of human thought. Context includes the dialectic of the intellectual traditions and ideologies (including the sciences) humans have constructed in the course of history to understand themselves and the real world. Context superficially rests upon linear causality and generative mechanisms and therefore feeds the illusion of things remaining the same over long time stretches and its “laws” being independent of their contents. This illusion is honored in context as long as process and relationship thought forms remain uncoordinated with it. Context is thus static since, taken by itself, it is cut loose from change. But being, at the same time, punctuated by absences, it always hints at shifts, reversals, and breakdown (Adorno 1999; Bhaskar 1993). In terms of context taken in isolation, a human body (or any other organic body for that matter) would seem a miracle since it withstands ceaseless and destructive change, keeping its shape and form as a functioning system over a relatively long time. The body is a form that relies on precise timing. All the clocks in the system are aligned with the body’s master clock that is triggered by light on the retina (Boston Globe, 8-20-07, Section C, page 1): The master clock in the brain is now increasingly seen not only as the body’s only clock, but as the conductor of a seemingly limitless number of peripheral clocks, including those found in the heart, liver, lung, and retina cells. … When light enters the eye, it strikes the retina and is converted into electrical signals. The supra-chiasmatic nucleus (SCN) within the brain’s hypothalamus receives some of these signals via the optic nerve. … The visual signals continuously keep the SCN informed about the darkness or lightness of the environment. This information allows the SCN to synchronize a wide range of biological rhythms throughout the body that are linked to the cycle of day and night.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 O. Laske, Advanced Systems-Level Problem Solving, Volume 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40339-2_2

25

26

2  The Individual Moments of Dialectic

This empirical statement of the understanding describes a living system as if it were dead, simultaneously celebrating its aliveness. Language based on formal logic construes a picture that makes us believe that this system is “real.” However, the verity is that process, context, and relationship are all involved in making the human body a living system, and this cannot be conveyed in terms of formal logic (or abductive logic for that matter), which by nature describe reality as a closed system. The dialectical verity by which the system lives vanishes in the linearity of language, so that what remains is a mere context, that is, an assemblage of entities that are thought together to form a functioning system. The system is closed since the negativity of the system, or the dynamics by which it maintains itself in unceasing transformation by “falsifying” previous states, cannot be described in logical terms. Using this example, let’s embark on a more detailed study of the first moment of dialectic, called form by Basseches (“form” because in dialectical thinking there are no “things,” only “forms” in constant transformation). Thought forms of class context answer questions such as: 1. Of what kind is the system, structure, set of layers that holds all of the elements of an existence together and bestows on them the unity and relative stability we seem to observe (which, from the point of view of process, is like a mirage and from the point of relationship is a set of shifting relationships)? 2. How can this system be described in terms of notions like parts and whole, integrated structure or framework, stable form, or (momentary) equilibrium? 3. How are multiple contexts embedded in the system (a question by which we step into the aspect of relationship)? Typical descriptions of living systems hide the fact that – like the human body – contexts are by nature stratified, as indicated in the quote above by terms such as “master clock” and “peripheral clocks.” In any physical, social, or cultural configuration holistically considered, one therefore finds pervasive potential nonidentity (Bhaskar 1993, 231, 392). This nonidentity is existentially intransitive, or independent of human thinking. In short, real-world contexts are highly differentiated systems whose causal powers and generative mechanisms may be deeply buried for even the most advance science. As Bhaskar says about context (1993, 392): Its dialectics are characteristically of stratification and ground, but also of inversion and virtualization. Its meta-critiques turn on the isolation of the error of de-stratification.

In other words, what is real is stratified and, through changes it undergoes, can become “inverted” and “virtualized,” taking on new forms. The principal human error in thinking context is to lose sight of its stratification and differentiations. (Theories dealing with organizations as if they were machines run by machines called “markets” are a good example.) Another aspect that falls by the wayside when focusing on context in isolation is developmental potential. In the quote above, verbs have been turned into passive

Thought Contexts

27

voice (“light is converted into electrical signals …”), and processes thereby get subdued. What is more, everything falls into an infinite presence that leaves no place for the future or the past. However, there is no way to understand context without reference to both past and future. As Bhaskar says (1993, 142): I am going to argue that … the presence of the future is a perfectly kosher locution, but that it is always mediated by the presence of the past (up to the limit of the indefinite present).

A case in point is Jaques’ notion of potential capability. It extends beyond the present into the past as origin and into the future in its virtuality. Thus, the past, being part of the present, makes possible the presence of the future in the present. For this reason, potential capability is the ground from which applied capability arises. In clinging to the dialectical moment of context as something separate from the other aspects of dialectic, emergence is kept under lock and key, and the opportunity to grasp contexts in depth is lost.

Thought Contexts When we look at context in a more epistemological way, following Basseches (1984), we can say that it is best understood as an “organized and patterned whole” (BB 1981, 62). Dialectic is then an organizing principle that describes movements in thought by which we “think” reality (not just “about” reality). One is dealing with a motion through forms that has temporarily been arrested for the purposes of inspection or repair. As Basseches formulates (1984, 75): Dialectical thinking presupposes both the orientation to motion and the orientation to form – reflected in the dialectical world outlook’s emphases on change and on wholeness, respectively. … A second group, of “form-oriented” schemata [thought forms, OL], describes moves in thought which function (a) to direct the thinker’s attention to organized and patterned wholes (forms), and (b) to enable the thinker to recognize and describe such forms.

Basseches mentions three foci of thinking in terms of context (1984, 107): 1. Location of an element or phenomenon within the whole(s) of which it is a part. 2. Description of a whole (system, form) in structural, functional terms or in terms of equilibrium. 3. Assumption of contextual relativism, in which ideas and values are understood in the context of larger frames of reference and their structural properties (Bopp and Basseches 1981, 69). In following this more highly thought-focused interpretation, we can apply the notion of context to ideas and living systems, as well as the nonorganic world at large. Ideas are always part of a larger frame of reference, whether they are part of a theoretical tradition, ideology, or mythology. These intellectual frameworks constitute the context of ideas.

28

2  The Individual Moments of Dialectic

Below, I summarize the relevant aspects of the first moment of dialectic, context. I do so in terms of categories I will use for all moments of dialectic (adapted from Bhaskar 1993, 8–9; 391–393; Basseches 1984, 74 f): 1. Dialectical image 2. Figures 3. Ground 4. Relationship to system 5. Scope 6. Theme 7. Dialectics By “dialectical image,” I mean a memorable image learners can attach to individual moments of dialectic to remind themselves of the characteristics of a specific moment and the associated class of thought forms. Context: • Dialectical image: “big picture” in the sense of a whole encompassing parts and built of layers. • Figure: what appears as stable, well-balanced form. • Ground: unified by the category of differentiation that introduces variety and depth into what is real, making it alterable. • Relationship to system: pre-figuration of a system in a static form. • Scope: equilibrium of what exists. • Theme: multiplicity of entities and thoughts partaking in a common frame of reference. • Dialectics: parts of a whole shifting their balance, stratification, and generative mechanisms. ***

The Dialectic of Process The dialectic of process is that of a world of unceasing change and the presence of the past and the future in the present. In this world, the present unremittingly slides into the past, and the past reemerges in the presence of the future. This world is one of negativity, in the sense of loss, pain, conflict, miscarriage, and absence. In terms of thought, it is the world of preservative negation where the existence and definition of something “A” is inseparable from what it is not (“non-A” or “other”). This dialectic is thus one of emergence of things and forms into reality from less developed, more restricted, forms and one of decay of fully developed forms into oblivion, or renewal in a different form, with gain and loss inextricably intertwined. Bhaskar, for whom reality is punctuated by absence, states (1993, 392): 2E [Process] is unified by the category of absence, from which the whole circuit of 1M-4D links and relations [that is, C>P>R>T] can be derived. … Its dialectics are typically of

The Dialectic of Process

29

process, transition, frontier and node, but also generally of opposition including reversal. Its metacritics pivot on the isolation of the error of positivization [that is, arresting of motion, OL] …

Without the moment of process, change could not occur. Change needs absences to “absent” them, whether they are incomplete realities, lacks, gaps, and desires. Therefore, the process moment of dialectic is in some sense the pivot around which all other moments turn. Process makes the world go “round” that would otherwise freeze into context. Process is driven by negation, both in thought and the world, but it is not logical but dialectical negation. This negation is preservative of what it negates and thus is associated with a memory store in which what has been negated is held to serve as an antithesis. In terms of the four moments of dialectic, negation is not denial or falsehood, but the movement superseding what has come to an end or needs to cease. In terms of thinking, negation constitutes all those non-A’s that are needed to understand A in depth, and without which A would not be what it is. Process thus stands for birth and death alike. In the form of change, process is the rule, not the exception. The same holds for negativity relative to positivity, which makes Bhaskar say that the real is “pervaded by absences.” In short, process illuminates the dialectical essence of the real, that is, its evanescence. In the world viewed from a process perspective, conflict takes on a new face. It is seen as the interpenetration of opposites that define what is real. In the social context, this can appear in the form of war, breakdown, reversal, and the unexpected filling of different kinds of power vacuum. Historians are particularly attuned to understanding process, whether it appears as conflict between individuals or nations. As an example, McCullough writes in his book on McCullough (1992, 789): One of Truman’s important but little noted first moves in the fateful last week of June (1950) had been to recall Averell Harriman from Europe, where he had been a kind of roving ambassador, and make him a special assistant to help with war emergency problems, and one of Harriman’s first moves in his new role was to press upon the President the need for congressional support for what he was doing in Korea. He urged Truman to call for a war resolution from Congress as soon as possible, while the country was still behind him. Dean Acheson, however, disagreed, insisting that such a resolution was unnecessary and unwise. The President, said Acheson, should rest on his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. It was true that congressional approval would do no harm, but the process of obtaining it, Acheson thought, might do great harm. In the mounting anxiety over how things were going in Korea, the timing was wrong. Truman sided with Acheson, telling Harriman further that to appeal to Congress now would make it more difficult for future presidents to deal with emergencies.

The historian’s statement above dwells primarily on process, putting the emphasis on the ongoing interaction of three politically powerful individuals who try to do “the right thing” in the midst of anxiety over great losses in human life on both sides of the political and military divide. There are several important implications that are only touched upon, not fully spelled out, by McCullough:

30

• • • • • •

2  The Individual Moments of Dialectic

“Little noted first moves” may have tremendous implications. Processes create new roles for a person. Interactions are often based on disagreements. Timing is crucial and may be “wrong.” Proposed decisions are often antithetical to each other. The future is grounded in the past of the present and is part of the present.

These elements belong to the world of process. In the present case, negativity plays out in terms of personal disagreement and military clashes. A process has been launched whose goal is to reach a solution, namely, a higher level of development of Korean statehood than it can presently claim. Clearly, the historian speaking could illuminate much further the hidden and apparent causes of the conflict, what is the essential antithetical force driving the conflict, the correlativity between actions on both sides of the conflict, and so forth. In so doing, using process thought forms, he would remediate the absences  – the unknowns, invisibles, etc.  – that remain. A historian could also enlarge his topic and move to a different dialectical moment, say relationship, and conceivably could even venture into describing a transformational system called “cease-fire” or “peace” that would be the outcome of the conflict s(he) describes. In a more thought-oriented approach to process as found in Basseches (1984), emphasis on process entails moves in thought which are either unselfconscious or reflected upon. The emphasis in this case is on the fluidity of thought, and thought forms are used to draw attention to, and describe, processes of change. In all cases of change through process, what is at work is preservative negation, described by Basseches as follows (1984, 73): (The) thesis-antithesis-synthesis movement in thought  – describes a process in which thought moves from reflection upon one idea to reflection upon something which is apart from, left out of, contrary to, or excluded from the first idea [“absent” from it, as Bhaskar would say, OL], and then on to reflection upon a more inclusive idea which relates the original idea to that which was [initially] excluded from it.

Or else, a movement in thought may occur wherein generation of an alternative to something then leads to the formation of a relationship between the thing and its alternative. The momentum described above can also manifest itself in the quest for knowledge when a particular “paradigm” clashes with an older one, or in the quest for self-knowledge, as in the following interview excerpt (Basseches 1984, 86): I structured the opinion of myself and made it fit with how the way I act is reflected off of other people. You know, essentially that is the only way you can ever find out what you are like anyway – to be with other people and to see how they take you. So, you kind of have to take those fragments and those pieces that you get bounced off other people and you add them all up and see how they jive with how you feel about yourself and reassess things and you know, change the shape here and there a little bit, …. And eventually you get everything to fit into what you believe is a sort of an objective look at yourself.

This statement of an individual at social-emotional stage S-3 uses a process thought form in a simple-minded way, namely, that of “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” (TF #2). Asserting her own identity as the thesis, the individual is driven beyond

The Dialectic of Relationship

31

herself to the antithesis of others’ view of her. These others are an integral part of her self-understanding. “Getting everything to fit” into what she herself believes is the result of her using preservative negation of her original self-assertion. This initial assertion is not “false,” merely incomplete. It needs to be linked to antithetical views to develop a higher-level self-assessment. Below, I summarize the relevant aspects of the second moment of dialectic, process: • Dialectical image: emergence (from a void). • Figure: what is “not there” but is emerging through unceasing change. • Ground: unified by the category of absence from which the whole circuit of the four moments derives. • Relationship to system: always embedded in system. • Scope: spanning negation, contradiction, and critique. • Theme: the presence of the past and future in the present, motion in thought and reality. • Dialectics: process, transition, interaction, and opposition (including reversal).

The Dialectic of Relationship The dialectic of relationship is one of figure and ground, of a totality comprising entities that mutually constitute each other, such that one makes the other what it is and could not be without the other since it intrinsically relates to it. It is a world of reciprocity and limits of separation in which what is different is only different to the extent that it shares existence in the totality that embraces all partial entities. It is also the dialectic of what is seemingly single and isolated but is unmistakably based on what it excludes and cannot be isolated from the larger context to which it belongs, being an integral part of a larger cohesive totality. Bhaskar states (1993, 392) [comments by OL]: 3L [Relationship is] unified by the category of totality; it pinpoints the error of … the hypostization of thought. It encompasses such categories and themes as reflexivity, … holistic causality, internal relationality, and intra-activity [reciprocity], but also de-totalization [neglecting totality], alienation, split and split-off, illicit fusion and fission. … Its dialectics are of center and periphery, form and content, figure and ground, … retotalization in a unity-in-diversity. Its metacritics pivot on the identification of de-totalization. There is a special affinity with 1M [Context] since totality is a structure.

Things are related, then, because they are elements forming a totality. This totality – e.g., the totality of all fruits – defines what they share and allows them to be different [within the totality] and thus “themselves.” This makes sense only since different elements share common ground in which they differ, and without which they could not “differ.” In a world defined by totality, causality is holistic (not linear), and reciprocity prevails. This also applies to thoughts that cannot be separated either from each other or from reality and isolated as “absolute” or “eternal,” or even

32

2  The Individual Moments of Dialectic

“mine.” Any such separation amounts to “de-totalization,” the neglect of paying attention to what forms share. For this reason, the dialectic of relationship links opposites such as center and periphery, form and content, figure and ground. It sees alienation and split as based on denying totality, thus interrelatedness due to sharing. The striving for unity in diversity is a central topic of this world since it “re-totalizes” what was “split off.” In thinking, this world is focused on pointing out signs of relativism, subjectivism, and pluralism, all of which forget or deny totality. The affinity of the moment of relationship with that of context entails that relationships are not just peripheral but define structures. I am related to you as a family member, and “family” is a structure that is constitutive of who I am. I can split off from family to protest it but in so doing will retain the traces of what I split off from, or the structure that binds me to what I am protesting. Truly transcending family is possible only by acknowledging it and forming a higher-level family that includes the original family religion.

The Moments of Dialectic Form a Set of Relationships The moment of relationship is of central importance not only for coordinating classes of thought forms but also individual thought forms. There is nothing dialectical about a single thought form per se. Rather, the term “dialectical” refers to an aspect of an organized whole. “Thinking dialectically” thus entails relating one thought form to another to understand transformational, living systems. In human thinking, then, it is coordination of different thought forms on which the ability to grasp living systems depends. Coordination occurs within a totality and is rooted in relationship. Figure 2.1 is an attempt to convey the interrelatedness of the four moments: In the light of what was said about relationship above, the following characterizations are pertinent:

Process [P]

Relationship [R]

Context [C]

Transformational System [T]

Fig. 2.1  The four moments of dialectic

Constitutive Relationships

33

• The moment of relationship pervades the moments since they form an organized totality. • Focusing on a single moment, or thinking in terms of a single moment dominating, amounts to de-totalization by which the richness of what exists gets lost. • They are “different” only to the extent that they share common ground or form an organized whole to which they contribute. • The inner arrows in Fig. 2.1 point to the intrinsic relationship between all moments. • The outer arrows in Fig. 2.1 point to the fact that the illuminative moments (C, P, R) presuppose the remedial, transformational moment, T, that holds them in balance. • Relationships will reach their optimal realization only in transformation where all partial relationships are remediated; the same can be said of processes and contexts. • T thus embodies the totality referenced in R, the sharing by reason of which things and forms in the world are related to each other.

Constitutive Relationships When thinking in terms of the moment “relationship,” the thinker either points to the existence of relationships, notes their importance, or describes them in detail, up to the point where they are seen as constitutive of something or each other. An example for a constitutive relationship, one that makes you what you are (as a spouse or partner), is the relationship of marriage. While to the understanding marriage is an “institution,” in terms of reason (third order of mental complexity), it is a relationship between two partners that places each in a role different from the self. At the same time, the notion of “marriage” defines the totality of the union from which the different roles emanate. Marriage is thus at bottom a transformational system. In the moment of relationship, the relationships underlying the system or marriage are described and kept in the foreground of attention. In as far as I am “married to you,” I am in a different role than just being by myself. I am a partner or spouse. Outside of this role, such as after your death, I am neither partner nor spouse. This role is not something I have created myself. I stepped into a predesigned role. The relationship that defines the role logically precedes me. It is therefore a role defined by a constitutive relationship, in the sense that it makes me what I AM in relationship to you, who are my partner or spouse. Accordingly, leave-taking, separation, divorce, and death amount to de-­ totalization and thus create pain. Some unity, some small totality breaks down. Some reciprocity ends. Alienation and split occur. This split cannot be frozen into an absolute. It occurs only because of the totality that was initially entered and that has now broken down. In short, the split is part of the definition of “marriage” seen as a constitutive relationship. It is preordained, although psychologically it may come as a surprise or shock.

34

2  The Individual Moments of Dialectic

Incomplete Descriptions One way to discern a nest of relationships intrinsically bound to form a totality is to pay attention to the completeness of information. Incomplete information is “flat,” lacking the energy of relationship; it allows for alternatives that need to be explored. For example (Lahey et al. 1988, 344–345): A second kind of counterargument, or alternative hypothesis, to our initial stage-3 one argues that our interpretation may be incomplete. The argument is that the interviewee’s statements may capture only one way that she structures the particular content because we haven’t given her a chance to show all her stuff. It’s this argument that can help us to hear the complexities of a person in transition, who by definition is using more than one structure in her meaning making. … There are two points about transition and interviewing. For one, it is possible that the use of only one structure is apparent. A transitional self may not spontaneously demonstrate that a second structure is also operating until explicitly provided the opportunity. … Secondly, while a transitional self may construct all of her experience in a consistent way, … it is also possible that she constructs some material from the predominant structure only, … and other material with her other abilities as well. For both of these reasons we need to provide the interviewee with opportunities to demonstrate all her abilities.

In focus in this excerpt from Lahey’s Subject-Object Interview Handbook (1988) is how to assess the totality of a person’s social-emotional capability at a specific point in time. Since the evolution from one full meaning system to the next full one involves four different combinations of two structures – say S-3 and S-4, as in 3(4), 3/4, 4/3, and 4(3) – it is not sufficient for assessing an individual in transition to a “higher stage,” to formulate only a single hypothesis (say S-3). Since in a social-emotional transition an individual uses more than a single structure to make meaning of the world, we need to discern what related structure(s) might be involved in what she speaks about. Since the transition from one full meaning-making system to another – e.g., S-3 to S-4 – constitutes a totality (just as the individual herself), the elements of the transition, for instance, the four intermediate steps that lead from S-3 to S-4, are related to each other in a way to be discerned. In this case, the question is how they are related, that is, what intermediate stage is the most pertinent as center of gravity. Since an individual is a totality, she may construct her meanings in different but related ways. One part of her speech material may be constructed from one stage, other parts of her material from another. In volume 1 of Measuring Hidden Dimensions (Laske 2023; 2005), I refer to the multiplicity of intermediate stages in an individual’s meaning making, once contextualized (quantified and weighted), as her RCP, or risk-clarity-potential index, a refinement of the scoring introduced by Lahey et al. (1988). To find out the entire range of related ways of meaning making, we need, as Lahey says, “to provide the interviewee with opportunities to demonstrate all – the totality of – her abilities.” In evaluating social-emotional interviews, we are dealing with a transformational totality that encompasses different but related ways of meaning making. The individual concerned functions as the totality whose different

Incomplete Descriptions

35

dimensions we are trying to discern. These dimensions are separate but inseparable. To illuminate this totality, we focus on the moment “relationship.” While the individual stages taken by themselves are abstract and “dead,” defining single contexts, their essence emerges in the multiplicity of stages spelled out in terms of relationship. What, when taking the stages as stages, appears as a formal hierarchy reveals itself in living form once we relate the stages to each other. Below is an interview example of thinking in terms of relationship: I think we need a better perspective on what is individuals’ right in a democracy. Our brand of democracy is just too individualistic to be exported elsewhere, or even to do much good in our own country. What on the surface is a different opinion, is often linked to opposing opinions grounded in the same (secret) assumption, only that it is interpreted differently in different cases. Take for instance the way we view criminal cases. We don’t typically approach them seeing the link that binds the crime to the environment in which it happened. I don’t mean to take away the responsibility of the individual. However, if we hope to ever reduce the crime rate, we can’t just follow this subjectivistic notion of responsibility. We need to acknowledge, rather, the responsibility of the larger community for making certain abuses less than worthwhile. We need to think crime in terms of community, not simply isolated individuals.

In this example, the speaker criticizes individualistic notions of democracy, in particular subjectivism, the notion that “everybody has a right to his opinion.” As stated, his notion violates the moment of relationship because opinions are related to opposing opinions, and all opinions regarding a certain topic form a totality defined by the culture in which they occur. Therefore, the opinions are different from, or even opposed to, each other only because they are part of the same totality (e.g., culture). They are intrinsically related, no matter what form they may be taking. The speaker in the quote above critiques “de-totalization” by saying: • That isolating individuals or their opinions shortchanges the totality of which they are a part • That opposing opinions are “opposed” only because they are part of the same cultural totality • That individualistic notions of “crime” are unhelpful, since a crime is typically enabled by the community which it occurs, either by neglect or otherwise • That individualistic notions of responsibility weaken community Above, I have discussed examples of thinking focused on the moment of relationship. Drawing on both Basseches (1984, 114) and Bhaskar (1993, 392), we can distinguish the following main foci in working with thought forms comprised by this moment: • Assertion of the existence of relationships, the limits of separation, and the value of relatedness. • Criticism of (unconnected) multiplicity, subjectivism, and pluralism. • Criticism of de-totalization (neglect of totality anchored in the T-moment). • Description of a two-way (or multi-way) relationship. • Assertion of internal and constitutive relationships.

36

2  The Individual Moments of Dialectic

We can summarize the main aspects of the moment of relationship as shown below. Relationship: • Dialectical image: common ground (totality). • Figure: what is “not there” other than as held within a totality of (possibly oppositional) links and connections. • Ground: unified by the category of totality, thus of holistic causality. • Relationship to system: living core of any system. • Scope: all parts of a whole, however split and split off, center to periphery. • Theme: unity in diversity, internal relatedness, illicit separation and fission, and fixation on unrelated (isolated) elements and multiples. • Dialectics: reciprocal, intrinsic, based on constitutive relationship (logically preceding parts of a whole) and common ground.

The Dialectic of Transformational Systems The dialectic of transformational systems is that of a “movement through forms” (Basseches 1984) anchored in human agency (Bhaskar 1993). Since all things are forms, we are dealing with a movement that is naturally developmental, comprising growth as well as decay. This dialectic is the fullest expression of things real as well as imagined, appearing in static form in the guise of context, forming the common ground (totality) in relationship, and brimming with absences (potentials) due to process negativity. The dialectic of transformational systems is one of remediation, thus of healing rifts and absences. The remediation transform cleanses reality of all absences illuminated through C, P, and R thought forms. It subsumes within itself all “transforms” of adult thinking except for the P-transform, which embodies it and unites the epistemic, logical, and dialectical dimensions of human thought. We can view the T-moment in a more reality- or thought-oriented (ontological or epistemological) fashion. In both perspectives, the T-moment underlies physical and social (historical) perturbations, transformations including reversals. It is meta-­ systemic in that it primarily regards systems and their coordination, merger, and transformation. In the human sphere where it inheres the other three moments of dialectic, the T-moment focuses on human agency (intentional causality) exerted by human mind-body agents who operate transformations through praxis and history. Wherever absences are potentials pointing to further development, we are dealing with dialectical transformations, not simply “changes.” The T-moment (Bhaskar’s 4D, fourth dimension 1993, 393): .. is unified by the category of transformative praxis or agency. In the human sphere, it is implicit in the other three [that is, C, P, and R; OL]. Meta-critically, it pinpoints two complementary kinds of … de-agentification – dualistic disembodiment and reductionist reification. There is a special affinity with 2E [Process], since agency is (intentional) causality which is absenting. … [4D = T dialectic is often] … the site of ideological and material struggles …

The Dialectic of Transformational Systems

37

Since this moment seeds as well as absorbs the other three (C, P, and R), it most clearly expresses the ALIVENESS of the world, not only the human world. This aliveness is based, in part, on conflict leading to higher levels of development but can equally lead to reversal and regression, depending on the specific context that processes and relationships operate in. From Bhaskar’s ontological perspective, thinking in terms of this moment critically focuses on avoiding two kinds of neglect of human agency: • Dualistic disembodiment, by which the concept of “intentional embodied, causally efficacious agency” of human beings is negated (1993, 277). • Reductionist reification, whereby the human mind living “within a partially socialized nature in an un-socialized cosmos” is reduced to an atomistic entity instead of being acknowledged as a social agent (1993, 277). To these two kinds of neglect of agency, we can add the neglect of consciousness as being under development over the entire adult lifespan, which is pervasive in society despite 40 years of developmental research. Human resource departments in organizations, for instance, have not caught up with it in their logic-based “competence models.” From a more thought-focused, epistemological, perspective (Basseches 1984), tools included in the transformational moment put forms into a larger context. This context includes (Basseches 1993, p. 122): • Relationships among forms (systems as forms) • Movement from one form to another (transformation) • Relationship of forms to the process of form construction by human agents All of these topics require the integration of C, P, and R thought forms into the more highly meta-systemic way of thinking. Importantly, they also require discarding the rigid separation of “fact” and “value” since human agency does not accept such a distinction. Thought forms associated with T thus represent the highest level of thinking in Jaques’ fourth order of mental complexity. An example of thinking in terms of transformational systems would be (Laske 2005) the following quote from a cognitive interview: Why do most mergers fail? The short answer is that they don’t deliver a system that is more inclusive and differentiated than the old one, just larger. And that amounts to a failure. Because you are merging not just two or more inert things but forms, living systems! So, to the extent that you don’t understand the inter-dependence of the systems you merge you are dead in the water. And understanding that requires more than a reduction or saving of energy. It rather requires you to think through how the new structure you are creating will energize internal business processes (not just “clout” or “market share”). It’s more than social engineering that is required. You need to co-ordinate, redefine coordinates. Integration by reduction won’t work.

In this excerpt, the interviewee speaks about the process of coordinating systems by way of a merger (TF #26). He points out that the merger of two companies is one of two living systems. Therefore, if their functioning and interaction are not thoroughly understood prior to, or during, the merger, the merger will most likely fail.

38

2  The Individual Moments of Dialectic

What is required is a “thinking through” – or dialeghestai – of the processes ongoing in both systems, the relationship of these processes to each other, and an envisioning of the new context that is created by merging, not just combining, them. The reader may now ask in what way transformational thinking operates the “remediation,” or absenting, of absences. The notion here is that as long as you look at a single system or two systems separately, you cannot see the missing links – absences – that they embody. Or else, if you see what may be missing in a single system, you may not immediately see the “hooks” by which what is missing in one system can be remediated by linking it to another system. There is a void between two initially unrelated systems that must be filled, so to speak, by illuminating their potential coordination. This will take critical as well as constructive thinking on the part of those in charge of merging the systems. Given the crucial importance of human agency in transformational systems, what is often neglected in planning organizational mergers is the fact that human systems (which are by nature transformational) have unpredictable synergies. These synergies derive from the potential capability of their members. If this capability is represented in the corporate culture only in terms of some abstract closed system such as the balanced scorecard or competence models, a great number of missing links with the real world of human work remain in place that will come to haunt the organization. Where these absences  – misalignments, erroneous selections, and unforeseen feedback loops  – are not recognized through dialectical thinking, the merger is likely to fail. I summarize the major aspects of thinking in terms of transformational systems below. Transformational system: • Dialectical image: “living” (transformational) system (e.g., a beehive). • Figure: what is in constant transformation seeking equilibrium, through mental growth, shift, sudden reversal, collapse, breakdown, and pain. • Ground: unified by the social category of transformative praxis or agency. • Relationship to System: itself under constant transformation. • Scope: all of reality. • Theme: stability through developmental movement, attention to problems of coordination and change in a developmental direction, multiplicity of perspectives defining reality concretely, and acknowledgment of human agency as intentional causality in the cosmos. • Dialectics: special affinity with process as social change.

From Moments of Dialectic to Thought Forms We now know enough about the four moments of dialectic to understand that they underlie the dynamics of the social and physical worlds and cannot be reduced to sets of human thought forms for “thinking about” reality. We also know that in the

The Crucial Transition from the Second to the Third Order of Mental Complexity

39

human mind the moments of dialectic (MELD) are represented by thought form tools called transforms by which illumination and remediation of absences in thought and reality are accomplished. Dealing with absences and their illumination and remediation is central to any dialogical, developmental, and dialectical epistemology. In particular, the illumination transform, which comprises process, context, and relationship thought forms, is central to dialectic as a discovery procedure. It is instrumental in inserting “dialectical comments” into thinking processes for the sake of illuminating thoughts so far “absent” from the process. As a result, the transformational remediation transform can come into play “to clean up the disk,” by closing the thought gaps found in consciousness. These thought gaps reveal themselves naturally when reflection is centered upon a particular base concept in search of other related concepts that “can throw light on the matter” discussed. Clearly, the tools of the illumination transform are priceless for working with clients for whom challenging others’ thinking is of high value.

 he Crucial Transition from the Second to the Third Order T of Mental Complexity It is part of the human condition that most humans (and the human sciences) remain confined to the second order of mental complexity (analytical reasoning, also referred to as understanding), and only a minority progresses into the third order (or reason). This vantage point affords one a bird’s-eye view of the cognitive sciences as well. Just as in the social-emotional domain, S-4 seems to be a crucial watershed for independent living and professional work, so in the cognitive domain the transition from analytical reasoning to dialectic in phase 1 of cognitive development is a crucial progression. As far as we know today, this transition begins in late adolescence (Basseches 1984). The development of dialectical thinking leads from an incipient use of dialectical thought forms centered in context to the gradual assimilation or generation of process thought forms. Relationship thought forms empirically seem to come into their own only in phase 3 of this development. What seems to occur is not only that an increasing number of thought forms is used by the thinker but that the thought forms used also become better and better coordinated with each other, first within one and the same thought form class and subsequently between different classes. This coordination across thought form classes C, P, and R is a precondition of being able to think in terms of transformational thought forms which require such coordination. To this day, the exact preconditions of stepping beyond phase 1 of dialectical thinking, both in terms of level of social-emotional meaning making (Kegan 1982) and in terms of stages of reflective judgment (King & Kitchener 1994), have remained unclear if not unknown. There also exists at phase 1 a pervasive kind of cultural

40

2  The Individual Moments of Dialectic

arrest of cognitive development toward dialectic, especially in the Western world which is dominated by analytical reasoning. In my view, this situation will not change until one begins, as I do in the constructive developmental framework (CDF), to clearly distinguish social-emotional meaning making in the sense of Kegan and cognitive sense making or thinking in the sense of Basseches and CDF. *** In first approaching the gist of each of the moments of dialectic, it is helpful to have access to a complete and comparative picture of what each of them stands for. Above, I have begun to size up the four moments of dialectic in terms of the following categories: • • • •

Dialectical image – an image by which to remember the thrust of each moment. Figure – that which initially stands out regarding each moment. Ground – that which is hidden at first but substantially underlies the moment. Relationship to system – an indication of what each moment contributes to thinking reality in terms of transformational systems. • Scope – the mental scope of each moment. • Theme – the predominant topic articulated by each moment. • Dialectics – the specific dynamic of each moment. Of these categories, the image is easy to remember since it is nothing more than a picture serving as a “flag” raising the level of attention. Figure and ground belong together showing that what stands out initially has deep moorings in the ground. System and scope are related. We are always looking for how to thoroughly understand living systems which is what “reality” in the dialectical sense consists of. In this context, the scope tells us how far the dynamics of the moments of dialectic extends in our mental space. For those thinking in narrative, theme may be a helpful category by which to view the moments of dialectic in one’s mental space. Finally, “dialectics” names the dynamic inherent in each moment. In the table below, I summarize the characteristic aspects of each class of thought forms in light of each of the four moments of dialectic summarized above.

Comments on the Table In what follows, I briefly comment on each row of the table. Each row puts side by side the categories introduced above for each moment of dialectic. Think of dialectical image as an intuitive shorthand by which to remember the four moments. The images – emergence, big picture, common ground, and living system – serve as a tool for lifting one’s mind out of the lowland and flatland of the second order of mental complexity when working on any problem whatsoever.

Comments on the Table

41

Table 2.1  Characteristics of the four classes of thought forms Aspects of each moment of dialectic Dialectical image

Figure

Ground

Relationship to system Scope

Theme

Dialectics

Context thought forms “Big picture” in the sense of a whole encompassing parts or strata What appears as a stable, well-­ balanced form

Process thought forms Emergence (from a void)

Relationship thought forms Common ground (totality)

Transformational thought form Living or transformational system

What is “not there” but is emerging through unceasing chance

What is in constant transformation seeking equilibrium, through mental growth, shift, sudden reversal, breakdown, and pain

Unified by the category of differentiation that introduces variety and depth into what is real and making it alterable Pre-figuration of system in static form Equilibrium of what exists

Unified by the category of absence from which all four moments derives

What is not there other than as held within a totality of (possibly oppositional) links and connections Unified by the category of totality, thus holistic causality

Living core of system

Itself under constant transformation

Always embedded in system Spanning negation, contradiction, and critique

All parts of a whole, however split and split off; center to periphery Multiplicity of The presence of Unity in layers (strata) and the past and diversity, thoughts future; motion internal partaking in a in thought and relatedness, common frame of reality illicit separation, reference and fixation on unrelated elements and multiples Parts of a whole shifting their balance, stratification, and generative mechanisms

Process, transition, interaction, and opposition including reversal

Reciprocal, intrinsic, based on constitutive relationships (logically preceding parts of whole)

Unified by the social category of transformative praxis or agency

All of reality

Stability through developmental movement, attention to problems of coordination and change in a developmental direction, multiplicity of perspective, and acknowledgment of human agency Special affinity with process and social change

42

2  The Individual Moments of Dialectic

Aspects of each moment of dialectic Context thought forms Dialectical “Big picture” in the image sense of a whole encompassing parts or strata

Process thought forms Emergence from a void

Relationship thought forms Common ground (totality)

Transformational thought form Living or transformational system

[Excerpt of Table 2.1]

Figure is what is in the foreground, the most obvious aspect. It helps answer the question: “What is the particular aspect – process, context, relationship, or system – I want to focus on, or else, my client is focusing on?” Aspects of each moment of dialectic Figure

Context thought forms What appears as a stable, well-­ balanced form

Process thought forms What is “not there” but is emerging through unceasing chance

Relationship thought forms What is not there other than as held within a totality of (possibly oppositional) links and connections

Transformational thought form What is in constant transformation seeking equilibrium, through mental growth, shift, sudden reversal, breakdown, and pain

[Excerpt of Table 2.1]

What is the ground that holds the appearances (symptoms) of things real together? In terms of process, what is the dynamics of the subject matter under discussion, and what is its past history? What is the broader context of the problem in all of its multidimensionality? Can we think of the problem, or solve it, by considering it in relationship to all that is “going on” around and in it? Is there an implication of transformative human agency? Aspects of each moment of dialectic Context thought forms Ground Unified by the category of differentiation that introduces variety and depth into what is real, making it alterable

Process thought forms Unified by the category of absence from which all four moments derive

Relationship thought forms Unified by the category of totality, thus holistic causality

Transformational thought form Unified by the social category of transformative praxis or agency

[Excerpt of Table 2.1]

How can we understand what we are focusing on in systemic terms? Can we describe what we are focusing on as a system, or something embedded in a process

Comments on the Table

43

changing a system? What relationships hold the system together, and how are we going to account for ongoing, instantaneous transformations of the system? Aspects of each moment of dialectic Relationship to system

Context thought forms Pre-figuration of system in static form

Process thought forms Always embedded in system

Relationship thought forms Living core of system

Transformational thought form Itself under constant transformation

[Excerpt of Table 2.1]

What is the scope of dialectical thinking? Are we focusing on the apparent balance and stability of what exists, or considering conflict and critique? Are we able to view things as a whole? Are we aware of the dialectic of the real that makes it transform from moment to moment (as we speak)? Are we limiting the scope of our thinking to mere figures without considering the ground they are rooted in? Aspects of each moment Context Process thought of dialectic thought forms forms Scope Equilibrium Spanning negation, of what exists contradiction, and critique

Relationship thought Transformational forms thought form All parts of a whole, All of reality however split and split off; center to periphery

[Excerpt of Table 2.1]

What is the dialectical theme we are concerned about? Which of the moments is primarily involved? Is it multiplicity of layers and strata within a common framework, presence of the past and future in the present, internal relatedness, or developmental movement toward a telos or higher level? Can this theme be separated from other themes, or need we broaden the theme to escape a narrow view of the dynamics we are witnessing? Aspects of each moment of Context dialectic thought forms Theme Multiplicity of layers (strata) and thoughts partaking in a common frame of reference [Excerpt of Table 2.1]

Process thought forms The presence of the past and future; motion in thought and reality

Relationship thought forms Unity in diversity, internal relatedness, illicit separation, and fixation on unrelated elements and multiples

Transformational thought form Stability through developmental movement, attention to problems of coordination and change in a developmental direction, multiplicity of perspective, and acknowledgment of human agency

2  The Individual Moments of Dialectic

44

What is the internal movement or dialectics of reality viewed through a particular class of thought forms? Are we looking at a static system held in balance by forces we can describe? Is there conflict or reversal? What crucial relationships underlie the present constellation of factors or elements we are focusing attention on? Are the system transformations we are considering elements of a process of social change, or do they also involve ecological (physical) factors human actions have an impact on? Aspects of each moment of dialectic Dialectics

Context thought forms Parts of a whole, shifting their balance, stratification, and generative mechanisms

Process thought forms Process, transition, interaction, and opposition including reversal

Relationship thought forms Reciprocal, intrinsic, based on constitutive relationships (logically preceding parts of whole)

Transformational thought form Special affinity with process and social change

[Excerpt of Table 2.1]

Categorical Errors While the categorical errors in formal logic all concern the violation of the excluded middle (identity clause) that leads to falsehood, categorical errors in dialectical thinking have to do with thinking too narrowly, not systemic enough, conceiving of things formalistically by way of reduction to frozen base concepts, and reducing autonomous strata to each other, etc. Each of the four moments of dialectic has its own principal categorical errors, as seen below: Aspects of each moment of dialectic Main categorical error

Context thought forms Dedifferentiation (e.g., de-stratification)

Process thought forms Arresting or denial of process

Relationship thought forms De-totalization

Transformational thought form Negation or neglect of human agency

[Excerpt of Table 2.1]

When entering the third, and even more so the fourth, order of mental complexity and thus integrating purely logical thinking into dialectical thinking as a

Chapter Summary

45

pure vehicle of distinguishing inseparables, we need to ask ourselves the following questions: 1. Are we simplifying the differentiated richness of reality? 2. Are we presuming our concepts exhaust the depth of reality, while they only classify the surface of it? (Adorno). 3. Are we oblivious or neglectful of ongoing processes (including our own)? 4. Are we forgetting that isolated entities are part of a totality that makes them into what they are? 5. Are we equating living, transformational systems with closed systems, thereby obscuring their living quality? When entering the third order of complexity (in phase 2 of dialectical thinking development), these questions are only beginning to be compelling for the thinker. By contrast, once a thinker aims to transition to the fourth order of complexity (in phase 3 of dialectical thinking development), these questions become compelling for him or her, and the quality of answers s(he) gives to them decides whether s(he) has been able to enter the fourth order or not.

Chapter Summary Above, I have introduced a notion of dialectics based on both Basseches’ and Bhaskar’s model, defining in the process the notion of four moments of dialectic, the core conception of this book. My contribution has been to join the work of these two researchers, one empirical, the other ontological. In so doing, I have harnessed an ancient tradition of Western thinking long disavowed and discredited by formalistic thinking including in science. Following Adorno (1999), I have suggested that untrammeled thought is naturally dialectical. I have emphasized that the four moments of dialectic “run the world” (ontologically speaking) but also provide the dynamics for human development (epistemologically speaking), without the former being reducible to the latter (being to thought). In this way, I have associated with Bhaskar’s dialectical ontology a research-based dialectical and developmental epistemology. In the following introduction, I will enter more deeply into the dialogical character of this epistemology below. It should be clear from Table 2.1 that each moment of dialectic, once represented in terms of thought forms, puts at our disposition novel ways of considering what to conceive of as “reality,” not only physical but equally social reality, suffused as it is in natural language. Ontologically, the use of thought forms opens to us as social agents extended opportunities to be causally effective in the social and even physical world, as well as to be mindful of what aspects of our agency are harmful  – absenting – to the environment (see Book 2).

46

2  The Individual Moments of Dialectic

Considering that all four moments of dialectic and their associated thought forms constitute a totality (a holon), we could speak of the need, in dialectical thinking, to do justice to “all moments all thought forms.” This formulation entails that working with context thought forms alone, such as TF #11, by itself will not do, simply because process and relationship thought forms are not also considered. It is for this reason that we can speak of the thought forms associated with the four moments as “discovery procedures” that help us as thinkers to discover alternative and broader ways of viewing what is before us. On further thought, it becomes clear that what we call “thought forms” is not only a tool for new discoveries in the world but also a tool for listening to and responding to conversations, whether they are internal and external. If “thinking,” as the monograph maintains, is based on the thinker’s internal conversations [if not identical with them] – of which external conversations (with others) are often only a shadow – then the way we listen to ourselves and respond ourselves internally is the carrier of the causal power of our mind of which Archer speaks of as a basis of human agency (2003). Both our listening to and responding to what we “hear” in ourselves, however much of it we choose to convey in external conversations, are the seat of our agential power in the social world. Practice Reflections • If you think of your life in process terms, that is, in terms of emergence, what comes to mind? • In what way does the distinction between four moments of dialectic sharpen your sense of an individual’s thinking, including your own? • In your conversations, are you aware of the uses clients make of thought forms belonging to different classes? • If you think of the social world as being simultaneously constructed by humans and often impervious to change by humans, what does that tell you about the dynamics of transformation? • When you consider that a grasp of all four classes of thought forms is required for functioning on the higher organizational strata, how would you challenge leaders by using thought forms as mind openers? • What is your approach to dealing with the discrepancy, in clients, between their critical (P, R) and constructive (C, T) thinking? • What benefit would accrue for you as a coach if you were able  – using DTF tools – to measure how proportional is the client’s use of thought forms in the four classes, which would show you how “equilibrated,” and thus mature, the client’s thinking presently is? • How do you presently discern and measure the degree of fluidity of post-formal, systemic thinking in clients? • If you consider that organizations are defined by two architectures, that of role accountability and individual capability, what do you think is the best way to work toward a match of the two architectures?

Bibliography

47

• What thinking tools do executives need in order to bring about “requisite organization” in their company, specifically for having deeper insight into the HCH (human capability hierarchy) representing human resources in the sense of levels of potential capability? Exercises 1. Describe a beehive in terms of process, context, relationship, and transformational thought forms. What specific moment of dialectic do you find yourself stressing? 2. Describe how the hive’s organic subsystems – queen, worker bees, and drones – interact from a systemic point of view. 3. All 30,000 to 50,000 bees of a hive are born and die each year, living 6 weeks on average (longer in the winter). Use the notion of moments of dialectic to describe how the hive maintains its identity through seasonal change by constantly adapting and transforming. 4. Give an example for the losses caused by the simplification of the world when seen in terms of “change” as understood by the logic transform, instead of seeing the world through the lens of transformation. 5. In what way is formal logical thinking (analytical reasoning) a basis of dialectical thinking? 6. Why is calling part of the world “false” (because of not fitting the law of excluded middle) unhelpful when the subject matter of inquiry is complex? 7. What is meant by saying that a dialectical (Hegelian) inquiring system can subsume in itself any systems based on analytical reasoning? 8. What does Bhaskar’s notion of the four moments of dialectic (Bhaskar) contribute to a complex understanding of “reality”? 9. Can you think of some thought forms that would render the process moment of dialectic? 10. How might the element of negativity be expressed in terms of context thought forms?

Bibliography Adorno, Th.W., E. Frenkel-Brunswick, and D.J. Levinson. 1950. The authoritarian personality. New York: Norton. Adorno, Th.W. 1978. Minima moralia. London: Verso. ———. 1993. Hegel: Three studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ———. 1999. Negative dialectic. New  York: Continuum. [Negative Dialektik. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1966]. ———. 2008. Lectures on negative dialectic: Fragments of a lecture course 1965/66. Malden, MA: Polity. Archer, M.S. 1995. Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press. ———. 1998. Culture and agency. Cambridge University Press.

48

2  The Individual Moments of Dialectic

———. 2003. Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press. ———. 2007. Making our way through the world. Cambridge University Press. Basseches, M.A. 1978. Beyond closed-system problem solving: A study of metasystemic aspects of mature thought. Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University. Ann Arbor: UMIO, #79/8210. ———. 1980. Dialectical schematas: A framework for the empirical study of the development of dialectical thinking. Human Development 23: 400–421. ———. 1983. Dialectical thinking as a meta-systemic form of cognitive organization. In Beyond formal operations. Late adolescent and adult cognitive development, ed. M.L.  Commons, F.A. Richards, and C. Armon, 216–238. New York: Praeger. ———. 1984. Dialectical thinking and adult development. Norwood: Ablex. ———. 1989. Intellectual development: The development of dialectical thinking. In Thinking, reasoning and writing, ed. E.P.  Maimon, B.F.  Nodine, and F.W.  O’Connor. White Plains: Longman. ———. 2005. The development of dialectical thinking as an approach to integration. Integral Leadership Review 1: 47–63. Bhaskar, R. 1979 (1989, 1998). The possibility of naturalism. London: Routledge. ———. 1993. Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Verso. ———. 2002. Reflections on MetaReality. London: Sage. ———. 2017. The order of naturally necessity. University College London Institute of Education. The Authors. Bopp, M., and M. Basseches. 1981. A coding manual for the Dialectical Schema Framework. Unpublished dissertation. [Cited as BB.] Hegel, G. W. 1977 (1806). Phenomenology of Spirit.. London: Oxford University Press. ———. 2010 (1816–32). The science of logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kegan, R. 1982. The evolving self. Harvard University Press. Kegan, R., and Lisa L. Lahey. 1994. In over our head. Harvard University Press. ———. 2009. Immunity to change. Harvard University Press. Kegan, R., et al. 2016. An everyone culture. Harvard University Press. King, P.M., and K.S. Kitchener. 1994. Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Lahey, L., E. Souvaine, R. Kegan, R. Goodman, and S. Felix. 1988. A guide to the subject-object interview: Its administration and interpretation. Laboratory of Human Development, Harvard University. Laske, O. 2005. Measuring hidden dimensions (vol. 1): The art and science of fully engaging adults. Medford: IDM Press. ———. 2023. Measuring hidden dimensions: The art and science of fully engaging adults. Wolfgang Pabst Science Publisher (forthcoming reprint). McCullough, D. 1992. Truman. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Chapter 3

Thought Form Descriptions

Section 1: Process Thought Forms The Essence of Process Thought Forms In the Dialectical Thought Form Framework, process is the epistemological equivalent of Bhaskar’s second edge (2E), a term that “spans the gamut of categories of negativity, contradiction, and critique.” To the extent that process refers to change, the process thought form “emphasizes the tri-unity of causality, space and time in tensed rhythmic spatializing process(es), thematizing the presence of the past and existentially constitutive process(es). Its dialectics are typically (those) of … transition, frontier, and node, but also generally of opposition including reversal” (Bhaskar 1993, 392). Interpreting Bhaskar’s ontological concepts epistemologically means, e.g., that a thinker uses process thought forms not just in “positive” but equally “negative” terms, for the sake of accounting for the aspect of negativity, i.e., that which is presently “absent” from the configuration regarding which a process thought form is used by him. This assures that it is understood that what appears as purely positive (factual), e.g., as a data set, in reality is in constant motion, both in the world and in the mind. This is highly relevant since what is referred to as “reality” in common language is stratified and comprises aspects and dimensions invisible to the dialectically untutored. We can say, therefore, that “process thinking” is a critical mode of thinking that eschews forgetting that every positivity spoken about (such as every fact or set of data) has its own “negativity,” whether in the form of a shadow, an absence, an implication not attended to, an ill, or an opposite. That indeed is the “edge” of which Bhaskar speaks above. It is the cutting edge of critical thinking, also in the sense of an awareness that there is a difference between “what is” and “what we think is.”

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 O. Laske, Advanced Systems-Level Problem Solving, Volume 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40339-2_3

49

50

3  Thought Form Descriptions

We can form an image of process thought forms by reflecting on these aspects of process.

Process • Dialectical image: emergence (from a void) • Figure: what does not exist yet (is absent) but is emerging through unceasing change • Ground: unified by the category of absence from which the whole circuit of the four moments derives • Relationship to system: always embedded in system • Scope: spanning negation, contradiction, critique • Theme: the presence of the past and future, motion in thought and reality • Dialectics: process, transition, interaction, opposition (including reversal) Let us start with the dialectical image of the process moment. We are dealing with the emergence of something new from a void, a coming into being of what was not there before. For lack of a better term, in human affairs, we often call this change. But the term “change” flattens what is happening. What emerges is what was so far was invisible, unnoticeable, not evident, whether ontologically, in the “real world,” or in the thinking of it, epistemologically. It is important to separate change and emergence from “development.” While “development” implies “change,” it cannot be reduced to it. Development is, as we will say below, “transformational”; change is not. Development transforms what is there and in doing so far exceeds mere change that simply shifts what is there from x to y. While “change” refers to a single time point, development is longitudinal. It potentially comprises a huge number of time points some of which may be “turning points” in a human life. If a change turns out to be a development, the point at which it occurs is a “turning point” that is part of a developmental trajectory that remains ununderstood. If you think about it, all change is rooted in absence – what is not or not yet “there” – in dialectics also referred to as negativity. If everything was in place, absolutely and forever, there would and could be no change. No absences could be filled in. It is absence in the form of incompleteness, hidden dimensions, and lack of fulfillment that drives the emergence of new forms. Development is thus a remediation (making good) of absences, either in the form of full realization or of collapse and reversal. It can go either way (Bhaskar 1993; Hegel 1977, 2010). Why? In what we call REAL, we are encountering complex systems built on forms undergoing constant transformation. The illusion of stability and durability notwithstanding, there is no second or day or state of mind like another. The scope of absence is thus enormous, and one could say, with Bhaskar, that reality is “punctuated by absence.” One could equally say that absences are as real as what is

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

51

present, if not more real. In other words, “negativity” is not an extraordinary circumstance, but our daily bread. (When you are hungry, the absence of bread is very real.) This is the dialectical worldview. It is based on an advanced epistemic position, minimally 5 (phase 2 of dialectical thinking). Once you wake up to it, you cannot understand how you could ever have been so naïve to think otherwise. When we move from the ontology of the world to human thinking, we can conceive of a smaller or larger set of thought forms available for grasping intellectually what I have described above. Even the best logical thinking only deals with closed systems, and we already know that reality is not among them. What is needed, therefore, is a set of thought forms that transcend logical thinking without violating it.

∗ ∗ ∗



Based on the work of Basseches (1978, 1984) and Bopp and Basseches (1981), I invite you now to have a look at the thought forms in Table 3.1. The reader will ask: “Why pick seven”? It is true; we could have picked more or fewer thought forms. What is important is that we have decided on a finite number of them so that the three remaining classes (C, R, T) can be defined to be of equal size. (The difference between Basseches and Bopp’s manual and the present one lies in that we assume that each moment of dialectic is associated with 7 thought forms, not an unequal number of them.) Even more important in practical terms is that we numbered the thought forms. Having done so, we can easily refer to them by their integer names, relate them to thought forms in other classes as “different,” and use them for scoring the structure of cognitive interviews, by referring to them by name and assigning a weight to them that indicates the strength with which they have been used by a speaker and/ or writer. Table 3.1 Process thought forms

Process TFs 1. Unceasing motion, negativity 2. Preservative negation, inclusion of antithesis 3. Composition by interpenetrating opposites, correlativity 4. Patterns of interaction 5. Active, practical nature of knowledge 6. Critique of arresting motion (reification) 7. Embedding in process, movement Adapted from Basseches 1984, 74

52

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Thought Form Sequence For the logical mind reading Table A1.1, the question that will come up is surely “Why are the thought forms listed in this sequence?” Is the sequence arbitrary or “logical”? While the sequence follows a slightly different logic in each class, the overall thrust of the sequencing is the same for all thought form classes. We move from thought forms merely pointing to the essence of the thought form class (moment) as an aspect of reality to an increasingly elaborated and thus more complex exploration of what the thought form lays bare, especially when linked. (Call this the “pointing-to-elaborate-link,” or PEL, sequence.) Epistemologically, we can refer to the PEL sequence in two ways, as a set of tools for focusing attention and in terms of its outcome, the dialectical attention span. The sequence of thought forms in all four classes, discussed class by class in this manual, can be circumscribed as follows (Table 3.2). As noted in the table, the initial thought forms in a class orients attention to the respective moment, while the remaining ones provide tools for a more detailed articulation of each of the moments. Whether a deeper exploration of the respective moment can take place depends on the thinker’s epistemic position at the time. Prior to reaching epistemic position 5, the moments are a fairy tale. Dialectical thinking is entirely absent (and remains so for many). Before we start a discussion of each individual thought form, let’s look at an overview of all of them. In the third column of the table below, one finds a more detailed description of each thought form (Table 3.3). Table 3.2  Changing focus of attention in using process thought forms Thought form Focus of attention Process #1–2 Pointing to process #3–7 Addressing and describing process Context #8–9 Pointing to context #10–13 Addressing and describing context #14 Moving toward relatedness Relationship #15 Pointing to limits of separation between elements #16–17 Evaluating relationships #18–21 Describing relationships Transformational system #22 Pointing to the fragility of systems, based on the three previous classes of thought forms #23–25 Evaluating transformational systems #26–28 Explicating and explaining transformational systems

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

53

Table 3.3  Process thought forms in detail Process •  Dialectical image: emergence (from a void) • Figure: what does not exist yet (is absent) but is emerging through unceasing change • Ground: unified by the category of absence from which the whole circuit of the four moments derives •  Relationship to system: always embedded in system • Scope: spanning negation, contradiction, critique • Theme: the presence of the past and future; motion in thought and reality • Dialectics: process, transition, interaction, opposition (including reversal) # Thought form Thought form description keywords and key (intent of sense making) phrases 1 Unceasing movement, Unselfconscious expression or explicit assertion of unceasing negativity change (inside and outside) as basic to human existence. Awareness of past and future in the present. Sense of “negativity”: what IS is always drifting toward nonbeing and transformation and comprises hidden dimensions Contrast: 22 2 Preservative negation Seeing change as the canceling, including, and transcending of (inclusion of antithesis what exists, leading to differentiation of events and situations or “other”) through inclusion of what they exclude and resulting in opening up hidden dimensions in conceptual space Contrast: 27 3 Composition by Emergence of something new through an interchange of interpenetrating opposites – energy or ideas. Composition of something that opposites, correlativity includes its “other” as a necessary ingredient, or as “figure” vs. “ground” Contrasts: 19–22 4 Patterns of interaction Patterns of motion in interactive relationships with focus on motion. Processes of “give and take” that negate, contradict, critique, and bring about a shift in social reality Contrast: 2, 19–20 5 Active, practical nature Active (questing) and practical (rather than passive) character of of knowledge knowledge; knowledge as always “under construction,” never absolute Contrast: 23 6 Critique of arresting Assertion of the relevance of motion, and critique of denying, motion and process hiding, or disavowing change. What exists cannot be isolated from (reification) unceasing change since it is a form, not a thing Contrasts: 7, 28 7 Embedding in process, Focus on the fact that what exists is embedded in an ongoing movement process or motion, with the past and future as an aspect of the present Contrasts: 3–4, 6

Using thought forms is both a reflective and mind-opening experience. Thought forms permit one to stand back from one’s own thinking and observe others in their thinking (and tell them what is the structure of their thinking). Since language is not just describing, but creating the world, the way people use thought forms plainly

54

3  Thought Form Descriptions

indicates how they construct it. And how they construct it is a function of their level of cognitive development in terms of epistemic position at a particular time. Given that my references to Basseches and Bopp’s work are very numerous, it would only clutter the text if I were to use quotes every time, I make use of these references. I therefore do so only in exceptional cases. To shorten the text, I henceforth use the abbreviation “TF” to stand for thought form and refer to Basseches and Bopp’s shared work of 1981 as “(BB 1981).”

Overview of Process Thought Forms As is evident from the fact that the ontological aspect of reality and human thinking about reality cannot neatly be separated, we can say that the TFs describe both movements in both reality and thought. Focusing on the movements in thought by which humans attempt to render physical, social, and intellectual processes, one can say it is the function of TFs to: • Make a thinker aware of the pervasive presence of absences or negativity in what exists • Draw a thinker’s attention to processes of change or to creative processes which allow for the possibility that “change” occurs • Point a thinker to the fact that what exists is always embedded in larger change processes • Describe moves in thought in which processes of change are characterized in dialectical terms, that is, as processes with a tendency toward genuine development or reversal • Instill and preserve fluidity in thought ∗ ∗ ∗





Thought Form #1 Thought form keywords and # key phrases 1 Unceasing movement, negativity

Thought form description (intent of sense making) Unselfconscious expression or explicit assertion of unceasing change (inside and outside) as basic to human existence. Awareness of past and future in the present. Sense of negativity: what IS is always drifting toward nonbeing and transformation and comprises hidden dimensions Contrast: 22

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

55

As stated above, TF #1 carries a threefold emphasis: 1. On unceasing movement 2. On hidden dimensions 3. On negativity Of these, the last aspect is the most wide-scoped: what is is always drifting toward nonbeing via transformation. Due to this drifting toward, there is unceasing movement, both in reality and thought. And since new forms emerge not only out of old ones but out of the void, from nowhere, there is in addition a pointer to hidden dimensions, to that which cannot be seen yet. (What cannot be seen yet is specific to a specific time point.) As a result, TF #1 expresses the notion that change is basic to the nature of both existence and knowledge. To speak with BB (1981, 33), the idea of the primacy of motion is: … an alternative to the view that (a) all motion can be understood as determined by laws which themselves do not change, or (b) all motion can be understood as the external motion of monads whose essential nature remains fixed and unchanging. In these two views motion is recognized but not viewed as primary, and its importance is eclipsed by the importance of something (law or monad) which is claimed to remain inviolably stable.

By contrast, TF #1 does not exempt scientific laws or philosophical entities (e.g., the notion of “being” in Heidegger or Buddha’s “Nirvana”) from being subject to change. It engulfs everything in unceasing change. While these thoughts may appear to be philosophical, they are very much part of what one hears in interviews with people. For example: [1] When I look at my present position which I have held for 18 years, what most strikes me is the constant change both my environment and I myself have experienced. It’s as if nothing stays where it is. So, constant vigilance and reflection are required. That is hard to sustain, and most people can’t keep up with such radical change. [2] When I consider that we are always working on moving targets, plus the fact that we ourselves are also in motion developmentally, it often seems to me as if I were a swimmer working against the tide all the time. It’s also obvious that the change we see is internal and external at the same time, so we are always provoked to grow along with the change, merging with it, so to speak, to hold ourselves together. [3] People always complain about change, or at least rate of change. But what is most surprising to me is that, as much as there is an emphasis on not staying in one place, to speak of change only makes sense if we simultaneously hold on to the identity of what is changing. Because if something that changes doesn’t at the same time keep its identity across the change, we can’t even say of it that “it” is “changing.” So, the two aspects are related. “I am changing” means that “I” am identical with myself across all changes, and that is the real miracle of it all.

56

3  Thought Form Descriptions

The reader may have noticed that in the excerpts, a progression takes place, in that they become increasingly more emphatic about the unceasing character of movement and change. In [1], the idea is only broached, while in [2] it is much more elaborate. Finally, in [3], the dialectical essence of unceasing motion is spelled out in expressing that “I am changing” refers to an “I” that remains identical with itself across all changes, such that identity is based on nonidentity or change and cannot exist outside of it. Thought Form Contrasts As we saw in Book 2 Appendix 2, when evaluating an entire cognitive interview, the different degrees of explicitness of a TF are of importance when we assign a weight to TF uses in an interview. We would assign the weight of “1” (weak) to the first, “2” (moderate) to the second, and “3” (strong) to the last quoted interview passage. In evaluating interviews, we consider three questions: • What moment is referenced by the speaker, that is, what class of TFs is involved? • Which individual TF within the selected class is closest to the essence articulated by the speaker? • With what degree of clarity has the respective TF been expressed (“1,” “2,” or “3”)? The first aspect requires the evaluator to “know his moments,” because only then can s(he) decide what class of thought forms is invoked. The second aspect requires the scorer to “know his TFs,” so that s(he) can assign TF scores fully aware of the fact that there are alternatives and considering the contrasts associated with each TF. For instance, regarding TF #1, the table notes that TF #22 refers to similar issues as does TF #1 but is different from TF #1. Looking up TF #22 will show how and why it is different: 22 Limits of stability, harmony, and durability (including quantitative into qualitative changes)

Pointing to limits of stability, balance, and durability without making their causes explicit. (Emphasis is on the negative aspect of negativity which also has a positive aspect, that of emergence.) Contrasts: 3, 12, 23

Both TFs #1 and #22 assert the existence of unceasing change but do so in different ways. While TF #1 speaks of unceasing change in a positive sense, highlighting awareness of emergence, a crucial factor of human existence, TF #22 focuses on the negativity involved, which is part of TF #1 but not in the focus. TF #1 pinpoints the implicit or explicit awareness of unceasing change as something even engulfing scientific laws and entities like “being,” “God,” and “Nirvana.” An important aspect of the difference between TF #1 and TF #22 is that TF #22 is part of the T-moment and is thus dealing with entire systems, while TF #1 deals with processes without reference to systems. Of course, systemic thought forms

57

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

Process [P]

Relationship [R]

Context [C]

Transformational System [T] C>P>R>T

Fig. 3.1  The four moments of dialectic

imply or presuppose attention to process, but process thought forms do not intrinsically refer to systems. TF #22 asserts that because of unceasing change in the world, there are limits to the stability, balance, and durability of systems, whether they be things, societies, individualities, organizations, etc., thus emphasizing the negative aspect of absence rather than the positive one of emergence. Considering TF #22 as a contrast of TF #1 is helpful in deciding which TF is the best one to select in the scoring of a cognitive interview passage. Using TF #22 helps in playing devil’s advocate by asking “Couldn’t this passage be expressing TF #22 rather than TF #1?” As you will notice, TF #1 is not named as a contrast to #22 since from the standpoint of TF #22 unceasing change is implied but is not a contrast to limits of stability, etc. We are dealing with different foci of attention. This becomes clear when reviewing the four moments of dialectic (Fig. 3.1). As indicated, thought forms of class T presuppose the presence of R, P, and C, in this order, all the way up from existence. Without anything existing (C), nothing can be said to be in process (P) or related (R). To the extent that the critical dimensions (P, R) come in, reality gains systemic character over mere existence. Thus, process thought forms may lead to thinking in systems, but they do not do so automatically. They may even defend against taking a systemic view, as in contextual relativism. Assignment of Weights to Thought Form Uses Also of importance is the third aspect of thought forms. Since clearly a speaker can be more or less explicit and emphatic about the idea pointed to by a thought form, we want to score degrees of explicitness by assigning different weights to thought form uses, as follows: • “1” = weak, inexplicit use • “2” = moderately strong, explicit use • “3” = highly explicit and emphatic use

58

3  Thought Form Descriptions

By associating thought forms with weights, we are able to determine fluidity of dialectical thinking and give those who articulate thought forms explicitly credit for their deeper awareness of the essence expressed by a thought form.

Thought Form #2 Now that we have a beginning understanding of process thought forms, let us continue our discussion of them by proceeding to the next thought form, TF #2. 2 Preservative negation, inclusion of antithesis

Seeing change as the canceling, including, and transcending of what exists, leading to differentiation of events and situations through inclusion of what they exclude and resulting in opening up hidden dimensions in conceptual space Contrast: 27

TF #2 captures the logic of moving from one thought to another. This motion is in three phases: 1. A base concept is stated. 2. The base concept is made more explicit, that is, related to an idea so far excluded from, outside of, apart from, or contrary to the base concept. 3. A new base concept emerges that generates a more differentiated version of the base concept, by integrating the base concept with the element(s) introduced under (2). The crucial step in this movement from thought to thought is the one under (2). In formal logic, the introduction of an excluded element – which is simply a related idea – would be called false, since it yields a non-A in relation to the A of the original base concept. Non-A is a “contradiction” regarding A which captures an element of the nonidentity of A. It does so only weakly since only from the perspective of the thinker’s own identity (Adorno 1999). In dialectical logic, the element under (2) is conceptualized very differently, namely, as setting up a relationship between two heretofore separated ideas or concepts. The second element is a negation that establishes a relationship between A and something other than A. Rather than seeing negation as a cancellation of the base concept (A), the negation of A by a related idea (non-A) is handled as a suspension, not a destruction, of A. The negation by non-A is thought of as “preservative” of A, which is put into a memory store and associated with (related to) non-A as its “other.” We speak of preservative negation to characterize dialectical negation. This is the simple essence of dialectical thinking: the use of preservative negation! Using preservative negation leads to most interesting results: • It acknowledges consciousness as a transformational system in which concept identity is guaranteed only by relationship to other concepts.

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

59

• It points to consciousness as related to memory which can preserve concepts that have been negated in a memory store so that thought acquires depth, even “history,” and also achieves a broader time horizon vis-à-vis the future. • It introduces the opportunity to broaden the conceptual field introduced by a base concept by relating it to its other. • It acknowledges that when the base concept and its other are not seen as related, non-A drops dead as something merely false, which leads to closed-system thinking in the sense of: “A is always A and never non-A.” • It issues an invitation to the thinker “to change his/her mind,” inviting flexibility of thinking, and pinpoints as defensive any attempt to cut off thoughts in midstream. As a result of these implications, the new base concept that emerges in step 3 is considered a synthesis, something that gathers two related, although potentially contrasting, elements. This happens because the related concept introduced in step 2 is treated as an antithesis to the first one. As Adorno has forcefully shown in his 1960s’ lectures (2008) and in Negative Dialectics (1999), the term synthesis can easily by co-opted by the philosophical or spiritual triumphalism that is an innate capacity of the human mind, especially when under social stress. The bringing together of different thoughts, especially opposing ones, can easily seem to be their positive and victorious vindication in which the nonidentical – whatever does not fit into the synthesis – is conveniently forgotten. Initially explaining his “entire enterprise” called negative dialectics, Adorno warns his students (me among them) not to mistake dialectics for isolated uses of TF #2, as follows (2008, 6): So when I speak here of negative dialectics, I would urge you to be clear in your minds that what I mean by it is not this superficial, skeletal format [of TF #2] but the very fiber of thought, its inner structure, the way in which, as Hegel used to express it, the concept moves toward its opposite, the non-conceptual. That is what you should be on the lookout for and not a kind of intellectual scaffolding that in fact you will seek in vain (in my teaching; OL).

In short, the true “antithesis” is not just another concept linked to the base concept but the real-world referent of the concept that thought is trying to do justice to. This broad notion of antithesis must equally inform the notion of synthesis. In fact, for the dialectical thinker this notion defines immediate experience (2008, 7). Speaking of the structure of dialectics in Hegel as well as his own work, Adorno outlines its intention, saying that it may at times fail, thereby touching upon a developmental issue and more broadly an issue of the human condition (2008, 30): … this has the remarkable consequence that the movement of thought which enables us to characterize dialectics as a radically dynamic mode of thought is by no means always a forward movement, a unidirectional movement, but is also always a backward movement that always incorporates within itself, at any rate in its intention, the very things from which it distances itself. … thanks to the retrograde tendency implicit in the forward movement, whatever advances is simultaneously laid to rest. … So if what I have said is correct, that is, if the so-called synthesis is nothing but the expression of the non-identity of thesis and antithesis, it follows that such an expression of

60

3  Thought Form Descriptions non-identity is not so very far removed, not exactly worlds away, from what I meant by the concept of a negative dialectic as it might have seemed at first glance…

We can put this still more straightforwardly because TF #2 is part of the process moment (and thus linked to TF #1) in which something like a positive and triumphant synthesis cannot even be thought! (Triumph is a static idea.) As Hegel captured it, any synthesis is always a point of transition in which previous subject matter is “laid to rest,” only to then reopen the quest by making the synthesis into a new thesis from which a new synthesis will in due time arise. And while this sounds to the logical mind like infinite regress, such regression cannot occur simply because preservative negation eventually puts a stop to it. In the light of this, Adorno says about Hegel’s dialectic (2008, 158): What emerges formally as synthesis in the course of such analyses [in Hegel’s Logic, OL] itself possesses the form of negation because it involves the redemption of whatever fell victim to the preceding movement of the concept. The Hegelian synthesis is at its core an insight into the insufficiency of that movement; the so-called higher stages turns out also to be a lower one, a step back into the pluperfect. This detaches Hegel from the vulgar notion of a victorious positivity.

TF #2, then, asserts that cognitive triumphalism is always out of place. It describes a movement in thought as a process of generating alternatives and elaborating ideas, such that a thought is integrated with another thought, and thus synthesized with it, to arrive at a broader and deeper concept of the real than the original base concept – not yet linked to a real-world antithesis – allowed for. The movement that takes place is thus not one that only occurs in the purely conceptual dimension of subjective consciousness but is a moment of real-world dialectic (TF #5). Since this movement includes a retrograde element, it may also fail, in the sense of not doing justice to what it set out to salvage. From a more ontological perspective, like Bhaskar’s, TF #2 is an indicator of what is absent from the real world, whether it be not there or not yet there, which, for Bhaskar, is a pervasive feature of reality. This “absence” must be understood as something that one can refer to since it exists on the same level of “what is” – as something in fact that is of greater existentiality than what positively exists at the present moment. In other words, the world’s negativity ranges further than its positivity. Dialectical thought movement, then, expresses the quest to capture what does not yield to human concepts, however developed they may be – the real world in its complexity that Bhaskar refers to as the “over-reaching, open objectivity” (1993, 272). The movement is recursive in that the new base concept that emerges takes on the function of the original base concept and extends its intention into further searches. It intentionally stays with the base concept’s original real-world referent, although its good intention may fail. A chain of thoughts is formed whose multifarious extensions into the real world are kept in check by formal logic. In the context of the process moment, we can view TF #2 as an affirmation of TF #1, which it presupposes and which rescues the synthesis from being mere positivity (BB 1981, 33):

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

61

A central aspect of the dialectical world outlook is (based on) the idea that motion or change is basic to the nature of existence and knowledge. This schema for the affirmation of the [ontological and epistemological] primacy of motion describes a move in thought which affirms the idea, and thus turns the thinker’s attention to motion or change.

Examples It will be obvious to the reader that TF #2, being applicable to thought as well as thought content, can appear in a wide variety of contexts in which movement is articulated and/or recognized. Let us inspect three examples taken from cognitive interviews, paying attention to: • How the 3-step movement is experienced and articulated • The degree to which TF #2 is clearly articulated, thus the weighting of thought forms in terms of degree of fluidity from weak (“1”) to strong (“3”) [1] I am presently in a situation where lots of folks think they need to criticize me and take me to task. And while this is frustrating, even painful, to experience such opposition, I am more open to such criticism than I was a year ago. I am realizing that I need to expand the view I have of myself, to put these criticisms to rest. Without addressing them in a constructive way, I won’t get anywhere. [2] I structure my opinion of myself according to how my actions were reflected off other people. That is the only way you can ever find out what you are like anyway, to take what bounces off other people, add them all up, and see how they jive with how you feel about yourself, and reassess things. You can then believe that you have a somewhat objective view of yourself. In short, you need to take your opinion of yourself and jive it with that of other people, to arrive at a more objective view of reality. [3] We are suffering from the problem that the previous solution has become the present problem. We thought we had found a solution to hiring staff of the highest quality, using stringent selection. But then it turned out that the entire reward system had to be revamped, because the people we hired scoffed at the ranking they received in terms of compensation. So, we had to commit ourselves to new salary levels, because otherwise we would have lost a good deal of the people we hired. This is why we are now reconsidering to hire less qualified people in some positions, not to get into that kind of quandary. And so the cycle goes on, since who knows what kind of issues the job market will confront us with in the future. Interpretation The first speaker describes a situation of being broadly criticized by others. He asserts being taken to task by them and expresses the painfulness (negativity) of the situation. He is stating the thesis: I am being broadly criticized. Moving to a second thought, the speaker states that it has become easier for him to be open to criticism

62

3  Thought Form Descriptions

and, furthermore, that he knows that he needs to expand the view I have of myself, thereby embracing the antithesis derived from his critics. In the last sentence, the speaker fails to state a full synthesis. He only states that a synthesis of his present view of himself and others’ critique needs to be constructed by him. In terms of TF #2, this is a weak use of the thought form, the synthesis step being incomplete, with the synthesis only pointed to. The second speaker describes the way she arrives at a more objective picture of herself than she originally tends to possess. [2] I structure my opinion of myself according to how my actions were reflected off other people. That is the only way you can ever find out what you are like anyway, to take what bounces off other people, add them all up, and see how they jive with how you feel about yourself, and reassess things. You can then believe that you have a somewhat objective view of yourself. In short, you need to take your opinion of yourself and jive it with that of other people, to arrive at a more objective view of reality. Speaking from a social-emotional position of S-3/4 or S-4/3, she makes clear that she feels a need to add up all that “bounces off other people” as an antithesis of her own original view of herself. In this way, she can test how others’ view jives with how she feels about herself and can then reassess herself. In the last sentence, having taken on the antithesis, she takes the third step  – that toward synthesis  – declaring that you need to “take your opinion of yourself and jive it with that of other people, to arrive at a more objective view of reality.” This more objective view of herself is the new reality she is seeking. In terms of using TF #2, the speaker moves a little bit further into the third, synthesis, step of her move in thought than did the first speaker. Not only does she announce what she will have to do to acquire a more objective view of herself, but she speaks from experience of having done so. She asserts in the synthesis step that taking on the antithesis and “jiving it” with one’s own feelings about oneself is the way to arrive at a more satisfying view of who one is. For this reason, we would score the second speaker’s use of TF #2 as moderately explicit and assign a weight of “2” to it when coding a cognitive interview. We would expect now that the third speaker completes the movement described by TF #2 in its entirety. [3] We are suffering from the problem that the previous solution has become the present problem. We thought we had found a solution to hiring staff of the highest quality, using stringent selection. But then it turned out that the entire reward system had to be revamped, because the people we hired scoffed at the ranking they received in terms of compensation. So, we had to commit ourselves to new salary levels, because otherwise we would have lost a good deal of the people we hired. This is why we are now reconsidering hiring less qualified people in some positions, not to get into that kind of quandary. And so the cycle goes on, since who knows what kind of issues the job market will confront us with in the future.

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

63

The last speaker goes directly to the gist of dialectical movement by saying that “the previous solution has become the present problem.” This does not only mean that the previous solution did not work; it implies something about solutions generally: that they tend to stop being solutions and tend to pose problems not initially foreseen. By putting it this way, the speaker implicitly endorses TF #1, unceasing change, and its cyclic character. Continuing, the speaker describes the solution adopted in more detail. The solution had an unforeseen consequence, in that “the entire reward system had to be revamped.” This is the antithesis of the solution, an unforeseen consequence. As the speaker describes the antithesis, it needs to be embraced to contain employee discontent, and this leads to a somewhat unwanted synthesis where his company needs to commit itself to new salary levels. Because the synthesis arrived at turns out to be financially unsatisfactory, the company is now going beyond it, thereby making it into a new thesis. The thesis consists of the consideration “to hire less qualified people in some positions in order not to get into that kind of quandary” again. The speaker clearly indicates that he expects this second thesis to encounter its own antithesis depending on how the job market develops, in which case another cycle of moves in thought (and action) would start up. The reader will agree that the third example embodies a full-blown, explicit usage of TF #2. Not only are all three steps described by the thought form clearly articulated, but it is also seen that due TF #1 being fully implied, the change the solution is trying to stave off is going to continue although it is presently unknown in exactly what form. Contrast to TF #2 TF #2 would seem to capture the central principle of dialectics, whether it applies in the real world or in the domain of thinking. It is based on an elegant and compact notion (that of preservative negation), not only of how things change but how they manage to regenerate themselves across change, in a spiral of antithesis and synthesis. However, TF #2 is only slightly more specific than such a universal principle. Its major emphasis is on moves in thought. Thus, it is not sufficiently complex to characterize systems and constellations since systems comprise not only aspects of process but of context and relationship as well. 27 Open, self-­ transforming systems

Emphasizing the equilibrium and ability of a living system to remain “itself” based on unceasing transformation; pointing to a formal aspect of identity in transformation Contrasts: 2, 22–24

For this reason, TF #27 is named in the table above as a contrast with respect to TF #2, meaning that before you decide to score a text as evidencing TF #2, you ought to play devil’s advocate and have a look at TF #27, and vice versa. In what seems to

64

3  Thought Form Descriptions

be a mere “table lookup,” you actually change your mind as to how to interpret what was said by your interlocutor. ∗ ∗ ∗





Thought Form #3 3 Composition by Emergence of something new through an interchange of interpenetrating opposites, opposites – energy or ideas. Composition of something that correlativity includes its “other” as a necessary ingredient, or as “figure” vs. “ground” Contrasts: 19–22

Thought form #3 is based on both TFs #1 and #2. It presupposes unceasing change no less than the relevance of including the antithesis to a base concept – concept as well as real-world referent – in that concept’s elaboration. However, TF #3 does not emphasize the thesis-antithesis-synthesis movement as much as it focuses on how thoughts and realities get created (composed) through an interchange of ideas or energy. The notion is that two things are relative to each other and are composed of each other’s energy. The relationship between them is a constitutive one in the sense that both constitute and assimilate each other. For instance, the notion of husband is inseparable from that of wife. Without a wife, you are not a husband, only a partner, and vice versa. Similarly in a figure-­ ground relationship (BB 1981, 40): An object’s becoming figural, either in the context of visual perception or in the broader context of presence in consciousness, depends on its being differentiated from the ground against which it stands. Thus, the particular figure which appears is defined (made what it is) by its relation to its ground. Once one has become aware of the figure, one may shift one’s attention to the ground (or to that which is other than the figure). But here too, the ground is defined by the figure. Therefore, the figure and the ground are correlative.

The notion captured by TF #3 is still broader than “figure and ground,” however (BB 1981, 41): The act of asserting something, reflecting upon something, or otherwise making something into a thesis always is a process of differentiating it from that which is other than it. Because this process of assertion (creation of a thesis) is a differentiating process, it always may be seen as creating an antithesis. … The antithesis is that which remains … when the thesis is carved out of a larger whole. Thus the act of thesis making (in the sense of bringing an idea into consciousness) always creates a correlate which is then available to consciousness.

Ultimately, then, TF #3 points to the world that thinking is not capturing, to what is left out by a thought movement. It is a tool for construing and describing composite wholes. However, TF #3 does not emphasize the resulting whole but only the process(es) leading to it. Anything that can be viewed as a synthesis can be viewed as composed of pairs of interpenetrating opposites that created it. This by itself

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

65

drives the movement of thought further to the real-world referent lurking behind the description. Examples [1] Any coaching that has any quality behind it will make you understand that it is a necessary element of what you need to do, to be able to understand that different bosses have different styles in terms of what they like and dislike, and that you need to pay attention to how different executives respond. If you are reporting to somebody who is a screamer, then you have to figure out a way to counteract that. Otherwise, there will be two screamers, and nothing gets done. [2] I think you have a feeling of the world around you and how it works, conscious or not. When there is a change and someone recognizes it, something that was unconscious will suddenly be recognized. You begin to realize that you believed something that you were not even aware of. You would never have found out that you had that view unless there was something opposing it, or a different view to contrast with it. And so you have to thank the other guy for understanding yourself better. You now realize you are propped up by something other than you, in relation to which you are functioning. [3] I am always struck in this organization by the correlation that prevails between people and events, but also just between people and events taken by themselves. There seems to be little that remains in place when a major event such as a change in a C-level position occurs, despite the usual attempts to deny that there is any change going on. Although the interaction is often more pronounced in one direction than another, from the top down, new attitudes in an organization are rarely legislated from above. I’ve seen significant behavior change coming from below as well. For instance, my own boss recently became very much more open to dialog with me when the signals from above were more democratic, so to speak, rather than behaving in an authoritarian way as usual. So, there is a give and take of influences trickling down and trickling up, so to speak, and these energies meet and create something new that couldn’t emerge otherwise and can’t be rendered by linear causalities. Interpretation The first speaker addresses issues captured by TF #3 only weakly. Her notion is that what happens between a boss and a report is based on correlative energies and that therefore, as a report, one cannot respond to one’s boss “in kind.” What gets composed by way of strict correlation of two tempers is a dysfunctional synthesis. The implied notion is, of course, that a synthesis that works includes a true antithesis, here brought about by not screaming. But in the example above, this idea is not developed very far.

66

3  Thought Form Descriptions

The second speaker has a slightly better grasp of what’s involved in TF #3. [2] I think you have a feeling of the world around you and how it works, conscious or not. When there is a change and someone recognizes it, something that was unconscious will suddenly be recognized. You begin to realize that you believed something that you were not even aware of. You would never have found out that you had that view unless there was something opposing it, or a different view to contrast with it. And so you have to thank the other guy for understanding yourself better. You now realize you are propped up by something other than you, in relation to which you are functioning. When a change occurs in your world and an antithesis is thus born, you suddenly realize that in assuming nothing would change or taking something for granted, you had not realized the thesis you were asserting, thus the situation itself that you were in. Once you become aware of a change or a different opinion, you are then forced to acknowledge your view as an assertion that differs from the change that is now occurring (or the opinion that is different from your own). You owe it to the change, or to the articulation of a different opinion, that you now know what your own beliefs are. As a result, “you have to thank the other guy for understanding yourself better.” Here, understanding oneself is seen as being composed of interpenetrating opposites. What you so far took for granted as “my belief” (without knowing it) is really part of a cultural energy field in which your belief is in opposition to other beliefs. It is only through the process of confrontation that you become aware of what you really believe in, since it is different from, if not opposed to, what others believe. In contrast to the first speaker, then, the second speaker has a more differentiated awareness of the reciprocity that characterizes different opinions. The third speaker can be credited with an even more acute awareness of what TF #3 captures. He says: [3] I am always struck in this organization by the correlations that prevail between people and events, but also just between people and events taken by themselves. There seems to be little that remains in place when a major event such as a change in a C-level position occurs. Although the influence is often in one direction, from the top down, new attitudes in an organization are rarely legislated from above. I’ve seen significant behavior change coming from below as well. For instance, my own boss recently became very much more open to dialog with me when the signals from above were more democratic, so to speak, rather than authoritarian as usual. So, there is a give and take of influences trickling down and surging up, and these energies meet and create something new that couldn’t emerge otherwise. The speaker describes events in his organization as an outcome of separate but interpenetrating forces acting on people at different organizational echelons. Changes on one level will inevitably have an impact and reset constellations and opinions, at a lower level. Even those changes that seem to originate “from above” are rarely strictly legislated but have some foundation in work that is done “below.”

67

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

As a result, middle-level managers can open up and turn democratic under the influence of executive-level policy, which then frees up energies at lower levels that so far have been stifled. As seen from the interpretations above, there is an increasingly more accurate expression in the excerpts of the essence of TF #3. Contrasts As noted above, decisions about scoring TF #3 should be checked against thought forms that have a related but different focus. There are three thought forms of class relationship (TFs #19–21) and one thought form from class transformational systems (TF #22) that need to be considered here. The contrasting thought forms  – themselves an example of TF #3 – are as follows: • • • •

R: TF #19 R: TF #20 R: TF #21 T: TF #22 (Table 3.4)

In dialectics, then, we are dealing with a network of concepts, each of which presupposes the other(s). Each concept “lights up” the entire network it is part of, which depends on the level of a thinker’s/speaker’s cognitive development. For every person, concepts form an organized whole, just like the moments, which cannot be ripped apart into isolated entities (although that is how thought forms are listed in a table and learned). In true dialectical fashion, concepts are thus separate but inseparable, just as the pieces of the real world are that human thought is trying to capture. Table 3.4  Contrasts (alternatives) of TF #3 19 Structural aspects of relationship

20 Patterns of interaction in relationships

21 Constitutive, intrinsic relationship (logically prior to what they relate)

22 Limits of stability, harmony, and durability (including quantitative into qualitative changes)

Focusing on what is the formal structure of a relationship (or relationships) to locate the essence of how things are related Contrasts: 4, 15–17, 20–21 Describing a pattern of interaction and influence in a relationship, emphasizing the pattern(s) of interaction between the elements that are in relationship Contrasts: 4, 21 Describing a relationship as “constitutive” or as making the parts it relates what they are. Emphasis on the logical and other priority of the relationship over the elements it relates Contrasts: 2–3, 15–20 Pointing to limits of stability, balance, and durability without making their causes explicit. (Emphasis is on the “negative” aspect of negativity which also has a positive aspect, that of emergence.) Contrasts: 3, 12, 23

68

3  Thought Form Descriptions

The important thing in dealing with contrasting thought forms pragmatically is to ask: “What is truly in focus in this statement?” or “What is the essence of what is being said?” In some cases, more than a single thought form will apply, in which case the scoring is halved between the respective thought forms. But this is an exception rather than the rule. Typically, after sufficient deliberation and through group consensus, a single thought form emerges and can be amply justified (a process well rendered by TF #5). Above, we saw that TF #3 is focused on “composition by interpenetrating opposites.” Although this implies that the two opposites are related, it is a different matter to focus on the mutual influence of opposites or else their relationship. This is simple formal logic: influence is not relationship but implies it. Therefore, as long as the text we are evaluating is not focusing on relationship, asserting it and/or detailing it, we would not want to score a relationship thought form. At first sight, singling out a thought form from among others forming its contrasts or other seems to be an “undialectical” undertaking, giving that no concept is isolated from another. However, the moments are separate as well as inseparable, and it is the moment of their separateness that is in focus when scoring an interview or text in terms of thought forms representing them. Only what has been duly separated can be seen as “inseparable.” In the three excerpts above, while relationship is always involved, the emphasis in all cases is on the mutual influence, or energy field, between two or more parties or entities. What is described is a process, an interchange, not a relationship. This stands in contrast to thought forms #19–21, all of which focally deal with relationships. This also holds for TF #22, where the focus is on potential outcomes of composition by opposites, namely, limits of stability and durability.

Thought Form #4 4 Patterns of interaction

Patterns of motion in interactive relationships with focus on motion. Processes of “give and take” that negate, contradict, critique, and bring about a shift in social reality Contrast: 2, 19–20

Thought form #4 is an extension of TF #3. It focuses on an ongoing interaction as a source of movement, both in thought and reality. As BB (1981, 45) explain in a comment: Here, two parties (say the university and the economy) are viewed as being in an ongoing relationship. The ongoing relationship is viewed as (a) creating a series of basic changes in both the university and the economy (thus the relation is constitutive) at the same time [as] (b) creating a series of transformations in the nature of the relationship. However, throughout the series of changes, the university is recognized as being the university, and the economy as the economy.

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

69

The focus in TF #4, then, is on the pattern of movements that occur and on conceptualizing how exactly movements occur. This emphasis is clearly different both from TF #2 (preservative negation) and a focus on relationship, whether it is described in structural terms (TF #19) or as following a pattern of interaction (TF #20). [1] Most people go through their daily work just doing what is assigned to them. They don’t seem to notice that their jobs are defined on the basis of an interaction between what they do and what people in other parts of the company do. This is really what we call “corporate culture” but nobody ever thinks much about how constantly interactive and patterned it is. [2] I think a lot of people find the interactive nature of work in this company rather appealing. It really means you are dead in the water if you are trying to do things on your own without getting perturbed by what others are doing. Aside from the “feel-good” aspect of collaboration, there is a deep structural necessity involved. In order to do a good job you really need to be aware of who you are interacting with, and in this sense everybody is your “client.” You will be much more effective if you are willing to respond to others’ priorities and allow yourself to get changed by them. [3] It’s not easy to be open to interactions in this company. We don’t have a culture that focuses on mental growth through a continuing process of mutual contribution. There is such a rigid hierarchical structure in place that the influences and energies all seem to derive from the top. It is as if processes become frozen in most people’s thinking. This often bereaves people of the opportunity to act spontaneously, and follow their perception of what is needed, not only on their own level of accountability, but also at lower or higher levels. As a result, interaction between people and teams often only occurs at a local level, and movement that should have an influence upwards and downwards gets bogged down, and no real change or transformation ever seems to occur. It is as if we were moving in place all the time. Interpretation The first speaker is only pointing to the interactive character of corporate culture, whereas the second speaker elaborates corporate culture further. Most emphatic is the third speaker. Dealing with the same issue more critically than positively, he regrets the absence of an awareness of interaction and the series of changes and transformations it typically produces in a lively give and take in the flow of work. In the last sentence, the third speaker even moves a little bit into a context perspective, pointing to some of the structural underpinnings of the lack of interaction and spontaneity he perceives. However, this excursion into context is not at the center of his attention. The speaker’s articulation is much closer to TF #6, which is critical of any attempt to arrest motion, either in thought or reality:

70

3  Thought Form Descriptions

6 Critique of arresting motion and process (reification)

Assertion of the relevance of motion, and critique of denying, hiding, or disavowing change. What exists cannot be isolated from unceasing change since it is a form, not a thing Contrasts: 7, 28

The third quote is an example for the case in which two thought forms of the same class may be candidates for scoring. While context and relationship are not at issue here, one might indeed argue that since TF #4 is primarily used from a critical perspective, the movement in thought in [3] might better be scored as exemplifying TF #6. The reification that is commented upon does not seem to be primarily one of thought but of reality itself. However, as the speaker makes quite clear, the corporate culture s(he) is describing is rooted in the thinking that takes place and is encouraged in the organization in question. Ultimately, the absence of spontaneity is grounded in the absence, in thought, of ongoing processes of interaction. A more forceful expression of TF #4 in excerpt [3] would look like this (adapted from BB 1981, 46): Individuals and society clearly are in constant interaction so that what one perceives as defining an individual is largely mediated by the society the individual is in. Take the way education works. Here, the process is rather cyclical. Society works on the individual who works on society. One maintains one’s sense of self and purpose through this working on [and in] society. You realize your deepest potential through this constructive reworking of society. And you arrive at a position in which to do this through using those educative techniques which society has forced you through.

Contrasts Decisions to score a particular thought form should be checked against alternative scorings. In the case of TF #4, the contrasts to consider are as follows: • P: TF #2 • R: TF #19 • R: TF #20 (Table 3.5) Table 3.5  Contrasts (alternatives) of TF #4 2

Preservative negation, Seeing change as the canceling, including, and transcending of inclusion of antithesis what exists, leading to differentiation of events and situations (non-A) through inclusion of what they exclude and resulting in opening up hidden dimensions in conceptual space Contrast: 27 19 Structural aspects of Focusing on what is the formal structure of a relationship (or relationship relationships) in order to locate the essence of how things are related Contrasts: 4, 15–17, 20–21 20 Patterns of interaction Describing a pattern of interaction and influence in a relationship, in relationships emphasizing the pattern(s) of interaction between the elements that are in relationship Contrasts: 4, 21

71

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

TF #4 is an elaboration of TF #2 in that the relationship between a thesis and an antithesis can give rise to a pattern, where the interaction itself is a momentary synthesis that, however insufficiently, renders the antithetical, back and forth, movement. In contrast to TF #19, TF #4 does not unravel the structural aspect of the relationship between thesis and antithesis, whether it be one between thoughts or between thought and reality. It also is not primarily focused on relationship in the sense of what intrinsically binds different elements to a common ground, as focused on in TF #20. ∗ ∗ ∗





Thought Form 5 5 Active, practical nature of knowledge

Active (questing) and practical (rather than passive) character of knowledge; knowledge as always “under construction,” never absolute Contrast: 23

Thought form #5 applies the notion of interactive process to human knowledge and, by extension, to human work. This thought form makes a content distinction for the purpose of emphasizing not only the active but the practical character of knowledge, its function of absenting absences in the real world (doing away with absences in the form of need, desire, and any other kind of lack that might occur). For the dialectical worldview, not only its Marxian but its adult developmental version, this is an important aspect of process since it points to the opportunity of a human being to realize his or her potential through (knowledge-based) work. Especially in the context of this book, where theory of cognitive development and theory of work as exercise of reflective judgment go hand in hand, the notion of work is not simply that of delivering a performance or producing outputs. Rather, work is the process of realizing an adult’s potential capability, an aspect of work paid only lip service to in a capitalistic society (and then with an arbitrary focus on leadership). The practical character of knowledge has another facet not focused on in TF #5 but rather belonging to the class of transformational systems (T). The systemic notion of work is that human beings are fully embedded in the physical and social real worlds and are therefore causative agents that can bring about changes, whether negatively (e.g., global warming) or positively (e.g., democratizing social reality). 23 Value of conflict leading in Value of the conflict itself and the resolution of conflict in a a developmental direction developmental or transformational direction, leading to dissolution of older forms and systems Contrasts: 2, 22, 24

72

3  Thought Form Descriptions

While this does not necessarily take the form of encountering or resolving conflict, as in TF #23, work can be seen as the unceasing resolution of absences in the world, thus a form of remediation. Sometimes, these absences surface as conflict and sometimes not. (Marx focused his critique of capitalism on outer “class conflict” rather than inner conflict. However, he showed in his famous analysis of man-­ produced goods as fetish why and how class conflict gets reflected in people internally, both in their thinking and emotions.) TF #5, then, has a special affinity with TF #23 but should not be mistaken for it. TF #5 is not systemic and therefore belongs in class P, not T. It focuses on human agency in a nonsystemic way, emphasizing that: • Knowledge is by nature an active quest, thus constructive or critical (in contrast to a mere receipt, downloading, or scrolling of information) • Knowledge is by nature always under construction, thus never absolute • Knowledge is a way of doing away with absences, whatever social and cultural forms they may take As BB view it (1981, 48): [TF #5] applies when thinking on the knowing process becomes conscious of itself. … First of all there is a close connection between the epistemological primacy of motion (TF #1) and the notions of knowledge as active and practical since … both action and knowledge connote motion. [This implies] a rejection of views which deny the primacy of motion in knowledge by viewing knowledge as imposed on the knower in a form determined by an already statically lawful environment. Also, viewing human beings playing a constructive part in the development of knowledge is connected to understanding the motion in knowledge as based on interaction. This makes motion in knowledge susceptible of being grasped by TFs 2–4.

In detail, three aspects of knowledge are focused on by TF #5 (BB 1981, 49): 1. Knowledge is a result of the interaction of ideas with each other. 2. Transformation of knowledge takes place via interaction of what is previously known with new empirical data that is collected (Piaget’s assimilation and accommodation). 3. The ongoing interaction between person and environment is one of mutual change (TF #4) in which human action changes the environment and changes in the environment occasion new organizations of action and motion in human knowledge. Examples [1] We built the business by functioning as a team, stimulating a lot of debate. I like to bring myself right down into what my co-workers are doing. Everyone functions somewhat autonomously, and they all know what their mission is. And as long as we are all clear regarding the mission, I don’t need to be with them on a day-by-day basis. But there are cases where I literally need to sit down and go through an analysis with somebody, and just provide another opinion on other

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

73

ways of looking at things. I am a colleague of yours, so let me help you figure out what we are doing here. [2] People find it hard, I think, to make a distinction between information and knowledge. One is static, and the other is thoroughly dynamic. Knowledge is also often very personal and derives not only from an interaction with data, but with other people. It’s really the fact that people interact with each other, each of them with a different kind of knowledge they bring that creates actionable knowledge. And while in most cases there is a specific paradigm behind the knowledge exchange that makes ideas similar, there is still enough conflicting movement between ideas to come up with surprising insights at times, and these can then easily turn a long-accepted paradigm on its head. [3] We could boast a higher effectiveness here if we paid more attention to how actionable is the analytical knowledge that we are using in great quantity in our organization. This knowledge is often not very unified, and quite atomistic, so it’s rather “information,” not knowledge or insight. And how do you transform such information into knowledge? Only by using it, trying it out, seeing where it leads. So, the struggle is to find the pieces of knowledge that are actionable, and to honor the fact that those pieces alone are real knowledge. Such knowledge enables people to make changes in themselves and outside of themselves, and to produce a constant kind of growth. And that would seem to me to be what real knowledge is all about. “Strategies,” for instance, are mere abstractions, abstract hypotheses, and only executing them brings them closer to knowledge of what works and what doesn’t. Interpretation The first speaker focuses on the interactive and practical knowledge in a rather direct way, naming teamwork and “sitting down with the guys” as his procedure of work. There is little indication that the speaker understands the intrinsically transformational nature of knowledge that TF #5 captures. The second speaker is emphatic when it comes to distinguishing information from knowledge. In her view, the first is static, not dynamic, a sure way to remain thinking about knowledge in terms of formal logic rather than dialectic (since the latter requires one to see knowledge as under construction). By dynamic the speaker means “actionable,” thus stressing the practical aspect in knowledge. In addition, she strongly includes the notion of conflict of ideas, aware that such conflict can lead to transformations of knowledge and thus can topple long-accepted paradigms, which would start another cycle of research. The third speaker is also emphatic about the contrast between knowledge and information. Information per se is not useful since it does not lead to insight. This speaker, too, retains a rather static, instrumentalist notion of knowledge, speaking of “finding pieces of information that are actionable” to acquire knowledge. However, she is more of a dialectical thinker in that she understands that it enables people “to make changes in themselves and outside of themselves, and to produce a constant

74

3  Thought Form Descriptions

kind of growth.” Rightfully, she sees strategies as mere abstractions as long as they are not implemented and used. It would seem to fall under the discretion of the coder whether s(he) wanted to give a weight of “2” (moderate use of TF #5) or “3” (strong use of TF #5) to the last two segments. The highest level of use of this thought form is found in the following segment (BB 1981, 51): I think students tend to begin, or at least they come here, with a set of abstractions that are fairly thin. One of the things I am always doing is to get them to see where these abstractions come from, what purposes they serve, the defenses and strategies that they may in fact be – that they are not a blueprint for the way the world is, but our way of making sense. If they can do that then they get some sense of complexity; they see that the structures need to be flexible and that they are ones that we make. I am not trying to do away with abstractions, but make them more earned, more self-conscious to students when they apply these abstractions.

“Earning the abstractions” is an apt way of articulating the dialectical view of knowledge, which is a transformational one. Often, not even development theory, in its use of concepts like “stage” and others, is, alas, managing to think in the spirit of TF #5. Contrasts As we have seen, while there is a link between TFs #5 and #23, the latter is not only focused on conflict leading in a developmental direction but is also meta-systemic (dealing with systems of systems). While the practical agency of knowledge in resolving conflict and dissolving old societal forms is always implied, TF #23 conveys, and applies to, a much broader transformational view of reality than TF #5. 23 Value of conflict leading in Value of the conflict itself and the resolution of conflict in a a developmental direction developmental or transformational direction, leading to dissolution of older forms and systems Contrasts: 2, 22, 24

Specifically, TF #23 focuses on the step from the thesis to an antithesis and thus endorses the value of conflict that this step may entail. TF #23 already presupposes a firm understanding of thought forms of class relationship, which is absent from TF #5.

∗ ∗ ∗



Section 1: Process Thought Forms

75

Thought Form #6 We encountered TF #6 briefly above. This thought form presupposes all those we have discussed and draws conclusions from them. Acknowledging unceasing change and its consequences turns the mind to thinking critically. A critical thinker avoids “casting things in cement,” knowing full well that they have a history and, in most cases, a future and that in reality we are dealing with unfolding forms, not things. TF #6 emphasizes that this applies to thought as well and that any hypostatization of an idea, which casts it as something absolute and beyond error and empirical test, is therefore counterproductive. It only limits mental space and narrows the conceptual field that base concepts open up and roam in. 6 Critique of arresting motion and process (reification)

Assertion of the relevance of motion, and critique of denying, hiding, or disavowing change. What exists cannot be isolated from unceasing change since it is a form, not a thing Contrasts: 7, 28

Here are some examples of thinking by which objectified or reified phenomena are constructed (BB 1981, 53): • Casting a process as a thing (e.g., a baseball game) • Viewing what is changing as if it were not (e.g., a river) • Viewing what is created by human activity as separate from the process of its creation (e.g., as a commodity) • Viewing an abstraction or a mental construct as real, substantive, and concrete (e.g., a person’s IQ) • Regarding a form as existing independently of the processes that created it (e.g., a cloud) • Viewing something’s nature as separate from its relations (e.g., a dollar) • Giving material expression to ideas, capabilities, and relationships through activity and production (e.g., an artist’s ideas and capabilities in a painting) The reader will object that this is what language “does anyway.” Not so. While indeed some languages are better at articulating process than others  – English is quite impoverished in this regard, and German even more so – there is always a way in which a thoughtful speaker can maintain and convey an awareness of motion, process, and change. According to research by Nisbett (2005), the critique offered by TF #6 is more deeply ingrained in Asian thinking touched by Chinese culture than in Aristotelian Western cultures whose thinking originates in ancient Greece. Nisbett demonstrates the presence of an elementary dialecticism, not only in Asian thinking but also in the perception of Asian individuals that is absent in the West. The three principles of dialectic, that of holism, contradiction, and change, are firmly ingrained in Asian thinking. This extends to how individuals view visual scenes.

76

3  Thought Form Descriptions

In Western cultures, we tend to focus on objects in our environment since we were taught to classify them by their logical “attributes.” Children are taught remnants of ontological thinking by their mothers, as anybody can witness when observing how mothers talk to children. As a consequence, when we look at a fish tank, what we see is only a small part of the tank, namely, the objects swimming in it, the fish. However, Asian individuals tend to take in the entire environment, including water, plants, air bubbles, and stones that make up a fish tank, and even its physical environment. This is what TF #6 is all about. It alerts us that objects or things are really forms that seamlessly fit into the larger environment they are part of and that if we focus on forms as things we are arresting the natural motion they are embedded in. The focus of TF #6 is not only to avoid but to expose objectification, reification, and hypostatization for the sake of understanding reality more deeply. The process required for doing so is reflection. In the social world, a good example is the almighty dollar (BB 1981, 54): The dollar is an abstraction, a human creation, a referent to a set of human trade relations, a unit of value in the process of changing its value. However, when people in government print a dollar bill they are actually reifying the dollar in the sense of giving it material existence as a concrete thing. To expose reification of the dollar would be to look at the dollar bill and to be aware and communicate awareness of this process of reification that created it.

Examples [1] What our executive team suffers from most is the way that its members look at their mandate as if was set in stone. The notion is that the company is structured in terms of “departments” and “divisions,” and if you take that on faith, you end up with silos that do not communicate with each other. But these silos are really objectifications of processes that are companywide. So, the real task of a good team coach is to make these guys realize that, instead of hanging on to their notion of separate responsibilities, they need to care more about what their function is relative to other “departments.” But since their reputation and pay is based on being separate, that’s very hard to do. What is worse is that the notion of “my silo” also leads to separate world views that are unshakable, where we encounter the impossibility of holding more than a single viewpoint at a time. [2] A lot of people don’t see me as a risk taker. But this is a bland, benign environment proud of not moving, not being exciting or cosmopolitan. I don’t think I am at the leading edge of risk taking, but the company is too risk-averse for my taste. It’s not culturally diverse. It’s slow to react to changes in the marketplace. This slowness has a lot to do with risk tolerance. While this company believes that it merely avoids trends and fads, it was actually the inability to react quickly that kept them out of trouble. But that only works for so long. The company avoided a lot of disasters by not moving, but what they see as “not moving” is different from moment to moment. And as president, I would change that proce-

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

77

dure, and make people aware that we are only kidding ourselves by thinking that it is wise not to move. [3] I think the temptation to see events as objects and isolated from each other is built into our language. The assumption there is that you have nouns and verbs, where the verbs define the changes or actions that things (nouns) undergo. And so, it becomes easy to kid yourself that by just describing things you are really capturing the essence of what defines them. In reality, it’s quite the other way around, where there are only processes, but most of them are changing so slowly that they seem to be non-existent. And language can’t really describe this movement accurately, except perhaps through poetry since it’s not linear. I think that’s why great poetry can be so powerful. It captures tiny as well as immense movements through what’s beyond nouns and verbs, a whole different dimension …. And once you adopt a more “poetic” way of speaking you begin to see that disavowing change is only a lame way out of thinking hard. Interpretation 6 Critique of arresting motion and process (reification)

Assertion of the relevance of motion, and critique of denying, hiding, or disavowing change. What exists cannot be isolated from unceasing change since it is a form, not a thing Contrasts: 7, 28

All three excerpts above focus on the difficulty of avoiding making things out of processes or forms in transformation. All point to the thinking that is behind objectification and the results of conceiving of reality as a static context rather than reality in motion. The speaker in the third excerpt sees the main cause of hypostatization in language itself, the notion that verbs are subordinate to nouns and describe what things “do,” rather than “are,” as nouns do. All speakers agree that viewing reality as being static blinds one to the change that unceasingly goes on. In organizations, that leads to a kind of mental suffocation, a constriction of the mental space of work. The first speaker is critical of conceiving of organizations as static contexts definable in terms of separate silos rather than interacting processes and functions, while the second speaker demonstrates that by not acknowledging and appreciating change, a company is threatened in its survival in the long run. Only the third speaker is more explicit about what the movement that is buried by way of objectification looks like, thereby taking a small step toward TF #7 that articulates embedding in process. As indicated above, before scoring TF #6, it is advisable to compare it to two related but contrasting thought forms, TF #7 and TF #28. As we will see below, TF #7 deals directly with the embedding of situations and constellations in large-scale, overarching processes, while TF #28 is systemic, pointing to ongoing transformations. TF #6 and TF #28 both critique the one-sidedness of abstractions but have a different scope.

78

3  Thought Form Descriptions

28 Integration of multiple perspectives to define complex realities; critique of formalism

Critiquing the one-sidedness of abstractions; preserving concreteness and realism by juxtaposing one or more perspectives on the same subject matter. Critique of “formalistic” thinking that separates structure from content and of conceptual hubris pretending to represent realities fully by man-made concepts (nominalism) Contrasts: 2, 6, 16

TF #6 refers to the process of arresting motion, while TF #28 asserts that for the sake of preserving concreteness and realism in one’s thinking one needs to gather different perspectives on one and the same subject matter. When kept in view, these perspectives can be “jived” with one another, almost in the way that one needs to walk around a sculpture to see it in its fullness. While TF #28 is systemic, TF #6 is not. TF #28 would be scored only if there is evidence that a speaker had a sufficient grasp not only of process but of context and relationship as well. In dialectical thinking, “system” is an unfolding form, not a closed entity. In what sense, then, are TF #7 and TF #28 contrasts of TF #6? In TF #7, the emphasis lies on ongoing processes, while in TF #28, process, context, and relationship are all required. In addition, TF #28 expresses a comprehensively “critical” view of all types of formalisms by which structure and method are separated from content. TF #28 carries the message “you must reframe a situation, etc., in terms of all four Moments, to be sure to grasp its true meaning.” By contrast, TF #6 only says: “take into account that everything is in constant motion.” Contrasts In the case of TF #6, the contrasts to consider are as follows: • P: TF #7 • R: TF #28 (Table 3.6)

Table 3.6  Contrasts (alternatives) of TF #6 7

Embedding in process, movement

Focus on the fact that what exists is embedded in an ongoing process or motion, with the past and future as an aspect of the present Contrasts: 3–4, 6 28 Integration of multiple [1] Preserving concreteness and realism by juxtaposing or perspectives to define complex integrating different perspectives on the same subject realities; critique of formalism matter [2] Critique of formalistic thinking that separates structure from content and of the associated conceptual hubris of pretending to represent realities fully by man-made concepts (nominalism) Contrasts: 2, 6, 16

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

79

In TF #7, the emphasis is not on the fact that processes can’t be arrested without distorting reality but that everything is in process (under construction). TF #28 presupposes and implies TF #7. Its focus of attention is on the need for entertaining multiple perspectives on one and the same subject matter, and further, to avoid thinking in formalisms, which is unavoidable when structure or method are separated from content. Concepts then run amok without any relationship to what they refer to in the real world, or any sense of the depth that the referred-to content embodies. ∗∗∗





Thought Form #7 7 Embedding in process, movement

Focus on the fact that what exists is embedded in an ongoing process or motion, with the past and future as an aspect of the present Contrasts: 3–4, 6

Thought form #7 implies all previous thought forms of class process, putting the focus on the larger processes and motions in which what exists is embedded. The emphasis in uses of this thought form is on processes, not relationships. TF #7 is associated with a “developmental” and “historical” explanation of things as an alternative to linear causal explanations. The essence of TF #1, pointing to unceasing change, comes to full fruition in this thought form. Detailing this point, BB say (1981, 57): Whereas causal explanation can be viewed as understanding events as necessary “effects” of specific “causes” against a background of “fixed laws,” a dialectical – developmental or historical – explanation can be viewed as understanding events as “moments” against a background of basic ongoing motion and change. The term “moment” refers to a recognizable interval within a process of ongoing motion or change.

Here BB capture the essence of process descriptions based on TF #7 by introducing the notion of moment. This notion refers to an element of an overarching process in which a specific event is linked to both prior and subsequent events. A moment (1981, 57–58): • Refers to other events occurring over a broader time span than linear causal explanations • Points to prior and subsequent events (not only to earlier ones) • Emphasizes the event’s conformity to a law that applies to a class of similar events • Makes direct reference to processes of which the event is a part • Compares or contrasts a present moment with a prior event, by describing the motion of which it is a part • Communicates the expectation of further change, explicitly or implicitly

80

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Accordingly, describing an event as preceding another one suffices to place the event into the context of a larger-scale motion. I stated above that the logic within a class of thought forms, such as process, is one of increasing complexity as well as leading on to the next following class of thought forms. This can be seen by considering TF #7. Not only does this thought form encapsulate all prior thought forms of class process, but it also forms a bridge to the next following class, of context, for two reasons: 1. Understanding events as moments of a larger process reinforces TF #6 and foreshadows the interpretation of a phenomenon as an organized whole. The focus on an encompassing whole is characteristic of context thought forms, all of which have to do with grasping the nature of such wholes. 2. There is an important connection between TF #7 and treating wholes as systems, as well as the loss of meaning associated with analysis into parts (BB 1981, 59). If you take an “objective” view of embedding in process, you can envision an organized whole. Contrasts TF #7 is focused on events and situations behaving like moments in a larger process in which they are embedded. It is not a systemic thought form, however, since it does not deal with entire systems as forms or considers their transformational nature. While there is an implicit reference to organized wholes, which will become central in context, nothing is asserted about such wholes by seeing single events as part of ongoing embedding processes. As holds for all thought forms, TF #7 is linked to thought forms in its own class and those representing other moments. In scoring TF #7 it is therefore important to keep its contrasts in mind. (Table 3.7) • TF #3 focuses on the interpenetration of opposites in emerging events and situations, but not on their embedding in a larger process. Table 3.7  Contrasts (alternatives) of TF #7 3 Composition by interpenetrating opposites, correlativity

4 Patterns of interaction

6 Critique of arresting motion and process (reification)

Emergence of something new through an interchange of opposites – energy or ideas. Composition of something that includes its “other” as a necessary ingredient, or as “figure” vs. “ground” Contrasts: 19–22 Patterns of motion in interactive relationships with focus on motion. Processes of “give and take” that negate, contradict, critique, and bring about a shift in social reality Contrast: 2, 19–20 Assertion of the relevance of motion, and critique of denying, hiding, or disavowing change. What exists cannot be isolated from unceasing change since it is a form, not a thing Contrasts: 7, 28

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

81

• TF #4 focuses on patterns of movement created by ongoing interaction. • TF #6 critiques the neglect of ongoing processes which are frozen into either isolated entities or hypostatized ideas. Because of their different focus, none of these can stand in for TF #7. Examples [1] When you get out of college you are quite perturbed because the real world has evolved and just isn’t what they tell you there. In fact, the college is itself part of this world but is late in recognizing that fact. You might as well come out of a monastery. You first go through a period of disenchantment with the world (rather than with yourself), and you need some time to “rebound,” so to speak, to get into some kind of balance where “college” and “real world” live in some, however fragile, balance. [2] For me as an anchor man, the issue is how I can report on what’s happening in the world without stopping the process we are always in that never stops. How can one report about an event without just making a shallow linear causal connection to something that happened last year? That just doesn’t capture the larger reaches of historical motion where the past and the future are both parts of the present. Even the term “news” is mistaken in this regard because it isolates a piece of the stream. And when we speak of being “carried by history,” we neglect the single event that has its own authenticity. [3] You can get a better sense of where this company stands now if you understand how it developed. We have to look at the history of the market segment we are serving [banking]. Even twenty years ago, the notion that computers could define the infrastructure of banking would have sounded ludicrous. So, banking has to be seen in the context of the digital “revolution,” where what was previously a static entity hierarchically related to other entities (such as departments) now is simply an element of a larger, ongoing process. This conception of banking is not of type “if A then B,” not even “if and only if A then B.” What we rather need is a kind of developmental accounting of the history of banking. There are no discrete events. What we see is rather the continuation of a spasm. Cause-effects chains don’t explain anything, they just describe some surface phenomenon and know nothing of disequilibrium. The first speaker sets disappointment in the real world against a background of ongoing motion indicated by the term “rebounding.” Graduates’ disappointment is understood by placing it in the context of the prior moment of their being college students, and a projected subsequent moment of reaching a point of equilibrium (BB 1981, 60). The second speaker is aware of the embedding of events in the historical flow. It is difficult for a reporter to do justice both to the flow and the authenticity and uniqueness of single events embedded in the flow.

82

3  Thought Form Descriptions

The third speaker evokes historical explanation as a way of understanding what is going on in an organization. The way computers have changed banking cannot be understood in terms of linear causal explanations because it is the result of very many factors both on the side of technology and of its use by human beings. The speaker emphasizes a contrast of the situation of banking with today’s banking culture. “There are no discrete events” means that there are only historical moments embedded in an ongoing stream of change, and these moments cannot be adequately captured by linear causal explanations. This concludes the discussion of individual process thought forms.

∗∗∗



Thought Forms as Mind Openers Above, I have explored the process moment of dialectic through a finite set of thought forms that are increasingly able to render its essence. The reader can now envision in more detail what it means to provoke, and listen for, such thought forms in cognitive interviews. “However, provoking and listening for dialectical thought forms used by interlocutors in semi-structured interviews are only two ways of using such forms.” An even more potent way of using them is to employ them as instruments in conversations generally, especially in coaching and consulting, mediation, psychotherapy, and other social services. It is not hard to imagine how each of the seven thought forms discussed above can be “translated,” as it were, into probing questions, questions that challenge an interlocutor to broaden his or her conceptual field. Below, I list four examples of such questions for each of the seven process thought forms discussed above. This is a finite list that could be substantially expanded in terms of different thought contents. Dialectical thought forms introduce a different kind of coaching than heretofore practiced. They are the bedrock of cognitive-developmental coaching. This field is presently poorly developed since the notion of “cognitive” coaching is still entirely behavioral. It does not include an awareness of epistemic stance or dialectical tools but fancies that just focusing on how behavior is initiated by thinking will be sufficient to change it. Only the behavioral aspect of thinking, not its dialectical structure, is being considered. As soon as we transcend formal logical thinking (including abductive thinking), we enter a much broader domain of cognitively structured discourse than either cognitive-behavioral therapy or cognitive coaching have discovered. This book provides a reasoned basis for cognitive-developmental coaching, if not for cognitive-­ behavioral coaching as well. The broadening of communication from logical to dialectical cognition has its model in the way Socrates undertook to question young people in Athens 2,500 years ago. Socrates felt that the old mythological ways of thinking were unable to

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

83

capture the momentous changes of his time. He was sentenced to death for doing so, since it was seen as a subversive activity. Luckily, it has remained subversive to this very day (Table 3.8). Table 3.8  Process thought forms as mind openers Thought form class Process 1  Unceasing movement

2  Preservative negation, inclusion of antithesis

3  Interpenetrating positives, correlativity

4  Patterns of interaction

5  Practical, active knowledge

Ways of challenging interlocutors’ thinking (a) What complications might arise from the fact that the situation you describe is in constant flux? (b) What would happen if this situation changed further, as it has changed before? (c) What is gained by assuming that this situation will remain stable? (d) In what way is this situation determined by past events or trends foretelling the future? (a) Is there something we might be excluding, conceptually and in terms of the real world, that would be important to include, so we have a broader picture of how this situation might develop further? (b) What emerges when you take other, similar, situations into account? (c) Can you discern a countertendency to what you have been describing? (d) What might be the process of integrating this countertendency into the situation to manage the change that is occurring? (a) How does this situation come to pass considering the contradictory influences in the environment? (b) Which of the aspects of the situation are “figure” and which are “ground”? (c) In what way is what you are describing (A) partly or entirely owed to what is antithetical to it (non-A)? (d) Might these events or findings be in correlation to each other? (a) Is there a pattern to the interaction between these two events, situations, persons, and ideas? (b) Is there a pattern of influence that you can discern? (c) What are the shifts in energy (political or other) that are involved here? (d) Is there a pattern to the movements for and against that you can discern? (a) How could we strengthen our insight into this matter by involving others, another person, group, etc.? (b) What other ideas or new data can we bring to bear on this issue? (c) How can we apply this theory in practice? (d) What would a more workable theory have to account for? (continued)

84

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Table 3.8 (continued) Thought form class 6  Critique of arresting motion and process (reification)

7  Embedding in process, movement

Ways of challenging interlocutors’ thinking (a) Might we be simplifying the topic by assuming we are dealing with fixed entities (aspects), rather than something undergoing unceasing change? (b) What emerges if we look at this as a historical process, with us in the middle of it? (c) Are we falling prey to abstractions, or “things, that blind us to the process that is going on? (d) How would you trace this result to the process it emerged from? (a) Would it be more enlightening to understand this event (situation) as part of a larger process? (b) What is the historical or political environment this event/ situation is embedded in? (c) What have been some of the precursors of this situation or event? (d) What consequences might this event or situation have, looked at long-term?

Section Summary In this section of Chap. 3, we have explored the process moment of dialectic in terms of thought forms used to think about the world as undergoing constant change, however unnoticeably. This vantage point is ingrained in Asian but not in Western Aristotelian thinking. This is deplorable because the cost of missing this aspect of the real is truly huge. The cost is more easily grasped by mature adults for whom change has become a constant and tomorrow is therefore an adventure. We have seen that, as announced by TF #2, the motor of this change is preservative negation, not only in human thinking but in the real world. In terms of preservative negation, nothing suddenly emerges or disappears from the world. Rather, what seems to vanish is held in an extended memory store – memory or history – where it gives rise to newly emerging thoughts and entities that manifest a higher level of development, or else a reversal of development, compared to the previous state of things. This naturally leads to the notion of composition by interpenetrating opposites and further to the search for patterns of interaction that can be analyzed and described. Doing so is an active pursuit, not a contemplative one, and is a hallmark of human knowledge and human agency. Since humans are fully rooted in the physical world, they can “change” it in ways that have potentially strong repercussions although it may take some time to be felt by them (e.g., global warming). Accordingly, arresting motion and casting ideas in cement are counterproductive

Section 1: Process Thought Forms

85

and only ideologically useful for short stretches of time. The truth will eventually make itself felt, and all the gaps reality is punctuated by will eventually be filled with new, fresh reality. As a result, linear causality, however broadly conceived, is only a thin scientific veil cast over the real world and will in time manifest its insufficiency. Practice Reflections • How do thought forms of type process change your view of working with adults in coaching and/or consulting? • What kind of tools that originate in the process moment can you offer a person in coaching or consulting? • How do you formulate probing questions that embody thought forms as mind openers? • In what way does the notion of antithesis as referring to a real-world referent rather than just another concept change your thinking? • In your view, what epistemic position does an individual minimally have to hold to think in terms of TFs #6 or #7? • When considered in process terms, what is the meaning of change management? • How are you going to go about challenging the fixed ideas and static entities you are encountering to do justice to TF #6? • How are you going to rethink “coaching effects” from the point of view of TF #7? • What are the consequences of adopting TF #7 in formulating social policy? Exercises 1. Explain each of the process thought forms in your own terms, including their sequencing in the table. 2. Give an example of some of the process thought forms from your own life, pointing to the benefit of adopting them to refine your thinking. 3. Report about the thinking of a client in terms of his or her lack of awareness of the process moment. 4. What is the difference between TF #2 and TF #3? 5. What is the transformational equivalent of TF #2 and why? 6. What is the transformational equivalent of TF #7 and why? 7. Which of the process thought forms most emphatically refers to reality as an organized whole? 8. What makes TF #6 “revolutionary”? 9. How would you describe the hidden dimensions pointed to by TF #1? 10. How could the adoption of TF #7 promote productive ideas about global warming?

86

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Section 2: Context Thought Forms In the Dialectical Thought Form Framework, context is the epistemological equivalent of Bhaskar’s “first moment” (1M), a term that “fastens on to the transcendentally necessary stratification and differentiation of the world entailing concepts of causal powers and generative mechanisms, … natural necessity and natural kinds” (1993, 392). Context is a flat and abstract representation of what is mindlessly referred to as “reality” which, in ordinary thinking, is without layers and hidden dimensions and often equated with the human-created “data world.” In terms of Bhaskar’s ontology, “context” refers to actuality (as far as empirically known), which is placed at a long distance from ontological reality (Bhaskar 1979). From a more holistic and totalizing perspective as taught by this manual, “context” does not need to remain pure abstraction. When illuminated by process and relationship thought forms, its parts and components turn out to be elements of holons. When remediated by transformational thought forms, context can, in the thinker’s understanding, come close to being the systemic foundation of transformational systems. It is up to the thinker whether s(he) wants to waddle in abstractions (as logical thinking does) or develop an ontologically deeper understanding of context, drawing on all DTF thought forms and thus re-totalizing context. From the start, therefore, “context thinking,” considered dialectically, has stark limitations since the thinker forgets that s(he) is acting, speaking, and thinking from a position constellated within an overarching reality that must be thought to become “visible” – what Bhaskar refers to as “intransitive” and what Archer views as the (social) antecedents of human agency. Epistemologically, thinking is always “about” something, and it is this “about,” this reference, that is referred to by context thought forms, most often in an insufficiently complex way. When viewing context in terms of Bhaskar’s 1M (first moment), it becomes clear that what context thinkers refer to as “things,” whether they are physical, social, or mental configurations (situations, events, data sets, knowledge bases, etc.), completely hides from them the ontological deep structures they intend to investigate. Not even Basseches’ term form, meant to indicate that something is “alive” and in unceasing transformation, captures no more than the surface of 1M reality. Ontologically, “form” points to the generative mechanism underlying an open (rather than a closed) system. For this reason, context thought forms per se are unable to transcend Bhaskar’s actuality – that what is “right before you” and is “the case.” It is only when context is thought about as being in unceasing transformation and its elements are thus “re-totalized” that dialectical insights emerge. It is then understood that, as a totality, context cannot be reconstructed from its parts because it precedes them. One might say, then, that contexts, confined to their epistemological meaning, are assumed realities awaiting (scientific) validation and/or deep dialectical thinking. This is so since they not only get transformed from the outside but constantly transform themselves internally, and this is not captured by context thought forms per se but requires a synthesis of all four moments of dialectic. It is therefore risky

87

Section 2: Context Thought Forms

Process [P]

Context [C]

Relationship [R] Transformational System [T]

Fig. 3.2  The four moments of dialectic

to “cast contexts in cement” or hypostatize them. They are only the peak of an ontological iceberg that can be grasped only by using all four classes of thought forms. For example, life is alive only as long as its form holds up, whether we speak of a flower or a human body. There is something mysterious about that, no less than the mystery of esthetic forms. When I am deathly ill, processes that are out of control (from a rational medical point of view) begin to encroach upon my organ systems, and since these are inextricably related, I am at risk of losing my form. Eventually, my body will succumb to this encroachment, my form will no longer hold changes in balance, and it will dissolve. Death is the ultimate de-totalization. In the figure below, context is shown as referring to systems in their (seemingly) stable form which only very weakly indicates their transformational nature. For this reason, context is shown as an outcome of transformation as well as the input to it (see the arrows out of T into C) – a snake that bites its own tail (Fig. 3.2). For a dialectical thinker, systems are in an emphatic sense open, “living” systems although they may initially. They form part of an ecology, and this ecology itself is a form. Living systems are stable only to the extent that they are open to seeking new kinds of equilibrium. It is the formal aspect of their identity that is thematic in context. Thinking in terms of context is a constructive rather than critical by nature. Before there is something, there is nothing to be critical of. In contrast to class T of thought forms, context focuses on systems that are largely stable over time, but of course, only seemingly so. In everyday speech, we tend to be blind to, or consciously abstract from, their transformational nature. This is why context thought forms lend themselves to describing systems as closed or transformationally dead. Context allows for statistical feasts within a data world. It is only when we take the process and relationship moments into account that the veneer of stability vanishes from systems and the Gestalt becomes visible in all of its fluidity and fragility. Since the emphasis in context is on organized wholeness, whatever it is that is embedded in context (“contextualized”) can be grasped as an element of a larger puzzle or bigger picture. An organized whole is organized in functions, structures, strata, or other differentiating aspects of a system. It has a Gestalt and as such has a

3  Thought Form Descriptions

88

balance. Despite the seeming uniformity of context, the unifying category in context is nonidentity, meaning that context is the domain of infinite variety and difference. Nonidentity leads to differentiation from which variety and depth derive. It must be admitted that in their present DTF form, context thought forms are open to ontological critique, in the sense that by themselves they do not promote thinking in terms of nonidentity as much as they should. Given the fixation on context in logical thinking, this is an important critique. Within DTF, this critique can be taken to heart (or rather to mind) by “never getting stuck in” context. Context TFs that are not consistently related to either process or relationship TFs stifle thinking and distort complex social and cultural configurations to mere “data sets,” thus actuality, in a way apparent in the majority of publications on business.

The Sequence of Context Thought Forms Looking at the sequence of individual thought forms in class context, below, we begin with the consideration that without locating a specific part, no whole serving as its context can be envisioned. Once we have located a single part, seeing the whole becomes easier. However, some thinkers may start with a bland whole and then locate the parts that differentiate it from the whole (as does Hegel’s Logic). This movement in thought engages the dialectic of part and whole, predominant in Asian thinking, in contrast to the object-attribute aspect of forms predominant in Western thought (Nisbett 2005). The main insight here is that no element has any existence outside of the whole of which it is a part (Table 3.9). Once the dialectic of part and whole has run its course (TFs #8–9), the question becomes how to grasp the nature of wholes. There are a few alternatives. We can describe an organized whole by way of: Table 3.9 Context thought forms

Context TFs 8. Contextualization of part(s) within a whole; emphasis on part 9. Equilibrium of a whole; emphasis on whole 10. (Description of) structures, functions, layers, strata of a system 11. (Emphasis on the) hierarchical nature of layers systems comprise 12. Stability of system functioning 13. Intellectual systems: frames of reference, traditions, ideologies 14. Multiplicity of contexts (non-transformational) Adapted from Basseches 1984, 74

Section 2: Context Thought Forms

89

• The structures, functions, or layers that define it (TF #10) • The nature of the stratification (and its generative powers) that define it (TF #11) • The stability of system functioning by which a holon manifests itself (TF #12) In a further step, we can focus on the fact that parts contextualized within a larger whole have a meaning relative to their context. For intellectual systems, this entails that such systems are grounded in certain traditions and are therefore relative to the set of assumptions and methods followed by the tradition (TF #13), e.g., “Frankfurt School.” That is, ideas and values must be understood in terms of larger wholes such as “points of view, interpretations, frames of reference, value systems, and contingencies” (BB 1981, 69). In more general terms, contextualization of a part within an intellectual holon entails that there exists a plurality of points of view (TF #14). While from the point of view of the relationship moment we would focus on the relationships of these points of view as long as we remain in the context moment, our interest is in the contexts as different dimensions that together define an organized intellectual whole. As in the process class of thought forms, the last thought form in context (TF #14) is a gateway to the next following thought form class, of relationship. By focusing on multiple perspectives, it prepares the thinker for seeing the common ground, if any, that all perspectives and entities share, succinctly dealt with in the relationship moment. Context Thought Forms in Detail As we saw when discussing the process class of thought forms, there is a progression of thought forms within each class leading from a mere pointing to the essence of the class (e.g., part vs. whole) to elaborated descriptions of what the thought forms in the is focused on. It is no different here. Again, there are contrasting thought forms to consider when making a scoring decision in favor of a particular thought form (Table 3.10). From the table it becomes clear that context thought forms can be subdivided as follows: 1. TFs #8–9 2. TFs #10–12 3. TFs #13–14 The first subdivision deals with the part-whole dialectic, while the second one comprises ways of grasping the nature of wholes in terms of (a) individual structures and functions, (b) the nature of hierarchical stratification of the whole, and (c) properties of intellectual systems that derive from larger traditions. The third subdivision comprises a focus on intellectual systems generally and a pointer to the multiplicity of contexts defining any subject matter whatsoever. This multiplicity entails nonidentity as a matter of course, without it having to be linked to anything as such. Below, the seven thought forms in these subdivisions are discussed in detail. Individual Thought Forms

90

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Table 3.10  Context thought forms in detail Context • Dialectical image: “big picture” in the sense of a whole encompassing parts • Figure: what appears as a stable, well-balanced form • Ground: unified by the category of differentiation that introduces variety and depth into what is real, making it alterable • Relationship to system: pre-figuration of a system in a static form • Scope: multiplicity of entities and thoughts partaking in a common frame of reference • Theme: equilibrium of what exists. • Dialectics: parts of a whole shifting their balance; stratification; generative mechanisms 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Attention to an organized larger whole of which something is a part or element and which forms the encompassing context of something Contrasts: 10–13 Equilibrium of a whole; Attention to the balance of a larger whole, or the way in emphasis on whole which it forms a Gestalt. Holistic perspective where the parts are subordinate to the whole Contrasts: 10–13 (Description of) structures, Grasping the nature of wholes. System descriptions in functions, layers, strata of historical, functional, structural, and mechanical terms or in terms of strata and levels composing a whole. Emphasis a system on the complexity of what exists and on modeling such complexity. Difference between “reality” and the model meant to simulate it Contrasts: 8–9, 11–13 Grasping the nature of wholes. Description of the nature of (Emphasis on) the hierarchy in systems, or lack thereof, relevance thereof. hierarchical nature of Emphasis on transcendence and inclusion of lower levels structures and layers as implicit in higher ones systems comprise Contrast: 9 Stability of system Grasping the nature of wholes. Describing or explaining functioning the smooth functioning of a system with focus on its stability, maintenance, and survival Contrasts: 9, 22 Grasping the nature of wholes. Describing the larger Intellectual systems: philosophical or ideological environment and context of frames of reference, assumptions, ideas, principles, and paradigms traditions, ideologies Contrasts: 9, 28 Multiplicity of contexts Simultaneous attention to a variety of contexts or (non-transformational) dimensions in which events, situations, and individuals are embedded (without stressing their relationship or transformation) Contrasts: 25, 28 Contextualization of part(s) within a whole; emphasis on part

Section 2: Context Thought Forms

91

Thought Form #8 Thought form keywords and key # phrases 8 Contextualization of part(s) within a whole; emphasis on part

Focus of attention Attention to an organized larger whole of which something is a part or element and which forms the encompassing context of something Contrasts: 10–13

The notion of part and whole is comparable to that of figure and ground. Both oscillate into each other depending on the focus of attention. Once limits of separation between them have been grasped – without being focused upon – one can easily go back and forth between them since one presupposes the other. The essential first step is to see anything other than a particular part at all. What is seen as a whole may be a variety of things such as: • • • • • • •

Systems Contexts Constellations Scenarios Sets of connections Events Forms

and more, whatever a speaker has chosen to single out. What matters is not the particular content mentioned by the speaker but the thought form that defines the described structure. TF #8 focuses on some object of thought that is viewed as a part located within a broader environment and provides a bigger picture of it. We are dealing with the contextualization of something that receives its relevance, and even its meaning, from a larger organized whole, like a fish from a lake. The context in question can be addressed in different ways, for instance, in terms of causality, implication, composition, “dialectic,” or a deeper embedding in a still larger whole. The notion of “whole” being a relative one, TF #8, may, of course, be reiterated in order to locate the larger whole itself within even larger wholes (BB 1981, 63). TF #8 is categorized as a context thought form. This notwithstanding, it is clear that understanding something as organized with a larger whole or form means to see it as related to other things within the larger form. As BB say (1981, 63): This connection between attending to form [Context] and asserting relationships is perhaps clearest when the schema for locating an element in a larger whole is reiterated and extended to its fullest extreme, as is expressed in the philosophical orientation called “holism.” The twin assumptions of holism are (a) that all things are connected with each other (emphasizing relationship) and (b) that the whole (the way in which they are related) is the meaningful unit of analysis (emphasizing system).

92

3  Thought Form Descriptions

To be able to score TF #8 rather than some relationship thought form, then, the point of emphasis is expected to be that the whole is the meaningful unit of analysis. This needs to be articulated by emphasizing the part that is embedded in the context of the whole, rather than the whole that functions as its context. As indicated by the contrasts listed for TF #8, above, this is different from what is in focus in TFs #9 and #10. In TF #9, it is the whole that is emphasized, while in TF #10 the form or whole is explicitly described, and thus constructed, in terms of structures, functions, or layers. To make the use of TF #8 more clear, below are three examples that articulate it to different degrees. [1] I think as coaches, we have arrived at a turning point. There are both internal and external pressures now to change the field in a more professional direction. On the one hand, there now exists a critical mass of coaches who have gone through conventional training and find it lacking in depth, incommensurate with their practical experience. On the other hand, buyers of coaching are also dissatisfied since no robust way of measuring coaching effectiveness has been found. So clearly, in this context, coaching cannot keep up its reputation if its practitioners don’t begin to see the larger picture of the field and move to a more integral notion of what coaching is all about. It seems to me that work on this bigger picture of coaching has barely begun. [2] When you begin a relationship with a client, it takes a while to begin to see the client’s agenda items as pieces of a larger puzzle that is the person him- or herself. For this reason, I have adopted the practice of an elaborate “intake” where I find out as much as I can, not only about where the client “comes from,” but where s(he) is in terms of maturity and therefore, where s(he) is going. And it’s quite amazing how the pieces of the client’s agenda begin to fall into place once you understand their function in the larger context of the client’s way of sense making. Nothing is any longer an accident, but everything adds up almost as if it were an equation with a solution attached to it. [3] What our executive team has increasingly realized is that we can’t be effective by focusing our attention on our company alone. We need to see the team as well as the company within a larger context, and that context is the competitive market. We are part of this larger environment. So, when we rebuilt the team two years ago, our main purpose was to make sure that team members have a strong relationship with some segment of the world out there and can therefore help us see our work as embedded in the global market. I don’t mean this in the simple sense of best practices, where all you do is look outward, never wasting time thinking about how you are unique and different. It seems to me that acting “strategically” means precisely to go to the limits of the largest environment in which one’s work as a team can be seen and conceptualized. The first speaker expresses that something is missing in contemporary coach education and practice. No exact measures of effectiveness have been formulated, and the coaching industry at large is therefore dissatisfied. Coaches themselves also find their education to be incommensurate with their practical experience, which is much broader than what they are taught in school. What is needed is a more integral notion of coaching, but what this notion is is only pointed to by the speaker.

Section 2: Context Thought Forms

93

The second speaker has a clearer picture of the larger environment of the part she is dealing with, namely, individual clients. She sees the context of a client’s set of goals represented by the client’s developmental profile. In the speaker’s mind, it is the client’s developmental level from which her goals and actions ultimately derive. The speaker does not describe the larger environment of the client’s goals in detail; she only refers to it. The third speaker expresses what TF #8 captures most successfully. For him, even the immediate company environment a team functions within is an insufficient standard for strategic planning and action. It is ultimately “the environment of the environment” that needs to be considered. For the speaker, strategy implies the largest possible environment. For this reason, he reiterates TF #8 to locate the company environment within an even larger whole, namely, the market, thus using TF #8 recursively. In short, TF #8 says that anything your thought may touch is a part of a whole you are initially not talking about. To the extent that what you are focusing attention on exists, it is embedded in a larger whole without your knowing. You can choose to ignore this whole only at your peril. You can also explore it further, using other context thought forms. Only in this way will you discover what it means that what you are talking about really exists, not just actually. Contrasts The contrasts named for TF #8 are TFs #10 to #13, thus all contextual thought forms outside of a focal emphasis on the part-whole dialectic and the focus on multiple perspectives (Table 3.11). Table 3.11  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #8 10 (Description of) structures, functions, layers, strata of a system

11 (Emphasis on the) hierarchical nature of layers systems comprise 12 Stability of system functioning

13 Intellectual systems: frames of reference, traditions, ideologies

Grasping the nature of organized wholes. System descriptions in historical, functional, structural, and mechanical terms or in terms of strata and levels composing a whole. Emphasis on the complexity of what exists and modeling such complexity. Difference between the model and what it models Contrasts: 8–9, 11–13 Grasping the nature of organized wholes. Description of the nature of hierarchy in systems, or lack thereof, relevance thereof. Emphasis on transcendence and inclusion of lower levels as implicit in higher ones Contrast: 9 Grasping the nature of organized wholes. Describing or explaining the smooth functioning of a system with focus on its stability and on what makes it possible Contrasts: 9, 22 Grasping the nature of organized wholes. Describing the larger philosophical or ideological environment and context of assumptions, ideas, principles, and paradigms Contrasts: 9, 28

94

3  Thought Form Descriptions

In these contrasting thought forms, the part-whole relationship so prominent in TFs #8–9 is less emphasized than other aspects of an organized whole. In TFs #10 to #13, the part-whole relation is the ground, not the figure. • TF #10 squarely focuses attention on the whole per se and its description in terms of structure, function, dimensions, or layers (strata). If what is described is a part of a whole, the trade-off between TF #8 and #10 will hinge upon whether the speaker’s focus is on the description of the part per se or the whole of which it is a part. • TF #11 focuses attention on the aspect of hierarchy in systems, in the sense that a system has different dimensions and that system complexity increases as one moves from a lower to a higher subdivision (stratum). If the part focused on by TF #8 is itself one of the strata, then scoring it as TF #8 or #11 will depend on whether the aspect of its blending into the whole is more highly emphasized than its standing by itself as a part of the hierarchy that it represents. • TF #12 draws a conclusion from TF #11 in that it focuses on the aspect of stability of the whole. System stability depends on whether the parts of a system are so arranged that they guarantee the smooth functioning of the whole system. (As Jaques shows this further depends on whether the right number of layers is in place, in the sense of TF #22.) It is hard to think of the stability of a part if the fact that it is part of a whole is emphasized (which makes it a function of the whole). Therefore, the distinction between TFs #8 and #12 is typically easy to make. • TF #13 focuses on intellectual, historical, and ideological contexts that serve as a frame of reference for thinking about an issue. Describing a single tradition as part of a larger intellectual universe would be scored in terms of TF #8, while where a single tradition is emphatically seen as a moment of a larger intellectual universe, scoring TF #13 would be more persuasive.

∗ ∗ ∗



Thought Form #9 The user of TF #9 takes a first step at grasping the nature of wholes. This thought form pays foremost attention to the Gestalt qualities of the organized whole in question. Emphasis falls on the fact that an organized whole is always in search of an equilibrium, whether by way of a move to a higher level of development or by letting parts of itself collapse or get virtualized. To grasp the balance of wholes requires taking a holistic view. A word of caution regarding the notion of equilibrium: it is often forgotten that equilibrium is not the benign harmony we expect by reason of the conventional

Section 2: Context Thought Forms

95

meaning of the word. Dialectical equilibrium can appear as the storm of history that Benjamin’s angel is trying to protect us from, thus something to brace against. The three examples below show only the harmless side of equilibrium. [1] Consulting is often seen as a process restricted to consultant and client. That suffices perhaps if you want to get a first cut at what the responsibilities of a coach are. But generally, that is a recipe for ineffectiveness. Because the consultant has to understand a whole lot more than the single client s(he) is dealing with. There is a whole universe of structural and personal relationships out there that, in some form, have to enter into consulting work. In fact, “effectiveness” is based on there being an equilibrium between the work of the consultant and the larger environment surrounding and embedding it within itself. [2] It’s easy to get caught up in a myopic vision of your own capabilities, where the environment in which you do your work is not seen as a potent source of your identity. In fact, it’s only by stepping back and looking at yourself from the outside that you can see how influenced you are by the environment, and how potentially different you would work and develop in an alternative setting. That is also good to realize so as to not get hooked into your present situation and maintain the option to move out of it if need be. The environment in which you work is changing on a daily basis, and the balance of things today is not what it will be tomorrow. There are of course different ways of assessing that balance, either short-term or long-term, in terms of corporate culture or otherwise. Whatever kind of balance you might choose to focus on, you have to have some pretty clear notion of it in order to know where your work is going, and in what way you are contributing to the balance of the whole enterprise. [3] This company constitutes the worst environment for development. It just doesn’t amount to an optimal, holistic holding environment. Our culture has, I think, truly evolved, but the equilibrium between the past and the future has been difficult to find. The sheer size and weight of the business and its impact on our revenue, on the public perception of us, has changed the way we function here. And if anything, what we are struggling with is: how do we mature as a bureaucracy that has some deep-rooted politics? This is a culture with one foot in the entrepreneurial camp, and another foot in the ideology that “we have to manage things not for growth, but for sheer size.” And to equilibrate these two sides of the business is a difficult act to pull off if you cannot take a broader view of what is going on. There ultimately has to be some kind of balance between these two facets of the business, and we suffer from not achieving that balance right now. Most of us don’t even realize the search for equilibrium we are engaged in. In these examples there is a progression in the direction of greater clarity about the nature of organized wholes. The first speaker only points to “structural and personal relationships” as crucial to the nature of the embedding whole. The second speaker enters more deeply into the different kinds of balance one needs to consider and/or understand. Only the third speaker is more explicit, pointing to two facets of

96

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Table 3.12  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #9 10 (Description of) structures, functions, layers, strata of a system

11 (Emphasis on the) hierarchical nature of layers systems comprise 12 Stability of system functioning

13 Intellectual systems: frames of reference, traditions, ideologies

Grasping the nature of organized wholes. System descriptions in historical, functional, structural, and mechanical terms or in terms of strata and levels composing a whole. Emphasis on the complexity of what exists and on modeling such complexity. Difference between the model and what it models Contrasts: 8–9, 11–13 Grasping the nature of organized wholes. Description of the nature of hierarchy in systems, or lack thereof, relevance thereof. Emphasis on transcendence and inclusion of lower levels as implicit in higher ones Contrast: 9 Grasping the nature of organized wholes. Describing or explaining the smooth functioning of a system with focus on its stability and on what makes it possible Contrasts: 9, 22 Grasping the nature of organized wholes. Describing the larger philosophical or ideological environment and context of assumptions, ideas, principles, and paradigms Contrasts: 9, 28

company equilibrium (as he sees it), that of bureaucracy and politics. The speaker vaguely refers to TF #3 (composition by interpenetrating opposites) but essentially stays with his emphasis on balance within the organizational culture that, for him, defines the whole. Its absence is therefore a definite defect of the environment as he experiences it. Contrasts Here, as in the case of TF #8, the contrasts named are TFs #10 to #13, but in a different sense (Table 3.12). In these contrasting thought forms, the part-whole relationship so prominent in TFs #8–9 is less emphasized than other aspects of an organized whole. In TFs #10 to #13, the part-whole relation is thus the ground, not the figure. • TF #10 squarely focuses attention on the whole and its description in terms of structure, function, dimensions, or layers (strata). This thought form attends to the concrete specifics that define a social or physical environment. It is scored when the description of environment specifics outweighs in predominance that of the equilibrium of the whole in question. Otherwise, scoring TF #9 is more persuasive, keeping in mind that selecting a different thought form within the same class is not going to change the cognitive score assigned to an interview (which pertains to classes of thought forms). • TF #11 focuses attention on the aspect of hierarchy in systems, in the sense that system complexity is increasing as one moves from a lower to a higher layer.

97

Section 2: Context Thought Forms

Where this ascendant complexity is seen as safeguarding the equilibrium of the whole, TF #9 is scored. Otherwise, when the emphasis is put on the hierarchical aspect of a system and system equilibrium is considered secondary or is kept in the background, scoring TF #11 is more persuasive. • TF #12 draws a conclusion from TF #11 in that it focuses on the aspect of stability of the whole achieved by stratification or layering of dimensions. System stability depends on whether the parts of a system are so arranged that they guarantee the smooth functioning of the whole system. Stability and equilibrium are not the same thing, although a speaker may see an equilibrium as accounting for stability. Whenever stability is the figure rather than ground, TF #12 is scored, while where the inherent equilibrium is focal the scoring of TF #9 is more persuasive. • TF #13 focuses on intellectual, historical, and ideological contexts that serve as a frame of reference for thinking about an issue. The notion is that what is said owes its meaning to a historical tradition that gives it substance. Where the emphasis in describing the tradition referred to is on its historical or intellectual equilibrium (in the sense of a “working,” flourishing tradition independent of the speaker), TF #9 is scored. Where the focus is on the tradition as a necessary referent or background for discussing the speaker’s specific issues, the scoring of TF #13 is more persuasive. The reader should keep in mind that the part-whole relationship focused on in TFs #8 and #9 is an alternative to describing situations, events, persons, etc., by reducing them to objects having attributes. In fact, it is a superior alternative since it is more holistic, capturing more of the reality of what is described. As such, it is one of the hallmarks of Asian dialecticism researched by Nisbett (2005). ∗ ∗ ∗





Thought Form #10 The preceding two thought forms address the part/whole dialectic without making it explicit. When using TFs #10–12, speakers develop more of a grasp of how an organized whole is actually structured, the nature of its interior layered or hierarchical design, and the kind of stability of functioning it affords or lacks. 10 (Description of) structures, functions, layers, strata of a system

Grasping the nature of holons (wholes). System descriptions in historical, functional, structural, and mechanical terms or in terms of strata and levels composing a whole. Emphasis on the complexity of what exists and modeling such complexity. Difference between what is model and the model Contrasts: 8–9, 11–13

98

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Compared to TFs #11 and #12, TF #10 is the more general thought form. It captures ways of describing organized wholes in historical, functional, mechanical, or structural terms, as well as levels and strata (e.g., of cognitive or social-emotional development). As BB say (1981, 66): This schema [TF #10] is expected to appear in a wide variety of manifestations as [= since] a large number of concepts  – such as differentiation and integration, hierarchization of parts, regulation, order, fit, maintenance, function, smooth operation, harmony, equilibrium etc. – may be seen as relevant [to it]. … The defining characteristic of a form or system is some kind of relatively stable organization. Structure, function, and equilibrium are alternative modes of expressing this characteristic.

The ways TF #10 is used depends on whether we focus on structural, functional, or equilibrium-specific terms (1981, 66): 1. Structural terms refer to the stable organization or the shape of a system (e.g., the shape, form, pattern, organization, framework, structure); they afford a bird’s-eye view of a system viewed as an object of reflection. 2. Functional terms describe individual elements of an organized whole with reference to qualities safeguarding the system’s stability and the relations the elements entertain to the whole (e.g., “maintains, supports, complements, functions …”). 3. Equilibrational terms assert the degree of stability of a whole by describing both (a) relations among elements along the dimension of harmony disturbance and (b) relations of entire systems to the context they are found in (e.g., “fit, harmony, regulation, smooth functioning, order, equilibrium …”). An example might be helpful here. When referring to the functioning of an organization, we can elect to view it as a system of strata (layers) each of which comprises role holders at different levels of accountability, as we find in E.  Jaques’ work. We can say of each stratum that it is characterized by a specific level of work capability. Somebody listening to us would then inquire whether we are using the term “stratum” (layer) in its structural or functional meaning or both, and we would then want to reflect what specifically it is we have “in mind.” As this shows, like other TFs, TF #10 does not simply lend itself to making descriptions; it is also a “mind opener” that prompts a speaker to be specific about what structure or functionality s(he) has in mind when speaking about the organization. Transitioning from TF #10 to TF #11 Descriptions of the kind offered by CDF scores fail their raison d’etre if they do not do justice to the element of nonidentity dialectical thinking requires us to embrace. Concretely, if the analysis of society or the assessment of individuals – to use the examples above – fails to honor the internal dynamic that is at the core of the living system one is conceptualizing or assessing, then one is flirting with ideology. The aspect of nonidentity, somewhat curtailed in Bopp and Basseches’ manual, refers to the fact that physical, social, and intellectual realities all embody inaccessible,

Section 2: Context Thought Forms

99

hidden, and missing dimensions in a multitude of forms. One way in which nonidentity manifests itself is in the form of a differentiation by layers, especially those not immediately visible to the naked eye (as seen by Adorno) or layers not requisitely organized (as seen by Jaques). “Requisite organization,” both in the individual and in social organisms, is thus a transformational issue, not simply a contextual one. To highlight nonidentity as a moment of dialectic, Bhaskar, following Adorno, states (1993, 392): Its [context’s] dialectic is characteristically of stratification and ground, but also of inversion and virtualization. Its meta-critique turn on the isolation of the error of de-­stratification [canceling out stratification, OL].

A hierarchy of layers (e.g., organizational strata) has its own dialectic, as can be exemplified by referring to social-emotional stage theory in the sense of R. Kegan: • • • •

The dialectic of stratification is one of the entire system of stages conceived. One cannot reach level L-2 without having passed through L-1. In moving to L-2, L-1 becomes virtualized (doubly invisible). At level L-2, one encounters a higher degree of differentiation and complexity than at L-1. • To explain how level L-2 is accessed and maintained, one needs to take into account generative mechanisms that make transcending L-1 possible in the first place. Just stating the levels is insufficient. • It is possible that a particular layer is more virtual than real without being irrelevant. All of these considerations are captured by the following thought form, TF #11, a thought form not included in Basseches’ original list of schemata.

∗ ∗ ∗



The discussion of TF #10, above, hopefully has enlivened what tends to be thought of as a static entity, whether “society,” “organization,” or other. The discussion should also have shown the close affinity of TFs #10 and #11. Below I state three examples of using TF #10 (although they do not have the depth intimated above): [1] To do my work effectively, I need to keep my toes in four different waters: (1) research and product development, (2) portfolio management, (3) meeting with prospective clients and maintaining the relationship, and (4) maintaining the relationship with current clients. You have to do all four I believe in my business to be successful. These tasks form a system. And the trick is, maintaining the balance. Right now, I am forced to emphasize the latter two aspects (prospective and current clients), and therefore I feel I am doing only a part of the job I ought to do, and this is not a good feeling. And all that goes together with managing the business, which is probably a fifth spoke here. And it is the first two that I want to spend more time on and integrate better, rather than being reduced to emphasizing two out of five functions that make up the enterprise as a whole.

100

3  Thought Form Descriptions

[2] It is often hard for me to link what I do as the firm’s representative outside the company, and what I do in my internal role. I struggle to see the inside and outside as parts of an integrated life, but often can do that only in my mind, not in my gut. And still, I know that in reality the two sides of my professional life are entirely inseparable. What’s more, my colleagues don’t have the vaguest idea of how I bring these two sides of my identity together and tend to judge me either from one or from the other perspective. And so, I remain a mystery to them. Well, clearly, I can’t afford to uphold that mystery for myself, given that the two sides are intrinsically related. Beyond the value of bringing these sides into relationship, I have been helped by thinking of the outer and inner roles as one embedded in the other. The significance of the inner role is reinforced by the fact that I can articulate it in very public circumstances, such as donations the bank makes to the community. The outer role builds a context in which I can become more self-aware regarding the inner role which craves integration. One is the environment in which the other is flourishing. And I guess I am looking for an even larger environment in which both the inner and outer role could be safely embedded, and I am not finding it in this company. [3] I think that the “balanced scorecard” concept has helped us to hold a more holistic picture of this company, and link what we aim for financially to what is happening with our customers and the internal business process. We are still struggling to translate that into human capital requirements, given the fact that in the scorecard, human capital is a kind of afterthought. But while you can describe what the company does in structural terms by leaving out the human process, or minimizing its importance, a functional description of the company needs to refer to what maintains momentum, supports strategy, and complements financial arrangements. So, it’s the “balance” of the scorecard that is in question here, if by balance you really mean a kind of equilibrium, however fragile. Strategy maps are fine, but they are only hypotheses, and static causal ones at that. They do not truly describe what a company does, but only what it hopefully should do. I myself think that a better integration of human capital with company strategy is the ultimate issue, and it’s a most difficult and vexing one. The first speaker focuses on integration of parts in a larger whole, describing functions that go together when creating an enterprise. The functions are treated as separate pieces, and the whole comes off as a sum of its parts, some of which remain favored and some of which are neglected. We gain an additive understanding of the enterprise in its entirety. While limits of separation are hinted at (TF #22), the main emphasis remains within the context class of thought forms. In focus are the partial functions. They make up a whole, although this whole is described as closed, static, not transformational. The second speaker has a rather interactive view of parts that happen to be roles he plays in his company, an inner and an outer role. Nobody, not even he, really understands how these two roles go together or come into balance with each other. Although the speaker has an inkling of the dialectics of the two roles – described by

Section 2: Context Thought Forms

101

him in terms of mutually embedded environments – he remains focused on the two roles he is playing, trying to integrate them within himself. What the speaker is looking for is “an even larger environment” in which a bigger picture of the roles he is playing could be formed. But so far, he has been unsuccessful in trying to find such an environment in his company. He therefore remains settled with two separate roles that are hard for him to bring into balance. The third speaker addresses a commercial enterprise in terms of the balance between its human capital and financial and other resources. He feels that the so-­ called “balanced” scorecard when applied to human resources is an afterthought. The scorecard delineates separate functions that describe the enterprise but remains unbalanced from the vantage point of human capital. For this reason, the speaker finds it hard to accept that the scorecard defines a social system. There is a flavor of TF #17 (critique of unrelated discreet entities and of reductionism) in what the speaker says, but the neglect of common ground criticized is not made explicit by him. Contrasts TF #10 is central to dealing with systems viewed as static (out of real time) in terms of specific structures, functions, and a range of (possibly hidden) layers. This focus makes it different from all other context thought forms. While TFs #8–9 focus on the part-whole dialectic (central in Asian dialecticism), TFs #11–12 deal with aspects of hierarchy and stability in systems. TF #13 shifts emphasis to intellectual systems. Because of this constellation of context aspects, scoring TF #10 should be checked against the following contrasts: • TF #8 focuses on a single part (or several parts) of a system. The emphasis falls on their nature as parts that derive meaning from an encompassing whole. Where a single part is described, the scoring depends on whether the part-whole relationship remains primary or not. • TF #9 takes up the part-whole dialectic from the perspective of the whole, focusing on its Gestalt quality and balance. When this focus is weak or is outshone by emphasis on the structure of the Gestalt in question, scoring TF #10 is more persuasive. • TF #11 focuses attention on the aspect of hierarchy in systems, in the sense that system complexity is increasing as one moves from a lower to a higher layer, engaging the dialectic of “lower” and “higher.” Where the aspect of hierarchical construction is used to describe the system, scoring TF #11 is more cogent than scoring TF #10. • TF #12 draws a conclusion from TF #11 in that it focuses on the aspect of stability of the whole. System stability depends on whether the parts of a system are so arranged, and so sufficient in number, that they guarantee the smooth functioning of the whole system. Wherever the stability aspect of the system dominates the description of the whole in terms of functions, structures, or layers, scoring TF #12 is more persuasive than scoring TF #10.

3  Thought Form Descriptions

102 Table 3.13  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #10 8

9

10

11

12

13

Contextualization of part(s) Attention to an organized whole of which something is a part within a whole; emphasis or element and which forms the encompassing context of on part something Contrasts: 10–13 Equilibrium of a whole; Attention to the balance of an organized whole, or the way in emphasis on whole which it forms a Gestalt. Holistic perspective in which the parts are subordinate to the whole Contrasts: 10–13 (Description of) structures, Grasping the nature of organized wholes. System descriptions functions, layers, strata of a in historical, functional, structural, and mechanical terms or in system terms of strata and levels composing a whole. Emphasis on the complexity of what exists and on modeling such complexity. Difference between the model and what it models Contrasts: 8–9, 11–13 (Emphasis on the) Grasping the nature of organized wholes. Description of the hierarchical nature of nature of hierarchy in systems, or lack thereof, relevance structures and layers thereof. Emphasis on transcendence and inclusion of lower systems comprise levels as implicit in higher ones Contrast: 9 Stability of system Grasping the nature of organized wholes. Describing or functioning explaining the smooth functioning of a system with focus on its stability and on what makes it possible Contrasts: 9, 22 Intellectual systems: frames Grasping the nature of organized wholes. Describing the of reference, traditions, larger philosophical or ideological environment and context of ideologies assumptions, ideas, principles, and paradigms Contrasts: 9, 28

• TF #13 focuses on intellectual, historical, and ideological contexts that serve as a frame of reference for thinking about an issue. Where a frame of reference is seen as a fully-fledged system – such as a system of law – the scoring depends on whether the specifics of the system mentioned override the idiosyncratic character of the system as an intellectual context or not. If so, scoring TF #10 is more persuasive (Table 3.13). ∗ ∗ ∗





Thought Form #11 11 (Emphasis on the) hierarchical nature of structures and layers systems comprise

Grasping the nature of wholes. Description of the nature of hierarchy in systems, or lack thereof, relevance thereof. Emphasis on transcendence and inclusion of lower levels as implicit in higher ones Contrast: 9

Section 2: Context Thought Forms

103

This thought form continues the exploration of the nature of wholes (holons). As shown above, hierarchical compositions have their own dialectic. They emerge seemingly incrementally, by accretion, but the layers they comprise are closely linked. They share a common ground from the start, and this makes them “layers.” However, in TF #11, these intrinsic relationships are not in focus as much as the cohesiveness of the layers that form a whole and their dependence on each other for ascending the hierarchy and navigating the system. There is a clear implication of a lowest and highest layer, and while they may be made of the same stuff, they are dissimilar in terms of their degree of complexity and integration. Thus, the big picture painted of any hierarchy is a static pre-­ figuration of a transformational system defined by shifts of balance and generative mechanisms driving what was previously located at a “lower” level toward a “higher” one. Levels may also disappear or become virtualized, causing regression or breakdown (Jaques, 1998a, b). However, this dynamic cannot be adequately captured by TF #11, only hinted at. The three examples below will concretize what was just said: [1] It is a fact that while companies today are more highly democratic, they inevitably are tied to a hierarchy of abilities and functions that together make up a whole. That’s just the nature of human nature. No amount of lip service to flat hierarchies can do away with that fact. While it may seem that distinctions between echelons have eased, they have only be virtualized and thus vanished from view, but in essence are still very much present and as effective as ever before. [2] In describing stratum V role complexity, E. Jaques says (1998a, b, 69): “Here we move into one of the most interesting and important of all orders of [mental] complexity. It is the level at which human beings construct unified whole systems. It is the first level of operation where the full-scale business unit needs to be located. By unified whole system I mean a true system as assumed in systems theory, that is to say, a system intact and complete in itself and operating in an unbounded environment.” [3] People these days have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to thinking of organizations and public institutions in terms of a hierarchy of structures or functions. They are misled by the notion that hierarchy is “authoritarian.” But looking at levels of cognitive development, for instance, everybody can see for himself that not only are there definite differences between people’s thinking and grasp of reality, but there ought to be differences in the jobs that they do in terms of levels of accountability. For instance, a janitor does not need the kind of education that is imperative for an executive Vice President or CEO. Although we don’t really understand too well how one proceeds from one level of thinking to another, the “flavor” of a higher organizational echelon compared to a lower one is palpable. I think this has to do with the fact that there are different kinds of work requiring different ways of knowing. There ultimately is a clear sense of

104

3  Thought Form Descriptions

what separates one echelon from another, and one just can’t jump to a higher level by skipping another one as sometimes happens in school. The first speaker conveys that all talk about flat hierarchies is essentially ideological since companies could not function if they were not built on a natural hierarchy of levels of human capability and associated levels of work complexity. He sees through the veneer of flat structures supposedly defining contemporary organizations. The second speaker/writer clearly states that when accessing stratum V, we not only go to another level but a new order of complexity. He makes a distinction between “level” (or stratum) and “order,” implying that the first is a subdivision of the latter. (In Jaques’ thinking, as in this book, strata I to IV belong to the second order of mental complexity, while strata V to VIII belong to the third order.) Engaging one’s capability on this “most interesting and important of all orders of complexity” (Jaques 1998a, 69) presupposes the ability to construct unified whole systems, which is lacking on lower strata. However, he does not explore the dynamics of this move from the lower to the higher order of complexity in any detail. He simply describes what moving up a stratum entails in terms of cognitive development. Like the first speaker, the third speaker is critical of the de-stratification of organizational systems. He points out that people tend to misunderstand the true nature of hierarchies by assuming that everybody is functioning on the same level of adult development. There is a hint of TF #26 regarding the coordination of systems, in this case of the capability and accountability architectures that structurally define a company, but this hint is not further developed. As a result, we are left with a rather static description of the hierarchy in question. Contrasts Evidently, one would not score TF #10 or #12 where the hierarchical structure of a system is emphasized. The real contrast to TF #11 within the context class is TF #9. Wherever emphasis on the balance achieved by, or embodied in, an encompassing whole (Gestalt) outweighs the description of hierarchical features of the Gestalt, TF #9 is the scoring of choice. 9 Equilibrium of a whole; emphasis on whole



Attention to the balance of an organized whole, or the way in which it forms a Gestalt. Holistic perspective in which the parts are subordinate to the whole Contrasts: 10–13

∗ ∗ ∗



Section 2: Context Thought Forms

105

Thought Form #12 12 Stability of system Grasping the nature of wholes. Describing or explaining the smooth functioning functioning of a system with focus on its stability and on what makes it possible Contrasts: 9, 22

This thought form specifically focuses on understanding the nature of organized wholes other than intellectual systems, in particular the stability of functioning such wholes may achieve. Stability cannot be taken for granted since many processes occurring within a system work against stability, especially those processes that interfere with the functioning of parts of the system. This may ultimately destroy the balance which alone keeps the parts of the system functioning in association with each other, thus keeping the system stable. The focus in TF #12 is thus on describing stability in terms of notions such as harmony and disturbance when articulating either the system’s relationship to its parts or to other systems that form its context. Accordingly, one can view TF #12 as an emphatic realization of TF #9 which addresses balance or equilibrium under the notion of stability, thereby operationalizing the term balance. “Stability” is a term inseparable from its opposite or antithesis, namely, “instability,” which is in focus in TF #22. While instability is seen in the table of thought forms as a systemic thought form, stability as articulated by TF #12 is not. Why? It is because stability is a surface phenomenon that is more seeming than real. It is an abstraction from an organized whole that is unceasingly changing and when “hypostatized” becomes a piece of ideology. This ideological veneer of stability can only be removed by spelling out what makes it what it seems to be. In TF #12, then, we view a system in a way that keeps its internal dialectic in the sense of TF #22 under wraps. We are curtailing the dialectic to get a view of the positive side of a system and restrict the dynamics of dialectic to what brings about the stability the system seems to have. This is one way of sizing up organized wholes, although a limited one. To do so is perfectly acceptable in dialectical thinking because without stability there is no instability either. The two are intertwined, and one or the other may prevail in a particular description. The following three examples should make the nature of TF #12 clear: [1] Coaches are typically expected to change people’s behavior, as if that was a mere matter of “character traits.” That’s pretty naïve considering that traits are deposits of lifelong processes interacting with the environment. They have their own intrinsic logic. So what the coach is dealing with, really, is shifting clients’ inner as well as outer equilibrium from one developmental state to another. And since developmental shifts occur over longer times than do behavioral changes, the focus in behavioral coaching is actually more on stability than change, despite all talk to the contrary. As a result, the nature of change is

106

3  Thought Form Descriptions

not really understood in depth. That’s why most coaching is remedial, and only some coaching has any clear developmental direction, in my view. “Let there be smooth functioning leaving the status quo intact” is really the underlying idea. [2] When you think of what keeps a person together through all the ups and downs of a lifetime, it’s really pretty miraculous. It seems to be predominantly a matter of balancing opposites, from “body” to “mind” to “inner” and “outer.” And often what you would think could have been somebody’s downfall emerges, in retrospect, as having mightily increased the equilibrium that seemed at first destroyed. So, how can any science successfully explain the stability of such an integrated whole as a “person”? But stability is what we see, whether we can explain it or not. [3] We have seen a lot of effort made to persuade us that economies follow “the law of the market,” as if those laws could be set aside as the sole arbiter of capitalistic systems. It seems to me that what accounts for harmony or disturbance in markets can in no way be reduced to simple causal laws. The economy is an organized whole with many interweaving parts, not only nationally but globally. Therefore, the smooth functioning of markets has become much more complex. Efforts to maintain stability in international markets now must take into account demographic shifts, cultural differences, and also how technological processes and inventions interact with purely commercial ones. Not to speak of national policy. So, stability is a very relative term. The first speaker points to remedial interventions for the sake of stability rather than change as a major goal of coaching. She thinks that behavioral and developmental stability are different since they occur in different time domains, one momentary and transitory, the other longitudinal. She also thinks that coaches and those who buy coaching services have illusions regarding coaches’ ability to change people. Behavioral traits have a long life and can only be smoothed based on developmental insight, but not essentially changed. The second speaker is in awe regarding the ability of a person to preserve his or her identity despite the changes that occur in a person over a lifespan. While there is a touch of TF #3 (composition by interpenetrating opposites) in her comments, the emphasis remains in the domain of context. She points out also, referring to TF #2 (inclusion of antithesis), that the negativity of a downfall is often experienced as an extra challenge that propels a person to higher levels of equilibrium and mental growth. While the speaker is highly sensitive to process, her emphasis remains within the domain of context. The third speaker thinks of international markets as an organized whole whose stability is relative and difficult to fathom. Although there is a touch of TF #22 (limits of stability of systems) in her comments, she remains contextually focused on what it takes to maintain stability. Her emphasis is on the big picture of national markets, especially the need to understand how stability can be safeguarded.

107

Section 2: Context Thought Forms Table 3.14  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #12 9

Equilibrium of a whole; emphasis on whole

22 Limits of stability, harmony, and durability (including quantitative into qualitative changes)

Attention to the balance of an organized whole, or the way in which it forms a Gestalt. Holistic perspective in which the parts are subordinate to the whole Contrasts: 10–13 Pointing to limits of stability, balance, and durability without making their causes explicit. (Emphasis is on the “negative” aspect of negativity which also has a positive aspect, that of emergence.) Contrasts: 3, 12, 23

Contrasts The contrasts named for TF #12 are TFs #9 and #22. TF #12 and TF #9 are close. What one addresses as equilibrium, the other addresses as stability. These are different concepts, however. What is in balance is not necessarily stable. The table of questions about thought forms in Appendix B3 will assist you in making finer distinctions between the two thought forms. The contrast between TF #12 and TF #22 should be obvious. The latter acknowledges in full the negativity that is nascent but kept under wraps in TF #12. Due to this consideration, the two thought forms are indeed contrasts. TF #12 emphasizes what is unchanging, or seemingly so, while TF #22 emphasizes that stability is not the rule but the exception (Table 3.14). One can also see TF #22 as a further differentiation of TF #12. In TF #22, it is seen that an equilibrium is always fragile, never entirely stable, and thus momentary. This remains hidden in descriptions of systems in terms of stability, as if stability did not by itself imply or invite its opposite. For the strictly contextual thinker, however, this is not obvious. S(he) focuses on an organized whole, not on what makes the whole remain identical with itself, namely, the negativity and nonidentity it embodies. In the light of TF #22, TF #12 expresses wishful thinking or obstinate ideology.

Thought Form #13 TFs #13 and #14 share common ground. Both apply the notion of an organized whole to ideas. They emphasize that ideas are always related to a context, thus to other ideas, thereby applying to them TFs #10–12. While this is true for things that are not “thought things,” contextual wholeness takes a special form when it comes to ideas. Thought things are historical, implying process and relationship in more obvious forms than inert things or even social situations. They shadow such situations but also have a life of their own, independently of what brings them into being. See the history of philosophy or mythology.

108

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Typically, the emphasis in TF #13 is on a single frame of reference in relation to the historical or intellectual context that gives rise to it or explains it, not the multiplicity of frames of reference in existence. This thought form thus creates a demand to locate ideas, sets of assumptions, ideologies, theories, etc., in the context of a larger tradition, for the purpose of describing that tradition as an organized whole in structural, functional, and terms of equilibrium, and further as the appropriate unit of analysis for the single frame of reference foremost in view. The common ground shared by TFs #13 and #14 was addressed by Perry as contextual relativism, that is, existence relative to a larger context (1968). Perry defined relativism as follows (BB 1981, 69): A plurality of points of view, interpretations, frames of reference, value systems, and contingencies in which structural properties of contexts and forms allow for various sorts of analysis, comparison, and evaluation in multiplicity.

For BB, each of the following four ideas is a component of Perry’s notion of relativism: 1. Ideas and values are to be understood in the context of larger wholes described as “points of view, interpretations, frames of reference, value systems, and contingencies.” 2. These larger wholes are to be understood in terms of their structural properties. 3. There exists a plurality of these contexts of knowledge (points of view). 4. An understanding of such plurality makes analysis, comparison, and evaluation possible. The first component is focal in TF #13, the second component in TF #10. The third component is explored in TF #14 (multiplicity of contexts), while the fourth component points to a systemic context and is topical in TF #25 (evaluative comparison of systems). Perry’s component no. 3, above – existence of a plurality of points of view  – further promotes attention to intellectual contexts. As BB state (1981, 70): If only one context existed, it could be taken for granted in dealing with a particular idea. However, if the meaning, value, and truth value of an idea is relative to its context, one must be conscious of the context to appreciate it.

Consequently, TFs #13 and #14 are closely linked. Both focus attention on intellectual contexts. But these thought forms also differ, in that TF #13 requires a description of the traditions and ideologies a particular idea or set of assumptions derives from, while TF #14 focuses on more than a single such tradition or ideology, rather emphasizing that any idea has elements, all of which need to be considered and some of which may be hidden. The emphasis in TF #14 is rather on the fact that the different contexts in which an idea makes its appearance are relative to each other and form a larger context.

Section 2: Context Thought Forms 13 Intellectual systems: frames of reference, traditions, ideologies 14 Multiplicity of contexts (non-transformational)

109 Grasping the nature of wholes. Describing the larger philosophical or ideological environment and context of assumptions, ideas, principles, and paradigms Contrasts: 9, 28 Simultaneous attention to a variety of contexts or dimensions in which events, situations, and individuals are embedded [without stressing their relationship or transformation] Contrasts: 25, 28

For instance, one can regard this book as grounded in Frankfurt School thinking if one chooses to think about the book in a global, undifferentiated manner. Of course, everybody who reads the book realizes that relating the book to the “Frankfurt School” or “critical theory” and nothing else is a gross oversimplification because every thinker in the school is different and also because this book is related not only to the Frankfurt but also the Kohlberg School. One might say that, by linking these schools as thesis and antithesis, the book attempts to transcend both, looking at their limitations and commonalities. (One can’t think developmentally, the other can’t think dialectically.) Nevertheless, it would be just to say that, in a nutshell, this book belongs in the realm of dialectical thinking as a way of transcending the limitations of formal logical thinking in all of its contemporary varieties, especially as practiced in adult developmental theory itself. As far as TF #14 is concerned, one might say about this book that it pays simultaneous attention to the two different intellectual contexts defined by the two schools. For each of them, “intellectual experience” means different things. Without stressing their intrinsic relationship and leaving the transformation of one under the influence of the other largely to “an outside mind,” namely, the reader, the book relates both schools to still another context, that of the literature and theory of organizations as seen from Jaques’ vantage point. It is exactly this multiplicity of contexts that typically gives rise to “new” ideas and that is what TF #14 is emphasizing in a somewhat holistic way. The three examples below will make TF #13 more transparent to the reader: [1] [Adapted from BB 1981, 71.] You can’t talk about adequacy of a conception unless you have a frame of reference in which to talk about it. By linking yourself to an intellectual tradition, you can explore your conception further and can also justify it, at least to some degree. The position you wish to take has been taken before, and there is some continuity between your assumptions and those made previously. This allows you to build position and justify a point of view. [2] I don’t think we can talk about strategy without referring to our competition. Strategy is not simply about what we want to do, but how what we want to do makes sense in a larger context, say, of approaches followed by our competition. So when we define strategy in this organization, we can’t just look at the bottom line. Rather, we realize that strategies are hypotheses, that they define the perspective we have on what is shareholder value. To realize such a strategy, we have to build a position, a kind of structure that makes our position acceptable,

110

3  Thought Form Descriptions

consistent, and reasonable. Our strategy is no better than its critical ingredients regarding the larger frame of reference defined by our competition. [3] As we design an executive development program, we need to be clear about what we adopt as our conceptual framework. We can either adopt a behavioral position in terms of which learning is a quasi linear process where accumulation of experience leads to better performance, somehow. Or we can embrace the more ambitious and sophisticated vantage point saying that work capability is really a matter of mental growth as manifest in a person’s thinking, feeling, and social relating. In the latter case, our program can complement the more behavioral educational approaches that abound and achieve some kind of integration of both approaches in a larger whole. The first speaker asserts that conceiving of anything at all brings one into the orbit of intellectual traditions, whether one wants it or not. There is no way to justify or elaborate an intellectual conception without referring to some tradition. Doing so also allows one to “build a position” and benefit from the continuity of viewpoints over historical time. The second speaker focuses on the intellectual context from which strategies derive. Conceptions of organizational strategy are by definition contextualized in a frame of reference of competitors’ strategies that a company’s internal consultants are eager to decipher (as if it were a template one could simply adopt). The speaker emphasizes that to introduce and maintain a strategy, a company needs to build a position, a “structure that makes your position acceptable.” A company cannot just adopt the of shareholders but must realize that its conception of them is bound to a plurality of possible wholes, in this case, strategic positions adopted by other companies (BB 1981, 71). In short, strategy is not a thing; it references a structured whole constituted by competitors’ approaches. The third speaker describes an organizational development program as requiring the integration of two complementary perspectives that can structure it. He is pointing to two different intellectual traditions, that of learning research and adult developmental research, both of which affect notions of executive development. The speaker asserts that policies supporting executive development ought to be cognizant of both traditions and integrate them. Accordingly, his frame of reference is a dualistic one, and his goal is to overcome the initial dualism between two frames of reference by searching for their common ground. This common ground is, however, “only an idea,” and thus relationship is not in focus. Contrasts As we saw, TF #13 is an application of TFs #10–12 to ideas and intellectual systems. It is specific to organized intellectual totalities in the sense of traditions and ideologies that define a context for explaining, justifying, and refashioning ideas. TF #13 is not a systemic thought form since it does not capture the transformational life of intellectual traditions as does TF #28. It is also not simply referring to

Section 2: Context Thought Forms

111

Table 3.15  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #13 9

Equilibrium of a whole; emphasis Attention to the balance of an organized whole, or the on whole way in which it forms a Gestalt. Holistic perspective in which the parts are subordinate to the whole Contrasts: 10–13 28 Integration of multiple [1] Preserving concreteness and realism by juxtaposing perspectives in order to define or integrating different perspectives on the same subject complex realities; critique of matter formalistic thinking [2] Critique of formalistic thinking that separates structure from content and of the associated conceptual hubris of pretending to represent realities fully by man-made concepts (nominalism) Contrasts: 2, 6, 16

traditions as equilibrated wholes but rather invites the thinker to make such wholes more specific (Table 3.15). While TF #9 primarily points to the equilibrium – in whatever form – that organized wholes tend toward, TF #28 is about concreteness of organized wholes achieved by first separating and then integrating different perspectives on a constellation, entity, thought complex, social group, or whatever may be in focus for the speaker. Concreteness of an individual whole is more important in the context of TF #28 than just equilibrium. “Concrete” in the context of this thought form means that the general and the specific, conceptual abstractions and real-world referents, structure, and content must come together to guarantee that we are dealing with something real, rather than just formalism. This mandate entails a critique of formalistic thinking in which one element of these pairs gets separated. Example A good example for when scoring thought form #13 is appropriate is a situation in which something like a book, point of view, or critique can only be understood by reference to a school of thought, such as the Frankfurt School or the Kohlberg School. The intellectual and research traditions these schools stand for make it possible to “build a position,” justify its consistency and soundness, and develop it further in accordance with new research findings.

Thought Form #14 14 Multiplicity of contexts (non-transformational)

Simultaneous attention to a variety of contexts or dimensions in which events, situations, and individuals are embedded [without stressing their relationship or transformation] Contrasts: 25, 28

112

3  Thought Form Descriptions

While TF #13 points to intellectual frameworks as the basis of specific ideas, theories, and assumptions, thinkers using TF #14 pay attention to more than a single intellectual context at one and the same time. (Ensure that you read TF#13 above as it has a lot to say about TF#14). They focus on the fact that ideas, theories, and sets of hypotheses (such as strategies) are relative to more than a single intellectual context. While this is also a critical thought in the sense of TFs #6 and #7, it is foremost a constructive thought since it refers to intellectual artifacts as organized wholes. TF #14 takes a spectator view of knowledge (as people do in the second order of mental complexity), surveying ideological edifices and bringing them together to build and justify a position in a subtle rather than crude way. This will be evident from considering the three interview excerpts below: [1] The coaching experience is different for every single person. You are dealing with personalities who are reacting and doing things in very different ways and also have flaws and deficiencies that are quite unique. They are furthermore at different stages of development and are part of different corporate cultures. So there isn’t just one perspective or set of criteria to understand and use in coaching. There are many perspectives, and they are relative to each other since they all share a common denominator, the coaching community. [2] The facts change, and sometimes the facts are not quite as hard as they may be in a scientific discipline where you enumerate and quantify. So that in general society, facts might be more subjective observations, where you might just witness an event and draw conclusions, but the event itself may be open to much different lines of interpretation. So, you need to be aware that an observation can have or can lead to more than one conclusion, depending on your frame of reference. So, what we call “facts” are really interpretations that are inseparable from the frame of reference adopted. [3] I am entrusted with confidence to exercise judgment about where we should and shouldn’t play a role, what role that should be, what risks are prudent to take, and where we should take a stand. There is a great deal of judgment and subtlety involved in that. It gives rise to conditional, situational authority. Unlike somebody who might run a business and is governed by a bottom line, there are many other stakeholders and points of accountability in the world that I dwell in. The authority I have is highly dependent upon trust, confidence, and it’s a job that you earn every day. It’s a tricky place to be. And I usually ask for forgiveness rather than permission. The first speaker asserts that participants in coaching are a highly varied group. The organized whole called “coaching community” is differentiated in various ways. There is a multiplicity of contexts one needs to consider in judging this community, e.g., by paying attention to the differing levels of adult development of coaches. The contexts referred to by the speaker are not individually named, however. The second speaker points to the multitude of interpretations that can be applied to facts. Facts are human artifacts that do not speak for themselves. One and the same fact and observation can lead to multiple conclusions because it is part of an organized whole comprising many facets. Again, no specific examples are given. The third speaker characterizes the position he holds as requiring a great deal of judgment and subtlety. There are many stakeholders and aspects of accountability in

Section 2: Context Thought Forms

113

the world he works in. These contexts are relative to each other, forming part of an organized whole, namely, the organization he works for and, more broadly, the community in which it is embedded and to which he represents his organization. Contrasts TF #14 stands in contrast to TFs #25 and #28 in the following sense. Rather than approaching a multiplicity of intellectual frames of reference contextually, these two thought forms support viewing such frames as living entities, in two different ways: • TF #25 focuses on the evaluative comparison of contexts as systems, treating the contexts as living systems under transformation. • TF #28 is about the need to integrate different perspectives on a single subject matter (such as an intellectual context) to do justice to its complexity. This thought form is imbued with an awareness of the nonidentity of real-world referents that do not easily, if at all, submit to human concepts. It therefore critiques formalistic thinking in the sense of procedures using abstractions torn loose from their referents, as is typical in formal logical thinking. These two thought forms are a reminder that TF #14 only captures the “constructive” aspect of multiplicity and multidimensionality. They extend TF #14 into the transformational domain of dialectics (Table 3.16). Thought Forms as Mind Openers Thought forms are not only criteria for scoring cognitive interviews. They are useful in any professional communication where opening one’s own and other people’s minds matters or is expected. In all of these cases, provoking others to think about a subject matter in more complex ways is an important purpose of using thought forms. Below I list, for each thought form, four sample questions that directly derive from it. The list is a work in progress to which the reader may add (Table 3.17). Table 3.16  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #14 25 Evaluative comparison of systems Holding systems side by side as forms and evaluating in transformation them as to effectiveness, usefulness, adaptability, and as mutually sustaining Contrasts: 10, 14, 26, 28 28 Integration of multiple [1] Preserving concreteness and realism by juxtaposing perspectives to define complex or integrating different perspectives on the same subject realities; critique of formalistic matter thinking [2] Critique of formalistic thinking that separates structure from content and of the associated conceptual hubris of pretending to represent realities fully by man-made concepts (nominalism) Contrasts: 2, 6, 16

114

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Table 3.17  Thought forms as mind openers Thought form class Context 8  Contextualization of part(s) within a whole; emphasis on part

Ways of challenging interlocutors’ thinking (Contrasts are listed in Tables B1–3) (a) How would your view of this situation/event/person change if you saw it (more objectively) in a broader context? (b) What does this situation, event, person contribute to the larger context of which it is an element? (c) Is this occurrence typical in the context in which it occurs? (d) Is this situation meaningful by itself, and in what way does it reflect a larger context? 9  Equilibrium of a whole; emphasis (a) Are these facts part of a larger Gestalt that you can on whole discern? (b) Taking a big picture perspective, what do these details amount to? (c) Have we viewed this event/situation sufficiently holistically? (d) How does this occurrence disturb the equilibrium of the situation as a whole? 10  (Description of) structures, (a) How would you describe the system as a whole in functions, layers, strata of a system structural or compositional terms? (b) Is there a discernable mechanism behind this jumble of events that would model what is going on? (c) How do the elements/functions/strata you describe make up a whole? (d) What makes the layers/functions/elements you describe function as an integrated structure? 11  Hierarchical nature of structures (a) In what way do these functions or strata presuppose and layers systems comprise each other? (b) What is required to move from one stratum to another? (c) What could happen if one jumped over one of the functions or partitions? (d) Can one judge each of these strata by itself or only from viewing the entire system they form? 12  Stability of system functioning (a) What accounts for the seeming stability of this situation? (b) What makes these elements function together so harmoniously? (c) Is the harmony of the situation preordained? If not, what upholds it? (d) Is this situation typical for the system when stable? 13  Intellectual systems: frames of (a) What exploratory intellectual framework is reference, traditions, ideologies appropriate for understanding this situation or event? (b) How does this assumption derive from the conceptual framework you have referred to? (c) What ideological framework does this assertion reinforce? (d) Does the larger conceptual framework you mention guarantee the validity of this step? (continued)

Section Summary

115

Table 3.17 (continued) Thought form class Context 14  Multiplicity of contexts (non-transformational)

Ways of challenging interlocutors’ thinking (Contrasts are listed in Tables B1–3) (a) What are the different contexts that play a role in this event or situation? (b) I s the context we are considering here perhaps too narrow to render a good explanation of what is going on? (c) Can you describe what this action step would look like in another (cultural) context? (d) What do these different contexts have in common?

Section Summary In this section of Chap. 3, the reader has acquired a deeper appreciation and understanding of the notion of context in the sense of an organized whole in the physical, social, and intellectual sense of the term. S(he) has seen that what matters in context is not only the existence of organized wholes but the internal differentiation defining and setting apart contexts, and the nonidentity relations that give rise to differences between contexts. While these relations are not yet per se in the foreground, they increasingly come to the fore as we move toward TF #14. From the vantage point of human thinking, in contrast to the real world we are thinking “about,” the context class of thought forms signals that there is always “a bigger picture” of what we consider as real, compared to what we started out thinking about. What we select to focus on in our thinking is always just a piece of a much bigger puzzle. We can make the choice to adhere to notions of a closed system, as we do in exercising formal logical thinking. This is what we do in “scientific thinking” when trying to grasp some special subject matter. Even when taking a bigger picture into account, as scientists, we tend to reify them in the sense of TF #6, ultimately to the detriment of our insights. The reader may remember that it is only beyond epistemic position 4 (in phase 1 of dialectical thinking) that individuals become cognizant of the uncertainty of truth. At that point in their development, they soon also become aware that there are no systems that are truly “closed” but that all systems, of whatever form, are open and transformational systems and therefore have limits of stability (TF #22). The entry path to this insight is via the understanding of processes and/or relationships. As soon as we have become aware of the relationship between elements defining a system or relationships of one system to another, our consciousness forces us to broaden our notion beyond the initially singled out context. In doing so, our thinking is mightily helped by an awareness of thought forms explicating the moment of relationship.

116

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Practice Reflections 1. How do you conceptualize the broader organizational context when you enter into it as a consultant? What TFs have major importance for you and in which of the three houses? 2. To what extent does the model of organizations you work from determine your work, specifically the context thought forms you habitually make use of? 3. In your work as a coach or consultant, what kind of equilibrium are you trying to establish in the sense of TFs #10 to #12? 4. How does your understanding of your client’s (clients’) work context determine your interventions? 5. What do you see as the dialectic of hierarchy in organizations, and how does it become topical in your work? 6. How do you assess your clients’ frame of reference in the sense of TF #13? 7. What, for you, is the benefit of viewing organizational culture as an ideology in the sense of TF #13? 8. As a change agent, what kind of stability are you aiming for in your interventions? 9. What is the larger intellectual (and cultural) context in which you do your work, in terms of the assumptions you are making, mostly unconsciously, every day? 10. What are some of the multiple organizational contexts that determine your work, whether in the sense of different organizational subdivisions or of stakeholders you are communicating with? Exercises 1. Explain the features of an organized whole in terms of thought forms of context. 2. Explain the difference(s) between TFs #8 and #9. 3. Explain the difference(s) between TFs #10, 11, and 12. 4. Explain the difference(s) between TFs #13 and 14. 5. In what sense is TF #11 a special case of TF #10? 6. Describe a work situation in terms of TF #10, treating TFs #11–12 as contrasting thought forms relative to TF #10. 7. Describe the theoretical framework from which you do your work in terms of TF #13. 8. In the sense of TF #14, what other aspects come into play in the way you conceptualize “problems”? 9. Often, intellectual contexts are simply communicated as facts (“We are following this paradigm, best practice, procedure,” etc.). How, as a dialectical thinker, do you deal with and respond to that by way of using process thought forms? 10. Every organizational context contains some missing pieces, often major elements never admitted. In your work, what contextual TFs help you in locating them and making them known to management? Explain each thought form and case in detail.

Section 3: Relationship Thought Forms

117

Section 3: Relationship Thought Forms In the Dialectical Thought Form Framework, relationship is the epistemological equivalent of Bhaskar’s 3L (third level). The latter is unified by the category of totality … (and) pinpoints [among other things] the error of … the hypostization of thought”. The category of Relationship “encompasses such … themes as reflexivity, … holistic causality, internal relationality and intra-activity, but also de-totalization, alienation, … illicit fusion and fission. … Its dialectics are (those) of center and periphery, form and content, figure and ground, … (and) re-totalization in a unity-in-diversity. (Bhaskar 1993, 392–3)

As a mode of thinking, relationship thinking challenges reductive (de-totalizing) thought and the separation of entities from their shared common ground, the notion that one can absolutely separate one entity from another and thus “hypostatize it.” This mode of thinking inquires not just into relationships but into their structure, the patterns of interaction that result in relationships, as well as the detailed nature of intrinsic and constitutive relationships that are logically prior to what they relate. (Example, “marriage” is a constitutive relationship that precedes being “married” as a “husband” or “wife.”) From a commonsense perspective (or “naïve thinking”), relationships are opaque if not invisible and thus difficult to be aware of for human understanding. They are, however, the gold of reason. While one can perceive processes, like water streaming through a landscape, and can envision a context, say a landscape or social scene, relationships seem elusive. In the personal domain, one speaks of loved ones assuming that they are related without dwelling on the structure of the relationships implied (thus contextualizing them). One typically does not care to distinguish external from internal or constitutive relationships. In this chapter, that is going to change. We are emphatically leaving analytical reasoning behind since all it knows of are external relationships. It became clear while discussing context thought forms that what exists, whether in the social or physical world, exists as an organized whole and that this whole, while outwardly stable, is characterized by nonidentity. While nonidentity brings variety and depth into what exists, it has an intrinsic tendency to destabilize what presently exists or is thought to exist. Especially where nonidentity is the outcome of a multitude of gaps and hidden dimensions, this naturally raises the question of what is the “invisible hand” that holds all the differences together as a totality, thus what are the relationships that bind the components of the whole together. In what follows, I explore the relationship moment by leading the reader through the individual thought forms it comprises. Through these forms, one moves closer to the notion of system since one of the major implications of systems is that each constitutes the common ground of the elements it comprises. (Considered without the relationships it encompasses, a totality is totalitarian.) The fundamental thinking error regarding this class of thought forms is therefore the neglect or disavowal of, or blindness to, relationship. This error ruins systemic thinking, however strong the

118

3  Thought Form Descriptions

grasp of process and context may be. It also supports totalitarian thinking, which is based on unrelated absolutes. Just listen to ordinary conversations. They abound in context descriptions that are largely dead from the start since relationships are not part of the picture. Relationships are the lifeblood of context. This insight raises the question of whether paying attention to relationships between parts can forestall breakdown of a context or system due to limits of stability. Another important question is whether there exist relationships that are constitutive in the sense that they define the essence of what they relate and thus logically precede the elements they relate. As suggested by Fig.  3.1, the class of relationship thought forms shares with process that it provides tools for critical thinking. This is so because once we think of something as related to something else, we take it out of its isolation and put it into a context where it loses its absoluteness. We can then more easily understand why a process may be ongoing between the two related parts, the kind of holistic causality that TF #6 is pointing to and that TF #7 explores in terms of embedding in a larger process. In a social science perspective, the relationship moment comprises all those issues that relate to social critique, unity in diversity (e.g., multiculturalism), revealing and relieving alienation, and the identification of disavowals of totality operated through isolating parts of a whole as unrelated and thus denying them their common ground. In these endeavors, it is important to realize that in a totality things, events, situations, and persons can be different from each other only to the extent that they are also the same or share common ground. This was established early on, by TF #2 (Fig. 3.3). The Sequence of Relationship Thought Forms In the class of relationship thought forms, too, the initial forms are mere pointers to the essential focus of the class. The first step is to acknowledge that two or more items are not entirely separable (TF #15). Two aspects of the class should be noticed: • There is emphasis on the value of bringing into relationship (TF #16). • There is critique of failing to bring into relationship (TF #17).

Process [P]

Relationship [R]

Context [C]

Transformational System [T]

Fig. 3.3  The four moments of dialectic

Section 3: Relationship Thought Forms

119

Table 3.18  Relationship thought forms Relationship TFs 15. Limits of separation. Focus on existence and value of relationship 16. Value of bringing into relationship 17. Critique of reductionism and “de-totalized,” thus isolated, entities separated from their shared common ground 18. Relatedness of different value and judgment systems 19. Structural aspects of relationship 20. Patterns of interaction in relationships 21. Constitutive, intrinsic relationships (logically prior to what they relate)

The thought forms that follow TF #17 all have to do with describing relationships in greater detail, all the way to constitutive relationships that determine the nature of the elements they relate, logically preceding them (Table 3.18). In a world full of divisions, black and white thinking, disavowal of totality, and alienation, these thought forms are a very powerful antidote to common sense but also to understanding, scientific or not. In the light of our bare-bones education system focused on high levels of performance in the short term – a blueprint for alienation– the thought forms in this class are perhaps the most difficult to notice and use. This is so since relationships are invisible to the unschooled thinker. They have to be imagined within a holistic framework and thus require not only knowledge but imagination.

Thought Forms in Detail As the reader will notice in Table A3.1 and A3.2, the first two thought forms, TF #15 and 16, are closely linked in that they direct the thinker’s attention to relationships. As BB point out (1981, 74), this can be done in three ways: • By asserting the existence of a relationship • By showing the limitations resulting from not relating two (or more) things • By asserting the problems or limitations that have resulted from keeping two things, contexts, or situations separate from each other As this implies, we are not only talking about conceptualizing things as related but also about bringing them into relationship materially. We will see in the class of transformational systems that this can be taken a step further, as is topical in TF #26 (coordinating systems) (Table 3.19). Before discussing the individual thought forms in detail, it is helpful to consider the impact of the category of relationship on other thought forms (BB 1981, 75–76):

120

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Table 3.19  Relationship thought forms in detail Relationship •  Dialectical image: common ground (totality) • Figure: what does not exist other than held within a totality of (possibly oppositional) links and connections • Ground: unified by the category of totality, thus of holistic causality •  Relationship to system: living core of any system • Scope: all parts of a whole, however split and split off, center to periphery • Theme: unity in diversity, internal relatedness, illicit separation and fission, (undialectical) fixation on unrelated (isolated) elements and multiples • Dialectics: reciprocal, intrinsic, based on constitutive relationship (logically preceding parts of a whole) and shared, common ground 15 Limits of separation. Focus Assertion of the existence of relationship(s), on existence and value of pointing to common ground and the difficulty of relationship separating things from each other beyond certain limits Contrasts: 16–21 16 Value of bringing into Assertion of the value of seeing a relationship relationship between things or forms otherwise seen as separate and unrelated. Contrasts: 15, 17 17 Critique of reductionism and Critique of de-totalizing reality by neglecting “de-totalized,” thus isolated, relationships between opinions, assumptions, and entities separated from their ideas, leading to a reduction of complexity, to shared common ground overlooking underlying shared frameworks, thus common ground. Critique of absence of holistic thinking Contrasts: 18–21 18 Relatedness of different value Assertion of the relatedness of seemingly different, and judgment systems even opposed, values, judgments, ideas, and principles, stressing cultural commonalities Contrast: 20 19 Structural aspects of Focusing on what is the formal structure of a relationship relationship (or relationships) in order to locate the essence of how things are related. Contrasts: 4, 15–17, 20–21 20 Patterns of interaction in Describing a pattern of interaction and influence in relationships a relationship, emphasizing the pattern(s) of interaction between the elements that are in relationship Contrasts: 4, 21 21 Constitutive, intrinsic Describing a relationship as constitutive or as relationships (logically prior making the parts it relates what they are. Emphasis to what they relate) on the logical and other priority of the relationship over the elements it relates Contrasts: 2–3, 15–20

Section 3: Relationship Thought Forms

121

Process • The process ongoing in TFs #2 and #3 is dependent upon relationships, in that the formation of a synthesis depends on bringing thesis (A) and antithesis ­(non-­A) into mutual relation, whether the antithesis is a concept or a nonidentical realworld referent (as in negative dialectic). • TF #4 traces movement to ongoing interaction, which presupposes that the interacting parties are in relation to each other • The application of TF #5 for affirmation of the practical character of knowledge may lead to the application of TFs #15–16 by drawing attention to relationships between an individual’s thinking and other aspects of his or her life. • Insofar as TF #6 exposes hypostatization [“casting in cement”] in which something is mistaken as an independent entity, it functions coordinately with TFs #15–16 since to deny self-subsistence (TF #6) is to deny separation (TF #15–16). Context • TFs #8–9 for locating an element in the whole of which it is a part complement TFs #15–16 (asserting relations) since seeing an element as part of a whole gives rise to seeing it in relation to other parts of the same whole, and vice versa. • TFs #15–16 and #24 are coordinated by the idea of dialectic in which developmental transformation is viewed as occurring through interactive and constitutive relationships. This is foreshadowed by the process thought forms, especially TFs #3–4 and #7. Transformational System • TFs #23 and #24 taken together describe developmental transformation as resulting from the relationship of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (however much the latter may signal the insufficiency of the movement of thought it embodies). • TF #23 describes the relationship of a thesis to an antithesis, while TF #24 describes a relationship of antithesis to a synthesis. The first is potentially conflictual; the second may heighten or diminish conflict. • TF #25, focused on the evaluation of systems in transformation, presupposes their relationship. • TF #26, attending to problems of system coordination, implicitly asserts that systems are related. • TF #27 does not explicitly name relationships but obviously includes them as the core of living systems. • TF #28 juxtaposes perspectives on an organized whole, concretizing reality by acknowledging that it is multifaceted. It also critically inspects the relationship of concepts and methods to real-world referents, pronouncing them “formalistic” if the element of nonidentity is disavowed.

122

3  Thought Form Descriptions

All of these entries provide good reasons for learning about relationship thought forms in greater depth, particularly since they need to be distinguished from the many contrasting thought forms they conjure up, both in the relationship class and outside of it. Individual Thought Forms

Thought Form #15–16 15 Limits of separation. Focus on existence and value of relationship 16 Value of bringing into relationship

Assertion of the existence of relationship(s), pointing to common ground and the difficulty of separating things from each other beyond certain limits Contrasts: 16–21 Assertion of the value of seeing a relationship between things or forms otherwise seen as separate and unrelated Contrasts: 15, 17

The emphasis in these two thought forms lies on the speaker’s awareness that what exists is part of an encompassing totality and therefore is both separate and inseparable from what it coexists with. In TF #15, this awareness is still vague, while in TF #16 the notion of totality, thus of common ground, is more emphatically asserted. In TF #16, the speaker also proceeds to demonstrate what is gained when making the totality of things appear. One can draw attention to relationships by asserting limits of separating two or more things or, alternatively, by asserting the value of bringing things into relationship. The difference between TFs #15 and #16 is thus a slight one. The first is reflective, the second demonstrative. The interview excerpts for TF #15, below, will make this clear: [1] We had a meeting of the Board two days ago on how to define this year’s strategy. I was taken aback by the one-sidedness of the discussion which tended to be all about technology and company branding, with not too much attention paid to how effective is our internal business process and the contribution of the workforce. I openly lamented the one-sidedness, saying that there are limits to what you can separate out in a discussion of strategy. Obviously to me, you need to acknowledge the relative contribution of as many factors as you can muster. In particular, separating strategy from issues of human capital is a real mistake, since how the company plans ahead regarding the workforce should be an integral part of strategy. So, I was glad that I could rely on my HR Director to support me in this. [2] I have heard for a long time that coaching is coming out of the North American self-help movement, and that it is quite different, therefore, from psychology. Because psychology is based in empirical research, and coaching so far has not been. But recently there have been voices asking whether coaching does not need to develop further in the direction of using “evidence” rather than just intu-

Section 3: Relationship Thought Forms

123

ition, or intuition disguised as “best practices.” And I think that notion is well taken since coaching after all uses many of the processes and tools used by a psychologist, although in a much less developed and systematic way. And I think coaches could only benefit from paying more attention to this relationship and, what is more, learn more from psychology, both in theory and practice. [3] I tend to have very quick, visceral reactions to things, and coaching has helped me to step back and have a look at what’s before me, and not necessarily act so quickly. Because what happens when you react is that you lose track of connections, links, and relationships. Acting emotionally is like cutting the Gordian knot. So, I have become much more circumspect with things, more aware of what I am leaving out of consideration when just forging ahead. Rather than saying: “What you propose does not work for me,” I now ask: “Why does somebody think this way?” What is this opinion or decision linked to, and what may be the politics behind it? In short, I am making the effort to bring what has been said or seen into a relationship with my own goals and values, and so I end up with a much richer picture of what is going on. The first speaker laments the one-sidedness of discussions of strategy in which only a limited number of factors is ever considered, and then not truly in their relationship to each other. For him, “strategy” references a totality including all competitive approaches that come to be known. The second speaker is more emphatic when he points to an intrinsic relationship between coaching and psychology, two disciplines intrinsically related but not truly integrated at this time. The third speaker exemplifies what it means to think in terms of relationship. He points to the experiential and conceptual richness gained by taking relationships into account, thus indirectly asserting their value. Contrasts Being simply a pointer to limits of separation, TF #15 has many contrasts within the class of relationship itself. Essentially, the contrasting thought forms listed below all are more specific than this first thought form in that they delve into relationship issues in greater detail. • TF #16 makes explicit the value of bringing what has been kept separate into a relationship. (This implies TF #5 and TF #6.) • TF #17 critiques reductionism, subjectivism, pluralism, and any other form of reducing common ground to isolated monads. (This implies TF #6.) • TF #18 specifies the relationship between different value and judgment systems. (This implies TF #13.) • TF #19 describes in detail the structure of relationships. (This applies TF #10 to relationships and formalizes TF #4.) • TF #20 elucidates patterns emerging in interactive relationships. (This is the relationship counterpart to TF #4.)

3  Thought Form Descriptions

124 Table 3.20  The contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #15 16 Value of bringing into relationship 17

18

19

20

21

Assertion of the value of seeing a relationship between things or forms otherwise seen as separate and unrelated Contrasts: 15, 17 Critique of reductionism and Critique of de-totalizing reality by neglecting relationships de-totalized, thus isolated between opinions, assumptions, and ideas, leading to a entities separated from their reduction of complexity, to overlooking underlying shared shared common ground frameworks, thus common ground. Critique of absence of holistic thinking Contrasts: 18–21 Relatedness of different value Assertion of the relatedness of seemingly different, even and judgment systems opposed, values, judgments, ideas, and principles, stressing cultural commonalities Contrast: 20 Structural aspects of Focusing on what is the formal structure of a relationship relationship (or relationships) to locate the essence of how things are related Contrasts: 4, 15–17, 20–21 Patterns of interaction in Describing a pattern of interaction and influence in a relationships relationship, emphasizing the pattern(s) of interaction between the elements that are in relationship Contrasts: 4, 21 Constitutive, intrinsic Describing a relationship as “constitutive” or as making the relationships (logically prior to parts it relates what they are. Emphasis on the logical and what they relate) other priority of the relationship over the elements it relates Contrasts: 2–3, 15–20

• TF #21 focuses on constitutive relationships that define the elements they relate and thus are logical prior to these elements. (This is the relationship equivalent of how TF #9 relates to TF #8 and frozen version of TF #7.) (Table 3.20)

Thought Form #16 We credit a speaker with using TF #16 if s(he) asserts the value of bringing what is now separate into relationship. We do so because the speaker is making a value judgment that is grounded in dialectical thinking. The dialectical element here is that in relationship, common ground is simultaneously asserted and denied because of the differences between things that stand in relationship. Unity and difference require each other: I am different from you only because we share being human. (Being different outside of our humanity is a matter of different species.) If we were not related to each other, we could not be different either. Below follow three examples for the use of TF #16: [1] You asked me what has changed in my thinking compared to ten years ago. That’s an interesting question. I could name many things but what stands out for me is that I am much more aware of the relationship in this company between its

Thought Form #16

125

different work areas such as research, product development, marketing, human resources, and sales. The real issue is that you can’t really develop one without the other, and to keep that in mind while you work on priorities is the real art of leading a company. I am now actively engaged in bringing about better thinking about how to strengthen the relationships between the silos in this company. [2] I have noticed in discussion with my peers that there is a link between seeing things holistically and seeing them as related. When you step out of your little shell and make an effort to gauge your own location in the larger context, you discover, above all, relationships. For instance, as Director of Marketing of a multinational company, how could I not be struck by the differences between managers’ cultural background, and by the relationship of that background to how they see the company as a whole? And, increasingly, I am adopting a multicultural attitude in my quarterly meetings on different continents that has greatly helped me see where my colleagues are coming from, and why they think the way they do. I am also creating a communication vehicle for them to meet more often independently of our yearly meetings. It’s clear that there is a lot of value in bringing different perspectives on company matters together. [3] When speaking about how to develop our staff, I am encountering a clash of opinions that all have to do with how different people look at what is a “human being.” A few of my C-level colleagues seem to see people as nothing but skill sets or bundles of competencies – let’s say “input/output machines.” Others are more aware that people have a potential waiting to be developed, although they may find that potential difficult to assess. What I see is that there is a clear relationship between skill sets and potential. I mean that, depending on somebody’s potential, the person displays different skills and competences. And so, we need to do some research as to what is this relationship so that we can enhance skill sets by promoting potential as a trigger of making them manifest. But not many people here see the value in doing so. The first speaker points to the value of seeing relationships between divisions of his company, previously perceived as more or less separate. The second speaker is emphatic about bringing relationship thinking to bear on how his company is managed, for instance, by way of more frequent meetings that enhance strategic thinking. The third speaker sees a close relationship between skill set and developmental potential without asserting the latter’s constitutive power. Demonstrating the value of relationship is more specific and emphatic than simply pointing to limits of separation. Whether to score TF #15 or TF #16 will therefore depend on the degree to which the existence of relationships is asserted by a speaker. Showing the value of bringing into relationship is also different from critiquing subjectivism, pluralism, and de-totalization. The contrasts for TF #16 are therefore as follows: • TF #15 • TF #17 (Table 3.21)

126

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Table 3.21  The contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #16 15 Limits of separation. Focus on existence and value of relationship 17 Critique of reductionism and de-totalized, thus isolated, entities separated from their shared common ground

Assertion of the existence of relationship(s), pointing to common ground and the difficulty of separating things from each other beyond certain limits Contrasts: 16–21 Critique of de-totalizing reality by neglecting relationships between opinions, assumptions, and ideas, leading to a reduction of complexity, to overlooking underlying shared frameworks, thus common ground. Critique of absence of holistic thinking Contrasts: 18–21

Thought Form #17–18 The next two thought forms, TFs #17 and #18, are applications of TFs #15 and #16 to evaluations. They direct thinkers’ attention to the fact that multiple points of view or evaluations stand in a dynamic relationship to each other. So directed, attention will lead to a critique of all those perspectives which are founded on principles of separateness. Such perspectives misconstrue multiple viewpoints as aggregates of unrelated entities (“pluralism”) whose ultimate source is the individual (“subjectivism”). TF #17 critiques reductionism and de-totalization (negation of common ground) of any form. TF #18 points out that when relationship is denied, intersubjectively valid judgments – judgments that have validity beyond a single individual – cannot be made (BB 1981, 77). In dialectics, all these perspectives are one-sided, thus erroneous, since they are leaving out of account the ground that discrete entities, individuals, and specific value systems share. 17 Critique of reductionism and de-totalized, thus isolated, entities separated from their shared common ground

Critique of de-totalizing reality by neglecting relationships between opinions, assumptions, and ideas, leading to a reduction of complexity, to overlooking underlying shared frameworks, thus common ground. Critique of absence of holistic thinking Contrasts: 18–21

Let us define the three culprits referred to above in more detail (BB 1981, 77): • Pluralism: seeing multiple points of view or evaluations as an aggregate of discrete entities • Subjectivism: viewing the individual as the ultimate source of evaluative judgment. (This is the basis of the pluralist position.) • Relativism: claiming that no intersubjectively valid judgments exist, as expressed by saying that “anyone has the right to his own opinion,” with the implication that no judgments about individual opinions can be made In TF #17 and #18, these claims are all rejected as violating common ground and thus de-totalizing the sphere of judgment. The claims are declared worthless since

Thought Form #16

127

from the vantage point of the moments of dialectic, evaluations and opinions have to be seen in the context of social judgment systems and the social world at large that generates and maintains them. As BB say based on their constructivist point of view (1981, 78): Because human beings (a) interact with each other and their environment on the basis of their judgment system, and (b) modify their judgment systems in the course of their ­interaction, the [dialectical] perspective views judgment systems themselves as interacting with each other and constituting each other through the interaction of human beings. …

In contrast to pluralism as well as subjectivism, relationship thinking sees judgment systems and ways of knowing as deriving from people’s interactive relationships in the social world. It is this interactivity that creates a common ground. In this ground, isolated individuals do not exist. The notion is that denying the existence of relationship is counterproductive since it hampers movement toward more inclusive, differentiated, and integrated ways of making meaning of the social world. Social-emotional theory is one way to make explicit what human individuals share. The theory developed in this book is another. Beyond common ground, both theories transcend what is shared by humans in the direction of their ultimate potential. This potential, too, is shared but is realized to subjectively different degrees. Thinking in terms of relationship, then, naturally leads to a kind of thinking in which pluralism is viewed as unfruitful, as is subjectivism. Relationship thinking abhors mere multiplicity where one element stands unrelated next to the other. Separating individuals and individual entities does not “make sense.” In contrast to relationship thinking, formal logic, closed-system ways of knowing erect their fantasies upon the notion of an isolated individual that cannot form an organized whole with other individuals but remains apart from others of its kind. This leads, among other things, to the ontic fallacy (Bhaskar 1993) according to which knowledge is seen as determined by factual reality (data), despite having been the generative source of data, thereby literally “doing itself in.” Since factual reality is a human construction, this is a case of knowledge holding itself prisoner. Examples abound. It is worth noting that several other dialectical thought forms play a role in rejecting the three culprits of denying common ground (BB 1981, 79–80): • TFs #2 and #4 see judgment systems as changing as a result of interactive relationships in the social world. • TF #6 critiques the arrest of process and by extension also critiques subjectivism in which subjective beliefs and values are frozen and isolated within the individual. • TFs #13–14 assume contextual relativism which leads to viewing individual evaluations and opinions in the context of more comprehensive judgment systems as organized wholes. Transformational and systemic views also spawn a critique of pluralism and subjectivism as does TF #17:

128

3  Thought Form Descriptions

• TF #24 involves assigning value to transformations of a system and to systems that remain stable through developmental change. • TF #25 would fail if pluralism or subjectivism was made the rule because the coordination of systems presupposes an evaluative comparison of systems. • TF #26 (process of coordinating systems) would fail since susceptibility of coordination is dependent upon stability achieved by way of developmental change. In what follows, I first present examples of using TF #17 and then of TF #18.

Thought Form #17 [1] Before the coaching began, I was ready to leave. I hated my job. I did not get along with the President. He wanted to keep me, but he was also very frustrated with me. Because I acted out, sometimes not totally inappropriately, but I was acting out in a way a managing partner shouldn’t. I became territorial about things that were not important. I was not looking at the big picture, the corporate picture. I was looking at things from my perspective, as to what is good for me, for my team, as opposed to what’s good for the organization. And once I understood that, I became much more effective. I understand now that my viewpoint was based on quite subjective interpretations and on setting my own standards nobody could share. My subjective perspective was running amok, and I lost sight of how it relates to others’ perspective and the larger context I work in. [2] There is this notion that everybody is entitled to his or her viewpoint, and that’s taken to be a “democratic” principle. God help us! I think this notion neglects the fact that if we let go of the idea of the inter-subjective validity of opinions and their relationship, we are badly misconstruing the cultural commonalities we share. In our public discourse, we can’t just replace that kind of validity as used in science with an aggregate of diverse opinions. Typically, there are a lot of common assumptions embedded in seemingly diverse opinions, and we need to ask what they are. We also need to become aware of the historical root of these silent agreements we are all making, but that’s another point. [3] I think we need a better perspective on what is an individual’s right in a democracy. Our brand of democracy is just too individualistic to be exported elsewhere, or even to do much good in our own country. What on the surface is a different opinion, is often linked to opposing opinions grounded in the same deeply buried assumptions, only that it is interpreted differently in different cases. Take for instance the way we view criminal cases. We don’t typically approach them seeing the link that binds crime to the environment in which it is carried out. I don’t mean to take away the responsibility of the individual. However, if we hope to ever reduce the crime rate, we can’t just follow this subjectivist notion of responsibility. We need to acknowledge, rather, the responsibility of the larger community for making certain abuses less than worthwhile. We need to think of crime in terms of community, not simply isolated individuals.

Thought Form #16

129

The first speaker asserts that subjective judgments based on unawareness of their relatedness to other judgments are unrealistic and ineffective. This is a critique of pluralism, the notion that evaluations are discrete entities unrelated to each other. The second speaker is critical of misconstruing the notion of democracy on subjectivist grounds, such that the individual is taken to be the ultimate source of sound judgment, truth, and legitimacy. He thereby critiques the basis of the pluralist position. The third speaker not only critiques individualistic notions of crime but gives reasons for why taking responsibility for crimes is a community matter, not of isolated individuals. For him, thinking about crime as brought about by isolated individuals is a flat denial of communal responsibility, thus of common ground. Whether they know it or not, all three speakers are aware of the social world as a totality that defines the common ground in which different – even opposing – evaluations and judgments cohere. As we shall see in Sect. 4, common ground in the social sense of the term is the outcome of ongoing development toward higher degrees of social stability through transformation, with all the possibilities of breakdown and reversal that implies. Contrasts of TF #17 While TF #17 as a stance articulates a critique of denying common ground, it does not provide tools for describing the nature and specifics of relationships. Such tools are found in TFs #18–21: • TF #18 describes the relatedness of evaluations and judgment systems due to social interaction. • TF #19 describes relationships in structural terms. • TF #20 describes patterns of interaction in relationships. • TF #21 describes constitutive relationships that logically precede the elements they relate (Table 3.22).

Thought Form #18 While TF #17 is critical of neglecting or denying the shared ground common to different evaluations, TF #18 positively points to the relatedness of evaluations of the social world in the form of judgments of its individual members. Speakers using this thought form: • See commonalities between outwardly different value systems • Point out that subjective beliefs cannot be “bottled up” in discrete individuals • See opinions in the context of pervasive judgment systems, pointing out patterns of evaluation within such systems

3  Thought Form Descriptions

130 Table 3.22  Contrasts (alternatives) to thought form #17 18 Relatedness of different value and judgment systems

Assertion of the relatedness of seemingly different, even opposed, values, judgments, ideas, and principles, stressing cultural commonalities Contrast: 20 19 Structural aspects of Focusing on what is the formal structure of a relationship (or relationship relationships) in order to locate the essence of how things are related Contrasts: 4, 15–17, 20–21 20 Patterns of interaction in Describing a pattern of interaction and influence in a relationships relationship, emphasizing the pattern(s) of interaction between the elements that are in relationship Contrasts: 4, 21 21 Constitutive, intrinsic Describing a relationship as constitutive or as making the relationships (logically prior parts it relates into what they are. Emphasis on the logical to what they relate) and other priority of the relationship over the elements it relates. Contrasts: 2–3, 15–20

• View agents as encountering social and cultural antecedents that shape their internal conversations in line with social groupings • View agents’ concerns rooted in different value systems on account of which their projects share a common ground • Link isolated opinions and judgments to a broader historical, cultural, or developmental context 18 Relatedness of different value and judgment systems

Assertion of the relatedness of seemingly different, even opposed, values, judgments, ideas, and principles, stressing cultural commonalities Contrast: 20

The following interview excerpts will amplify this: [1] In this age of relativism, you get the feeling that “everything goes” as far as individual behaviors are concerned. But really that amounts to denying that we are a community in which safeguarding everybody’s safety and dignity carries a high value. Just tolerating others’ differences is not enough. We need to acknowledge common denominators as guides for everybody’s behavior and go beyond the notion of society as an aggregate of separate individuals. However different individuals’ opinions may be, they certainly share common values, and these should be more strongly seen and acknowledged than is typically the case. [2] I am quite critical of many of my peers whenever they come to decisions that I would call one-sided or unilateral. I find that we typically all have a hard time taking multiple aspects of a topic into account and seeing the relatedness of outwardly different opinions. Not only that, we are typically not very astute in seeing how exactly the different aspects, say of developing our company’s mar-

Thought Form #16

131

ket, are related. When you only look for short-term fixes, these multiple aspects easily elude you, and you end up with a very one-sided strategy. [3] In our human resources meetings, I see the rush to surveys as if surveys could give an answer to the question of how we should proceed in our workforce development efforts. But surveys are really a very atomistic tool where you sum data points that are specific to potentially vastly different needs and capabilities of people. Two people may have the same opinion for very different reasons, just as a particular piece of data can carry wildly different interpretations. So, you can’t just go “by the numbers,” but must take the implicit qualitative differences between respondents into account. And that requires a different, more qualitative, kind of research than mere surveys typically lead to. The first speaker pleads for a stronger acknowledgment of the commonality embodied by different opinions. Respecting others’ opinions is not enough. One needs to focus on the judgment system they articulate as an organized whole shared by outwardly different opinions. These opinions are related to each other and make no sense when separated from each other. Opposition parties are possible only based on the common ground of a shared culture. The second speaker emphasizes that topics of discussion and debate often seem “difficult” because they fail to do justice to the multiple aspects of a situation or issue. He thinks that this has much to do with the short-term, quick-fix perspective held by members of his organization. The third speaker critiques workforce surveys based on quantitative research. He sees greater value in qualitative approaches because they seem to be more suited to clarifying the qualitative differences between people’s needs and capabilities. Since in contrast to quantitative studies they don’t reduce individual opinions to a mere data point, qualitative studies give more ample insight into the development needs of an entire workforce. Contrast of TF #18 The relatedness of different judgment and value systems should be distinguished from interactive relationships molded into certain patterns. Judgment systems may determine patterns of interactions in human relationships, but they cannot themselves be seen as patterns manifesting in such relationships. 20 Patterns of interaction Describing a pattern of interaction and influence in a relationship, in relationships emphasizing the pattern(s) of interaction between the elements that are in relationship Contrasts: 4, 21

132

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Thought Form #19 19 Structural aspects of Focusing on what is the formal structure of a relationship (or relationship relationships) in order to locate the essence of how things are related Contrasts: 4, 15–17, 20–21

With the next two thought forms, we move into describing relationships in greater detail, whether in structural terms (TF #19) or in terms of patterns of interaction characterizing relationships (TF #20). Both focus on the interactive aspect of relationship, describing the parties to a relationship as acting upon each other (without emphasizing process). This is comparable to, but different from, TFs #3 and #4 since the latter deal with interaction from the point of view of processes involved. Thus, while TFs #19 and 20 focus on relationships, TFs #3–4 describe patterns of motion. Distinguishing between a P and R emphasis is a matter of what predominates in the speaker’s or writer’s mind. In using this thought form, the speaker moves away from simply pointing to relations or critiquing their absence in somebody else’s thinking. For him, the moment of relationship now becomes topical. The reader might ask herself how to view “static relationships.” But relationships are not “static” simply because they may not focus on process. In a universe containing TFs #1 and #2, static relationships do not exist although their process implication may not be in focus. In dialectical terms, a static relationship is a contradiction since the two (or more) elements it relates are never static. Therefore, the link between them cannot be static either. The reader may also wonder whether what we call a structure is ever static. But here the same applies, despite the possible choice to present structures in mathematical form as Piaget chose to do. Relationships are the results of processes that establish them; they are not simply “there.” Thus, if one is to describe the structure of a relationship in the form of TF #19, one cannot simply abstract from the other moments of dialectic. The four moments and their relationships to each other are themselves in motion. They form each other’s context since they form an organized whole whose elements are in motion. For this reason, the structure meant in TF #19 is a dynamic, not a static, one. A speaker using TF #19: • Describes a specific relationship in detail • Describes a system by pointing to relationships that make its continuing existence possible • Points to relationships between figure and ground • Describes something as going “both way” • Describes something as intrinsically related to something (without it could not be) The three examples below will further amplify the essence of the thought form: [1] I recently had a talk with my boss, in which he accused me of not always checking back with him on decisions I am making. This was upsetting to me, since I am very much taking into account my boss’s agenda, seeing my own as correla-

Thought Form #16

133

tive to it. I am very much influenced by the decisions my boss makes, even those that do not directly regard me and my group. I wish that he were equally open to seeing the influence I am exerting on his work. It also bothers me that my boss speaks of our working relationship as if were cast in stone. I guess he is implying that he should be in charge of it, and I should simply submit to his dictates. I see our relationship rather as evolving and am always again perplexed to notice that he can’t think that way. [2] I am now in charge of a team of seven individuals, all of whom have a very different understanding of what we need to achieve. The difficulty is that some of them seem to have an insufficient appreciation of the fact that our mandate is dependent on each person’s insight into his own abilities in relation to those of others. However, rather than being highly aware of their own assumptions, values, and principles, they tend to have a rather “groupy” notion of who they are. Take them out of the team and they feel lost. So, while they are dedicated, they often fail to think deeply enough about their interactions with each other, and the impact of these interactions on their relationship. They also relate somewhat naïvely to the team’s mandate, proceeding on the belief that each team member’s values and capabilities are more or less the same. [3] In this competitive culture, people are typically much attuned to the interests and needs of others. That doesn’t mean, however, that they are particularly good at understanding what these needs are and how they themselves are influenced by other peoples’ interests. That takes some reflection on one’s own behavior, which is not easy to practice. On the whole people’s relationship to each other in a capitalistic culture is dictated by principles of competition as well as service. They are hard to separate. I want to be of service to my clients, and I serve them by working hard to eliminate my competition. So, the interaction with my client(s) is structurally one of “I know what your needs are and can serve these needs better than anybody else.” This is one of the principles of SPIN selling, and I have had very good experiences with practicing it. The first speaker has a hard time understanding the relationship between her boss as a physical and an internalized other (as in Kegan stage S-4/3). She suggests that the structure of their relationship is one of correlation but not of reciprocity. While aware of ongoing processes between her and the boss in the sense of TFs #3, 4, and 6, the speaker remains focused on the structure of her relationship with the boss. She is expecting the boss to act differently from how he is presently acting, which is upsetting to her. What is especially upsetting for her is the fact that the boss sees their relationship in very rigid terms, instead of seeing it as evolving. (However, this evolution is not the focus of the speaker’s attention.) The second speaker (who, social-emotionally, may be at a similar developmental stage as the first) complains of the lack of understanding on the side of members of his team. They seem to assume that everybody’s values are the same, and therefore act in a “groupy” way. They misconstrue the relationship that holds between the team’s mandate and each member’s specific interests and capabilities. Since team members cannot construe this relationship from a self-authoring position, their

134

3  Thought Form Descriptions

understanding of how they relate to each other and the team’s mandate remains undeveloped. The structure of these relationships is described as deriving from principles of adult development, however informally. The third speaker is aware of a great number of relationships in the human services field. He chooses to focus on the relationship of competition to service, on one hand, and his actual relationship to his clients, on the other. For him, the competition and service ideologies of capitalistic work are closely linked and almost reciprocal (the more competitive I am, the better I can serve my clients). The speaker relates to his clients putting “service first,” whereas in his design of services he puts competition first. He is not very detached from the practice he follows but has enough of an understanding of it to have embraced a particular strategy of selling called SPIN (situation-problem-implication-need/playoff) selling. Contrasts Describing structural aspects of relationship is a distinctive way of making relationships visible and explicit, beyond simply asserting limits of separation. The fact that relationship exists is taken for granted and acted upon by spelling it out. There is some similarity with process thought form TF #4, except that the latter focuses on movement occurring in relationships (which themselves are taken for granted). The dialectic of process and relationship is decided to the side of the latter. This decision may give way to abstractions in which debunking process thought forms may be required. The critical commonality of process and relationship is of great interest in dialectical thinking. The absences and gaps seen in the real world by dialectical thinking can be “filled” with either process or relationship elements. Whichever is given priority by thinking will ultimately have to be attended to from the “opposite” point of view. Process establishes as well as presupposes relationship, while relationship without process leads to risky abstractions from the real world. Seeing the world in relational terms may be paid for by losing touch with the evolution of things, in which case TF #6 or TF #7 has to come into play. The thought forms that form contrasts with TF #19 are as follows: • TF #4 centers on patterns of interaction creating patterns of motion. • TF #15 includes no structural descriptions but only pointers to limits of separation, structure being taken for granted. • TF #16 focuses on the value, not the structure, of relationships. • TF #17 is predominantly critical of de-totalization (undoing totality) in its many forms. • TF #20 describes patterns of interaction as does TF #4, only that the focus is on relationship, not process. • TF #21 describes constitutive relationships that logically precede the elements they relate (Table 3.23).

Thought Form #16

135

Table 3.23  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #19 4

Patterns of interaction

15 Limits of separation. Focus on existence and value of relationship 16 Value of bringing into relationship 17 Critique of reductionism and of “de-totalized,” thus isolated, entities separated from their shared common ground

Patterns of motion in interactive relationships with focus on motion. Processes of “give and take” that negate, contradict, critique, and bring about a shift in social reality Contrast: 2, 19–20 Assertion of the existence of relationship(s), pointing to common ground and the difficulty of separating things from each other beyond certain limits Contrasts: 16–21 Assertion of the value of seeing a relationship between things or forms otherwise seen as separate and unrelated Contrasts: 15, 17 Critique of de-totalizing reality by neglecting relationships between opinions, assumptions, and ideas, leading to a reduction of complexity, to overlooking underlying shared frameworks, thus common ground. Critique of absence of holistic thinking Contrasts: 18–21

Thought Form #20 20 Patterns of interaction Describing a pattern of interaction and influence in a relationship, in relationships emphasizing the pattern(s) of interaction between the elements that are in relationship Contrasts: 4, 21

While TF #19 helps focus attention on the structure of a relationship, in TF #20, the emphasis shifts to patterns of interaction. This stands in contrast to TF #4 where patterns of interactions are seen as patterns of motion, not patterns created by (dynamic) relationships. The difference between TF #4 and TF #20 is slight. The essential difference is the emphasis on common ground that is missing in TF #4 which entails that the patterns of relationship formed are viewed as grounding those elements or components that are in interaction with each other. This grounding is missing in TF #4. According to TF #7, things embedded in process share that process as their common ground. However, this is only implied, not made explicit, the emphasis being on the forward or backward movement of process. Before the idea of embedding can arise, patterns of interaction as being in motion need to be in place. This is assured by TF #4. Once common ground is in place, there is enough commonality to abstract patterns from things in motion, and these patterns can be conceptualized as “relationships.” Having taken note of limits of separation and critiqued the reduction of common ground in its diverse but related forms, consciousness is ready to “see” interactions (which are motions) in a more abstract way, steeled through its journey through the context thought forms in addition.

136

3  Thought Form Descriptions

As any psychologist knows, patterns of interaction in relationships between individuals are highly complex. Many patterns of affiliation freeze into habits and lose their distinctiveness as patterns. What is essentially reciprocal gets projected onto one or the other party in diverse ways, and one of the parties may become the “designated patient” of family therapy, in the sense of TF #17. It is no different with other relationships, such as an individual’s interaction with an organizational environment where the psychological pressures caused by differences in values held by different parties may lead to conflicts. For this reason, being able to spell out in detail the pattern of interaction operating between two parties can be of great value to both. It makes both parties aware of the common ground from which they are operating. Speakers using TF #20 thus have the capability to: • Describe how two parties or dynamic entities are acting upon each other when in a specific relationship • Describe the reciprocal influence one party or entity has on the other (without seeing their relationship primarily in terms of motion in the sense of TF #3) • Notice shifts in the patterns of interaction that occur over time • Highlight the relational over the motional aspect of interaction The following examples will be helpful in better understanding uses of this thought form: [1] It continues to amaze me how the two political parties in our society are piggy-­ backing issues off each other, rather than declaring true and fundamental differences, and standing up for them. The result is that almost no fundamental issues ever get aired and discussed, although clear-thinking people should be able to see that such issues do exist, and honestly address them. This kind of interaction of political I really find disturbing. It makes them seem to be variants of a common creed with no substantial differences between them but even the creed does not get aired since it’s all buried under issues of little relevance. [2] In my coaching over the last year, I have increasingly noticed the interdependency of the two parties. The coach cannot create a partner out of someone who has no idea of where he or she is going, doesn’t believe in it, and doesn’t feel it in their bones. There has to be a certain reciprocity where something that both share is played back and forth between them, out of which something entirely new emerges, which is more than each taken separately can produce. That is, I think, the real “return on investment” of coaching. It’s not so much the end result that matters, though, than the quality of understanding and intimacy that ultimately emerges. [3] I have found in my private life more than my professional work that a large part of my development takes place in interaction with closely related people. You begin to practice intimacy as a separate entity, but over the years input from the other party becomes increasingly important to your own self-image and well-­ being. This is what often fails to happen in one’s first marriage, since the preconditions for true interaction and intimacy are not yet in place. Much of one’s own

Thought Form #16

137

life’s richness is found in this trusting interaction with intimate others, where trust and openness leads to patterns of mutuality in thinking and action. This mutuality is a dynamic one and can be highly fine-tuned. Our executive team would be better off if we mustered some of this interactivity from the vantage point of mutual support rather than competitiveness, even though we are not related in terms of intimacy, but at least of long acquaintance and shared expertise. The first speaker’s common ground is society at large, whose political climate is determined by two major parties. The speaker perceives the parties’ give and take as lacking a true antithesis. They share a common creed with only superficial differences. This common creed is not very well articulated either, so everything stays in a muddle, and the interaction that gets created is more like a political game shifting according to circumstance. The second speaker’s immediate common ground is the coaching relationship, embedded in the broader one of interaction with others in an organization. The speaker comments on new elements emerging from the parties’ interaction in the sense of TFs #3–5. However, the speaker’s emphasis is not on motion as much as on the quality of interactive relationship. The third speaker considers intimacy as a model for professional interactions between peers. Her common ground is her marriage and her functioning as an intimate partner. She extols the dynamic of the intimacy that develops in a relationship over time and sees it as resulting from adult development (an even more comprehensive common ground). The dynamic of mutuality in a relationship is seen as highly tunable. Her emphasis is not on the step-by-step process that occurs, but on the quality of patterns of interaction that results. Contrasts When describing patterns of interaction, one can either focus on the motion of the interaction between two agents or the relationship of reciprocity existing between interacting parties (that may result from an interaction), a subtle but important difference. The interactive motion focused upon by TF #4 is process-specific, while the reciprocity focused on by TF #20 emphasizes relationship. As long as a speaker’s emphasis is on relationship, scoring TF #4 is not persuasive. Where the speaker’s emphasis is on relationships and, in addition, on the constitutive power (determining influence) of one element over another, the relationship itself takes logical precedence over the elements it is relating. This is what is highlighted by TF #21 (Table 3.24).

∗ ∗ ∗



138

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Table 3.24  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #20 4

Patterns of interaction

21 Constitutive, intrinsic relationships (logically prior to what they relate)

Patterns of motion in interactive relationships with focus on motion. Processes of “give and take” that negate, contradict, critique, and bring about a shift in social reality Contrast: 2, 19–20 Describing a relationship as “constitutive” or as making the parts it relates what they are. Emphasis on the logical and other priority of the relationship over the elements it relates Contrasts: 2–3, 15–20

Thought Form #21 21 Constitutive/intrinsic relationship logically prior to what they relate

Describing a relationship as “constitutive” or as making the parts it relates what they are. Emphasis on the logical and other priority of the relationship over the elements it relates Contrasts: 2–3, 15–20

It makes good sense to distinguish between two main kinds of relationships: • Interactive relationships • Constitutive relationships although conceivably a constitutive relationship may also be an interactive one. In interactive relationships, dealt with in TF #20, the focus of attention is on the give and take of the parties or agents in a relationship. By contrast, in constitutive relationships dealt with in TF #21, attention is focused on the fact that without the relationship that links two or more parties they would simply not be what they are. In other words, the relationship itself exists prior to the elements it is relating. Clearly, such a relationship is some kind of structure that exists to some extent independently from the elements it constitutes, as is indicated by the notion of “marriage.” While marriage is a public relationship grounded in law, a constitutive relationship may not be easy to spot. In fact, one might say that if humans were aware of all the constitutive relationships that define them, they would have enormous insight into the human condition, which is not the case. On the other hand, such insight might overwhelm them, and keeping it out of sight therefore can have a therapeutic value. Another way of describing constitutive relationships is to say that they are internal. As BB formulate (1981, 84): Describing relations as internal may be seen as the exact opposite of the way in which formalism describes the relationship of particulars, [namely,] as external relations. As formalism is defined, a universal or general statement is said to govern the relationship of the particulars, but the particulars are seen as existing separately from each other and from the universal rule of law which governs them.

Put differently, a thought form in denial of TF #21 would assert the independence of form (such as a scientific law) and content (the subject matter it applies to),

Thought Form #16

139

thereby conceiving of law and particulars as standing in an external relationship to each other. This is what is generally meant by the term formalism. Generally, a speaker is credited with using TF #21 if s(he) is able to: • See two entities or individuals as determined by the relationship they are in • View a relationship as defining what it brings into relationship • Highlight relationships that are logically prior to what they relate (like “antecedents” in M. Archer’s work) • Make others aware of the fact that outside of the relationship holding elements together these elements would be decidedly different from what they have come to be • Point out the difference between something per se (for itself) and for others • Reveal constitutive relationships as hidden dimensions of a system The interview excerpts below will clarify TF #21 further: [1] The stuff that has been covered in coaching has reminded me of the fact that work and life have to be integrated – there is more to life than work. Increasingly, through this coaching experience, I have been reminded that the two have always been related for me, and intrinsically so. It has always been important to me that the rest of my life was balanced with work, and that the skills, the things you learn in one are part of the other, carry over into the other. There is only one coherent existence, life, and that is it. [2] It’s fine to focus on relationships in this group of practitioners, but I don’t think it’s good enough. The reason is that the group as an entity, as a whole, very much influences what the members of the group are doing. To the point where you could rightfully say that the group mandate, if not the group spirit, is logically prior to what each individual member is thinking or doing. This is somewhat frightening to realize, because it’s almost like in a marriage. But ultimately that is what it takes to build an effective team, where the team is an entity in its own right, and people need to define themselves and their task in relationship to the team. Without the team, there would be nothing to do for them. [3] I think what we have lost in this culture is the spirit of the ancient Greek republics where each person, as a citizen, knew they were defined by the relationship to the Republic. Outside of the Republic they formed, these people thought of themselves almost as animals, defined only by their own needs and interests. Having by birth become an integral part of a city state, they acquired not only duties but a new self-definition, namely, that of citizens of the Republic. What happens if this knowledge of the relationship to the Republic as preceding oneself is lost became clearly visible after the fall of the Roman Republic, and is even more evident in our own, egocentric culture. The notion of the “common good” is no longer very strong. But once upon a time, it defined the sanctity of the intrinsic relationship that binds people to their Republic, thus elevating them to a level beyond the animals. The first speaker addresses “life” as the overriding primary relationship within which other aspects of life, such as work, take place. Life is seen more as a form

140

3  Thought Form Descriptions

than a relationship that is constitutive of work. Nevertheless, it is thought of as being constitutive of work, making it what it is. Life has logical priority over work. In this case, the relationship is not between elements within the relationship but between the form (viz., life) in relationship to one of its contents, namely, work. (If the speaker had described life more emphatically as the bigger picture of work, one could have scored her utterances in terms of TF #8, e.g., where “work” would be the part and “life” the whole.) The second speaker addresses a group of people as a common ground (basis) for understanding what they are doing and plan to do. She considers the group to be logically prior to its members, in the sense that people need to be fully aligned with the group’s mandate to succeed in their roles. The mandate of the group is constitutive of each team member’s task and task focus in a particular role. The third speaker compares two systems, seeing one of them as a model of what the other could beneficially acknowledge. The ancient republics of Greece and Rome were based on the notion that only in association with each other can human beings move beyond the animal state. As members of a city state or republic, humans became a zoon politikon, a political being. The republic had logical priority over their lives as individuals in which they were at risk of behaving like animals, looking only to their own survival, but not the welfare of the larger whole. (In many ways, people in modern democracies in which consumption by isolated individuals or families has priority have regressed to the animal state, at least in the Greek sense of polis (Ahrendt 1971).) Contrasts The contrasts of TF #21 are straightforward: • TF #2 hinges on the relationship of thesis and antithesis, but this relationship is subordinate to the motion (movement in thought) from antithesis to synthesis because of the relationship implied. • TF #3: pays primary attention to the process of composition by interpenetrating opposites (acting as thesis and antithesis) that are intrinsically related, such that relationship is subordinate to motion. • TF #15 points to the existence of relationships but does not describe it as logical prior to the elements it relates. • TF #16 points out the value of bringing what is separate into a relationship but does not see relationship as constitutive of its elements. • TF #17 critiques the denial and dismissal of relationships whether it is constitutive or not. • TF #18 singles out value and judgment systems as being related and pays no attention to the difference between constitutive and interactive relationships. • TF #19 describes structural aspects of relationship without paying special attention to constitutive relationships. • TF #20 focuses on describing patterns of interaction in relationships. This is summarized below (Table 3.25):

Thought Form #16

141

Table 3.25  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #21 2

3

15

16

17

18

19

20

Preservative negation, inclusion of antithesis

Seeing change as the canceling, including, and transcending of what exists, leading to differentiation of events and situations through inclusion of what they exclude and resulting in opening up hidden dimensions in conceptual space Contrast: 27 Composition by interpenetrating Emergence of something new through an interchange of opposites, correlativity opposites – energy or ideas. Composition of something that includes its “other” as a necessary ingredient, or as “figure” vs. “ground” Contrasts: 19–22 Limits of separation. Focus on Assertion of the existence of relationship(s), pointing to existence and value of common ground and the difficulty of separating things relationship from each other beyond certain limits Contrasts: 16–21 Value of bringing into Assertion of the value of seeing a relationship between relationship things or forms otherwise seen as separate and unrelated Contrasts: 15, 17 Critique of reductionism and of Critique of de-totalizing reality by neglecting “de-totalized,” thus unrelated relationships between opinions, assumptions, and ideas, entities separated from their leading to a reduction of complexity, to overlooking shared common ground underlying shared frameworks, thus common ground. Critique of absence of holistic thinking Contrasts: 18–21 Relatedness of different value Assertion of the relatedness of seemingly different, even and judgment systems opposed, values, judgments, ideas, and principles, stressing cultural commonalities Contrast: 20 Structural aspects of relationship Focusing on what is the formal structure of a relationship (or relationships) in order to locate the essence of how things are related Contrasts: 4, 15–17, 20–21 Patterns of interaction in Describing a pattern of interaction and influence in a relationships relationship, emphasizing the pattern(s) of interaction between the elements that are in relationship Contrasts: 4, 21

Relationship Thought Forms as Mind Openers Relationship thought forms are implied wherever there is an awareness of totality and the coherence of individual entities as parts of an organized whole. We can put them to practical use outside of evaluating interviews, by translating them into challenging questions for an interlocutor. Such “mind opening” questions increase the scope of our own and others’ thinking, by aiding us in including what would otherwise be left out and remain unacknowledged. Below, the reader will find a set of questions that derive from each of the thought forms in the relationship class (Table 3.26).

142

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Table 3.26  Relationship thought forms as mind openers Thought form class Relationship 15  Limits of separation. Focus on existence and value of relationship

16  Value of bringing into relationship

17  Critique of reductionism, “de-totalized” (and thus isolated) entities separated from their shared common ground

18  Relatedness of different value and judgment systems

19  Structural aspects of relationships

Ways of challenging interlocutors’ thinking (a) Do we separate this fact, event, or situation from others at our peril? (b) What new insights do we gain when we begin to link these seemingly separate situations, events, or theories? (c) Is there a different side to this thought or situation that we have been failing to see? (d) Are these events truly as unrelated as they seem to be? (a) How is what you are trying to do in these circumstances related to similar efforts in your environment? (b) Have you thought of establishing a relationship between X and Y? (c) Would this decision have an even greater impact if you were to bring it into relationship with decisions made in other parts of the organization? (d) Do we need to explore further what in fact relates the elements we have viewed as standing in opposition to each other? (a) Is X in truth the isolated entity that you treat it as being? (b) Does not the multiplicity of different views point to a commonality? (c) Are we not here reducing the complexity of the situation by isolating what exists only in relationship with other entities? (d) What is the common denominator of all these seemingly different opinions (theories)? (a) Are these value systems truly as different as they seem? (b) Are the assumptions made in this opposing judgment not very similar to your own? (c) While these parties (points of view) seem different, even opposing, in the present historical context, is it not true that they were closely related in the past (or might move closer to each other in the future)? (d) What might be the cultural common denominator of these opinions or principles? (a) How might one describe the elements comprised by this relationship in structural terms, in terms of how they make the structure what it is? (b) What makes for the balance of the elements of this relationship? (c) Does the fact that these elements are in opposition to each other enhance the pervasiveness of their relationship? (d) Is this relationship one of figure and ground, and thus not easy to perceive? (continued)

Section Summary

143

Table 3.26 (continued) Thought form class 20  Patterns of interaction in relationships

21  Constitutive, intrinsic relationships (logically prior to what they relate)

Ways of challenging interlocutors’ thinking (a) Is the pattern of influence we see here of a reciprocal nature (each side indirectly supporting the other), or is it more oppositional? (b) How could you influence the other party to be more in line with your goals without exerting direct control? (c) How might your goals be influenced by others without a clear realization of this relationship on your part? (d) How are the elements held in this relationship strengthened by being as closely tied to each other as they seem to be? (a) What would you say is the overriding relationship that makes these elements what they are? (b) Would these elements (individuals) be what they are if their essence were not defined by their intrinsic relationship? (c) Do the parties to this relationship have aspects that fall outside of the relationship they are in? (d) Are we not mistaking the role these people play in the relationship as something intrinsic to them rather than seeing their role as something that derives from the nature of the relationship they are in?

Section Summary In the third section of Chap. 3, we have explored thought forms that articulate common ground. We have conceptualized common ground as something that creates a totality or commonality without which, or outside of which, elements would not be what they are and could not even be truly differentiated from each other. We have seen that while common ground may be created by movement (processes), it is not by itself a process, but rather something that is beyond or “crystallized” process. While, like process, relationship fills the gaps between things, even though invisible to the dialectically unaided eye, relationship is often the root on account of which processes engulf what they engulf. Process and relationship thus enable each other. They can occur simultaneously, which does not mean that they are identical. In describing the thought forms representing the relationship moment, we progressed from thought forms that merely point to common ground to those which critique thoughts neglecting what holds things and forms together and proceeded to describing relationships per se in some detail. By so doing, we entered a critique of subjectivism, pluralism, and multiplicity (relativism), all of which deny the intrinsic relatedness of elements. We also took note of the pervasive influence of relationship thought forms on the classes of process and context, and their absolutely decisive relevance for conceiving of reality in terms of living systems.

144

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Practice Reflections 1. For you, what are the limits of separation between coaching and psychotherapy? (TF #15) 2. What for you is the value of adult development as the common ground of your interaction with clients? (TF #16) 3. How do you counter ideas and strategies of your clients that are based on neglecting common ground, and therefore reduce complex issues to simplistic notions, subjectivist or pluralistic? (TF #17) 4. How do HR views of human capital relate to views of management prevalent at the strategy table? (TF #18) 5. What is wrong with treating the coaching relationship in terms of a collaboration between two unrelated individuals? (TF #17) 6. What do even the most opposing professional views of coaching have in common? (TF #16) 7. What is the structure that defines your relationship with your clients? (TF #19) 8. What patterns of interaction are quasi built-in into a coaching or consulting relationship? (TF #20) 9. Are you aware of a constitutive relationship that logically precedes the relationship you have with your individual clients? If so, how would you describe it? (TF #21) 10. How would you go about discerning constitutive relationships that shape your life which so far you haven’t taken notice of? Please give an example. (TF #21) Exercises 1. Restate in your own words the essence of the relationship moment, its scope, theme, and dialectic. 2. Explain why there are limits of separation between forms and things existing in the same context. 3. What is the difference between subjectivism and pluralism in the sense of TF #17? 4. What is the difference between TF #19 and TF #10? Give an example for each from Human Resources. (Remember Human Sigma.) 5. In what sense is relationship implied by TF #2? 6. In your own words, describe a constitutive (internal) relationship and contrast it with an external one. 7. What common ground is there between your opinion about global warming and an opposite opinion? 8. Is developmental transformation possible outside of constitutive relationships? If so, explain. 9. Explain the contrasts of TF #21 (i.e., its differences with TFs #2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20). In the light of each of these, what is their common ground, and what is unique to TF #21? 10. Since different, even opposing, value systems are related, what is their appropriate unit of analysis?

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

145

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms Introduction In the Dialectical Thought Form Framework, transformation is the epistemological equivalent of Bhaskar’s fourth dimension (4D). This dimension is “unified by the category of transformative praxis or (human) agency” – causal factors of social and cultural change (Bhaskar 1993, 293). Transformational thinking “has a special affinity with 2E (second edge, i.e., process) since (human) agency is intentional causality which is absenting” (i.e., instigates processes intended to remove social ills and obstacles, such as global warming). As was noted earlier when introducing context thought forms, the transformational thought forms featured in DTF are ontologically limited; they do not bear the imprint of Bhaskar’s ontological dialectic in the framework of which they are focused around human agency (4D). Rather, they are epistemological thought forms focused on a critique of formalisms of which it is forgotten that they are only as potent as is the degree to which they remained linked to the – physical, social, or cultural – content they refer to. For this reason, these thought forms are not up to the task of doing justice to the crucial ontological distinctions Bhaskar introduces (1979, 1993), such as that between what is “real,” “actual,” and “empirical.” In their present form, DTF transformational thought forms also fail to be free of de-agentification, i.e., the tendency of purely logical systems thinking to omit how the systems spoken or written about came into being on account of human work and reflexivity. For this reason, thought forms #22 to 28 tend to have an air of “false objectivity” which a critical user of DTF needs to remain vigilant about. From an epistemological perspective, one might say that transformational thinking is the attempt of adults to recapture an intuitive grasp of the “world” of childhood at the highest level of adult cognitive development. Transformational thinking makes the attempt to emulate life in thought. This is the domain of the remediation transform which comes to the fore only in the last phase of dialectical thinking, in the form of practical wisdom (Book 1 Chap. 1). Transformational thought forms are tools of dialectical systems analysis and design. They coordinate systems in transformation at a deeper level than conventional systems thinking does. These thought forms are also meta-systemic, referring to systems of systems. Such thought forms explore and pinpoint the limits of stability, harmony, and durability that result from developmental processes in the most general sense of the term, whether they occur in people or in society. They focus the thinker on the developmental potential of conflicts and breakdowns, fissures, and mergers and highlight higher levels of social and individual functioning. Transformational transcend logical thought forms in their ability to unbury intrinsic relationships between entities and processes and do justice to the transformations of open systems of both an organic, technical, or inorganic nature. Epistemologically and pedagogically speaking, transformational thought forms reside on a meta-level relative to process, context, and relationship (CPR) thought

146

3  Thought Form Descriptions

forms whose mastery they presuppose. These thought forms help harness the complicity of social and physical reality with projects of human agency. They do so by illuminating the hidden dimensions – the gaps, crevices, heretofore undiscovered potentials – of the real world relative to human agency. By mastering the “illuminative,” P, C, and R thought forms, the thinker prepares him- or herself for meeting the real world where it is most deep and puzzling, that is, wherever it is composed of organized wholes that are open, living systems in unceasing transformation.

The Blessings and Strangleholds of Formal Logic In content-focused rather than structural terms, when we begin to think in transformational thought forms, our view of the world necessarily changes. We are finally beginning to take note of TF #21. Gone are the many ideological footholds we have absorbed which claim that change is the exception rather than the rule (negating TF #1), that organized wholes can be conceptualized as things rather than forms (negating context), and that there are no constitutive relationships that make the elements of our experience what they are. In short, a big smoke screen has fallen away. As we begin to emulate life in thought, we become aware of the many constitutive relationships that shape our life, both in nature and society. Society is the configuration of antecedents of every activity we undertake and every project we launch, whether these antecedents appear as constraints or supports. Constitutive relationships that bind us to nature gradually come to the fore as effects of “global warming,” which unravel our certitudes about the Earth taken for granted for too long (https://www.joboneforhumanity.org/). Another constitutive relationship we live by is that of consciousness itself, which makes us go through the evolution we are trying to decipher in this book, whether in our private lives or public work. In our Western – in contrast to Asian – thinking, we are put decisively under the sway of formal logic, which makes us see everything in terms of closed systems composed of objects with attributes. So anesthetized, our mental eyes cannot fathom the crevices of the real world, and our surprise at breakdowns never ends. In the present century, this anesthesia has actually deepened, due to the fact that global organizations have begun to function as another smoke screen, overlaying our own psychological one. The force of formal logic over our lives, exemplified and reinforced by the large organizations we work in and submit to, is especially insidious because we inevitably and unconsciously do its handiwork in order “to make it.” As Adorno, writing from phase 4 of dialectical thinking, points out (1999, 5): 1. To think is to identify. 2. Contradiction is nonidentity under the aspect of identity. According to (1), since the very act of thinking reduces the content we think about to a simple, innocuous entity, viz., a concept, we fail to notice all that which does not fit into the concept we subsume it under (thereby falling into what Adorno

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

147

named “identity thinking”). As a result, we typically fail to do justice to the richness, concreteness, and liveliness of what we think about, which is vastly richer than our logic permits us to see. While this is never acknowledged in formal logical thinking, dialectic cannot hide it. As to the second aspect above, what logic has us call contradictory (and thus false) is contradictory only when viewed under the aspect of identity which, in the last analysis, is our own subjective mind, constituted by society at large and its traditions. From a dialectical perspective, that which is seen as contradictory is not false but is rather a vital ingredient of fully knowing the concreteness and truth of something, however much it may be in contradiction to our own subjective identity at the time. Therefore, as we already know, in dialectical logic, the antithesis is not eliminated as false but is acknowledged as a nonidentity and preserved in our memory store. Because of that, we can use its energies for moving into a synthesis of the base concept we started out with and its other, or antithesis. The synthesis itself is only a transitory stopping point as it acknowledges the insufficiency of our move in thought, compelling us to proceed. We are now at a point where this truth of TF #2 can be expanded into the systemic class of thought forms, starting with TF #22 and ending in TF #28. In the latter, formal logical thinking is declared formalistic, thus inadequate, and simultaneously indispensable to the task of knowing. The twin notions that will mainly concern us in this chapter are as follows: • Remediation • Coordination The second concept operationalizes the first. Remediation is linked to the notion of remedy, meaning a “removing or counteracting or relieving any evil for redress, legal or other reparation”. The notion refers to negativity or absence. It is most clearly exemplified by TF #2. 2 Preservative negation, inclusion of antithesis

Seeing change as the canceling, including, and transcending of what exists, leading to differentiation of events and situations through inclusion of what they exclude and resulting in opening up hidden dimensions in conceptual space Contrast: 27

Remediation is what occurs when an antithesis – such as an evil, obstacle, unfilled desire, hidden dimension, or unrecognized element – is included in a novel organized whole. The synthesis, however fragile and ultimately insufficient, is said to remediate what was absent from the base concept (thesis) and has been pointed up by the antithesis. In this way, the absence documented by the antithesis is overcome in the form of a concept that is richer than the initial base concept, thus closer to the real world “run” by the four moments. Coordination means “connecting and bringing in line with,” and especially pertains to systems, always composed of elements. In terms of this section,

148

3  Thought Form Descriptions

coordinating classes of thought forms or individual thought forms is at issue. For instance, to grasp the first systemic thought form, TF #22 (of which more below): 22 Limits of stability, harmony, and durability (including quantitative into qualitative changes)

Pointing to limits of stability, balance, and durability without making their causes explicit. (Emphasis is on the “negative” aspect of negativity which also has a positive aspect, that of emergence.) Contrasts: 3, 12, 23

one needs to understand and have command of the following: • Process thought forms (minimally TF #1 and TF #2) • Context thought forms (minimally TFs #9–10) • Relationship thought forms (minimally TF #15, if not also TF #19–20) In the light of the moments of dialectic, this is no surprise (Fig. 3.4). The transformational system moment is always already an integral part of the other three meant to illuminate it. In fact, there is nothing to illuminate without the fourth moment. It is just not apparent yet. In this sense, the fourth moment holds the classes of thought forms together as a (living) system. Their transformational nature lies in the fact that ultimately transformation is possible only in a system of moments, not in a single moment. This is so since transformation is rooted in constitutive and intrinsic relationships (articulated by TF #21). Thinking in terms of the moments of dialectic is a little bit like discovering the social-emotional stratification of the social world: you have to change your falsely unifying closed-system assumptions and embrace a more differentiated view of your own and others’ life. This is so because the moments of dialectic mirror both what happens in the world (“ontologically”) and how the mind works (“epistemologically”): • The real world cannot be grasped in terms of any one moment by itself. It is, in fact, a system in constant transformation.

Process [P]

Relationship [R]

Context [C]

Transformational System [T]

Fig. 3.4  The four moments of dialectic

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

149

• The human mind works based on the dynamic of all four moments. Every thought is always connected to other thoughts that illuminate it further. Thoughts blend into their other according to the oscillations of consciousness in search of remediation. This is simply the nature of untrammeled thinking (Adorno 1999).

Example from Nature Take a beehive. A single bee that cannot find its hive is absolutely lost, even if the hive has only been moved a few feet in its absence. Bees and their hive are totally bonded with the environment that is their home. Their sense of community derives from the queen bee whose smell and acoustic signals pervade the hive, which they feed and care for in all possible ways throughout the year. The process of doing so is highly specialized for different groups of bees and ranges from feeding to housecleaning to storing incoming pollen and propolis and flying out on excursions. As to context, there are ten frames filled with bees’ wax whose cells offer the bees their external workplaces. Between the frames extends the bee space, a physical space that needs to exist for the bees to coexist in the hive and breathe in it. Many constitutive relationships are embedded in such a hive, the most important one determining the relationship of the queen to both male (drones) and female bees. Although the hive may decide to groom a worker bee into a queen in times of crisis, in normal life, the line of separation between bee and queen bee is strict. But as always in transformational systems, limits of separation exist. One could not understand a beehive as a living system other than when thinking in terms process, context, and relationship simultaneously. Although partial scientific insights are important and helpful, they all abstract form from content, as if the “laws” they discover concerning bees could be separated from the subject matter they refer to. Apiary science cannot render the living quality of the hive, which remains something “nonidentical” with human concepts.

Example of Human Society For the social sciences, the most important transformational aspect of social and cultural reality is human agency, especially as a force that absents  – does away with – absences (deficiencies, ills, dangers). Human agency is embedded in an ecological environment of great complexity that determines its history (Gore 2006, 56–80). In the twenty-first, “anthropocentric,” century, the relationships between nature and human society have become visibly reciprocal. Humans are being shown in dramatic ways that they can act upon their physical environment in beneficial as

150

3  Thought Form Descriptions

well as noxious and destructive ways. As the results of noxious behavior show, given that humans are embedded in nature, human agents have awesome powers of creating life and exterminating it, which in the end is a matter of learning and making use of “illuminative” and “remedial” relationship and process thought forms. Social reality is thus “porous,” as it were, a placenta that may break and leak into surrounding nature. Only if human agency can be paid attention to can this be avoided. Unsurprisingly, human agency stands at the center of the transformational moment. The central error in the fourth moment is de-agentification (Bhaskar 1993, 393), meaning the denial or disavowal of the relevance of human agency. As we already know, adult development itself is a transformational process through which human agency increasingly sheds its egocentrism and, becoming aware of it, potentially acquires practical wisdom. Such wisdom is no luxury but a matter of survival. In the light of this BB’s characterization of systemic thought forms (“meta-­ formal schemata”) is somewhat one-sided in that it refers only to the epistemological, not the ontological, aspect of the fourth moment. It does not alert us to the risk of disavowing human agency which is intrinsically connected to the real world (1981, 86): These … schemata serve to integrate the orientations toward motion (P), form (C), and relationship (R). The meta-formal schemata most clearly reflect the meta-systemic level of organization characteristic of dialectical thinking. They are meta-systemic in that they pertain to cognitive processes operating on recognized forms and systems as objects of thought. They enable the thinker to describe: (a) limits of stability of forms, (b) relationships among forms, (c) movements from one form to another (transformation), and (d) relationships of forms [contexts] to the process of form-construction or organization.

To this characterization I would add that systemic thought forms, beyond describing movements in thought, are crucial in understanding and describing human work in relationship to the real-world environment, with a focus on human agency in the sense of Bhaskar (1993). As we shall see below, this is implied by TFs #23 and #24 as well as TF #26. It is also implied for TF #28, which beyond speaking of integration in thought refers to the metamorphosis of the real world, including societal morphogenesis in the sense of Archer (1995). As previously noted, however, the ontological implications of transformational thought forms in DTF could be strengthened, a topic the author leaves to future theorists. Since the real world is always out of joint, and people for the most part as well, the notion of seeking equilibrium is a central one. Seeking equilibrium is part of the human condition, anchored in mental growth and developmental shift, with the risk of sudden reversal, collapse, breakdown, and pain. The ground for seeking equilibrium, while found in nature itself, is the anchor of human agency, whether in thought or action. In the human service professions, the dialectic of the fourth moment is felt especially strongly. These professions are focused on persons and organizations, all of them transformational systems. None of these systems can be understood in

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

151

terms of a single moment, and whatever moment one may consider already presupposes the other three. A very specific notion of “transformation” was introduced by M. Archer (1995), a theorist of social and cultural change. Archer’s dual analysis is focused on issues pertaining to the relationship of cultural and social “structure’ “on one hand, and “human agency,” on the other. While her notion of what “structures” human agency in terms of internal conversations within individuals is quite limited (at least in comparison with this author’s CDF), her conscious avoidance of reduction in the sense of TF #17 and of arresting motion in the sense of TF #6 is highly developed. As a thinker, Archer is also highly versed in using DTF relationship thought forms other than TF #17, especially TFs 19–21 which are a staple of her writing social on morphogenesis (Archer 1995, 1998, 2003, 2007). Archer (1995) addresses the core issue of social theory and sociology, that of “conflating” the relationship between structure and agency, by depicting one as dominating the other. Her critique of the Frankfurt School as falling victim to upward and, in the 1960s, central, conflation is cogent. Archer’s notion of transformation is that of “morphogenesis,” a cyclical kind of emergence of both structure and agency that, when “analytical dualism” is applied that keeps both autonomous, can in her view lead to cogent causal explanations in the realm of sociology. (Upward conflation in sociology and social science generally is thus equivalent to absolutizing human agency, while downward conflation is equivalent to absolutizing social and cultural structure. Central conflation is based on the notion that structure and agency are linked as equals, thus seemingly “dialectically,” which reduces them to equals and thus bereaves them of their autonomy, flattening their common ground.) Following Bhaskar in his emphasis on the essential freedom of human agency, Archer says (1995, 196): Invariably, from the morphogenetic perspective (of transformation), all structural influences (i.e. the generative powers of SEPs and CEPs – social and cultural emergent properties)  – are mediated to people (i.e., agents) by shaping the situations in which they find themselves. The circumstances confronted by each new generation were not of their making but they do affect what these contemporary agents can make of them (structural and cultural elaboration) and how they reconstitute themselves in the process (agential elaboration). At any given time, structures are the result of human interaction, including the results of the results of that interaction – any of which may be unintended, unwanted, and unacknowledged. As such they are activity-dependent (past tense) but irreducible to current practices (present tense). This ‘ontological hiatus’ not only permits their differentiation, but also is what enables us to construe these pre-existents as constituting the environment of contemporary action … We can now be more precise about how mediation (between structure and agency) takes place.

It would be a splendid exercise for the reader to analyze the above quote in terms of the DTF TFs. The reader might then be able to decide whether Archer’s notion of social and cultural morphogenesis is “transformational” in the sense of dialectic discussed in this section or lacks transformational thinking.

152

3  Thought Form Descriptions

The Sequence of Transformational Thought Forms As we have seen in previous sections of the manual, the initial thought forms of a class tend to point to the essence of the class which is then further elaborated by subsequent thought forms. That is also the case in the fourth moment (Table 3.27). As seen above, TF #22 points to limits of system stability, thus broadening mental space for understanding open, self-transforming systems. This thought form is followed by three axiological (value-focused) thought forms, all having to do with how the development of systems plays out and the value of system transformations. Subsequently, such transformations are described in more detail, and an alert is issued at the end, to the effect that only by integrating multiple perspectives on a specific system can one hope to understand the system fully.

Thought Forms in Detail For reference, the sequence of thought forms making up the transformational moment is stated below. We will discuss them one by one (Table 3.28). It is helpful to consider the more obvious relationships that link remedial, transformational thought forms to the illuminative thought form classes, P, C, and R: • Thought forms of this class emerge from the coordination of context thought forms with process and relationship thought forms. • Coordination is implicit in the sense that transformational thought forms presuppose or imply illuminative thought forms, whether in the form of C/P or C/R relationships. • For instance:

Table 3.27  Transformational thought forms Transformational (meta-systemic) TFs* 22. Limits of stability, harmony, and durability (including quantitative into qualitative changes) 23. Value of conflict leading in a developmental direction 24. Value of developmental potential leading to higher levels of individual and social functioning 25. Evaluative comparison of systems in transformation 26. Process of coordinating systems 27. Open, self-transforming systems 28. Integration of multiple perspectives in order to define complex realities; critique of formalistic thinking *Thought forms #22–23 entail positive valuations. Basseches’ schema #22 (turning of quantitative into qualitative changes) is included in TF #22, his schema #23 (critique of formalism) is included in TF #28

Table 3.28  The transformational thought forms in detail Transformational system •  Dialectical image: organism (e.g., beehive) • Figure: what is in constant transformation seeking equilibrium, through physical or mental growth, shift, sudden reversal, virtualization, collapse, breakdown, and pain • Ground: unified by the social category of transformational praxis or agency •  Relationship to System: itself under constant transformation • Scope: all of reality with a focus on human practice • Theme: stability through developmental movement, attention to problems of coordination and change in a developmental direction, multiplicity of perspective, acknowledgment of human agency as intentional causality in the cosmos • Dialectics: special affinity with process as social change 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Limits of stability, harmony, and durability (incl. accumulation of quantitative into qualitative changes)

Pointing to limits of stability, balance, and durability without making their causes explicit. (Emphasis is on the negative aspect of negativity which also has a positive aspect, that of emergence.) Contrasts: 3, 12, 23 Value of conflict leading Value of the conflict itself and the resolution in a developmental of conflict in a developmental or direction transformational direction, leading to dissolution of older forms and systems. Systemic form of the move to the antithesis (TF #2) Contrasts: 2, 22, 24 Value of developmental Value of developmental movement (with or potential leading to higher without conflict) for the sake of levels of individual and transformation, establishing a new balance, social functioning greater inclusiveness, and higher levels of equilibrium. Systemic form of the move to the synthesis (TF #2) Contrasts: 1, 23 Evaluative comparison of Holding systems side by side as forms and systems in transformation evaluating them as to effectiveness, usefulness, adaptability, and as mutually sustaining Contrasts: 10, 14, 26, 28 Process of coordinating Attention to the process of coordinating two systems (or more) systems with each other for the sake of bringing them into balance Contrasts: 15–16, 25 Open, self-transforming Emphasizing the equilibrium and ability of a systems living system to remain itself based on unceasing transformation; pointing to a formal aspect of identity in transformation Contrasts: 2, 22–24 Integration of multiple [1] Preserving concreteness and realism by perspectives to define juxtaposing or integrating different complex realities; critique perspectives on the same subject matter. of formalistic thinking [2] Critique of formalistic thinking that separates structure from content and of the associated conceptual hubris of pretending to represent realities fully by man-made concepts (as in science) Contrasts: 2, 6, 16

154

3  Thought Form Descriptions



(a) TFs #1 and #2 come to their highest level of development in thought forms of the transformational class (TFs #22–24). (b) Without a notion of organized wholes as detailed in TFs #10–12, transformational systems remain vacuous. (c) Also, without a notion of common ground as detailed by TFs #19–21, one wouldn’t know what somebody speaking of transformational systems is talking about. As the example of Adorno’s work suggests (2008, 1999, 1993, 1978), as in all other phases of dialectical thinking, cognitive profiles reflecting phase 4 remain thoroughly idiosyncratic. There is no single way of using transformational thought forms. Also, nobody but Hegel, in his Science of Logic, has made the monumental effort to spell out the interweaving of dialectical thought forms. In Adorno’s case, much of his transformational thinking is initially opaque to the listener or reader since he takes transformational thought forms for granted and thus typically does not elucidate them by using illuminative thought forms (outside of TF #2). It remains a project of great interest to “score” Adorno’s lectures as “interviews” and score them as dialectical texts in terms of DTF thought forms.

Individual Thought Forms Thought Form #22 22 Limits of stability, harmony, and durability, including quantitative into qualitative changes

Pointing to limits of stability, balance, and durability without making their causes explicit. (Emphasis is on the “negative” aspect of negativity which also has a positive aspect, that of emergence.) Contrasts: 3, 12, 23

BB introduce TF #22 as follows (1981, 87): [This thought form] makes one prepared for, and alert to, the existence of limits to the equilibrative effectiveness of systems, be they limits of internal harmony, limits of scope, or limits of durability. This … [thought form] can be related to situations in which the thinker locates actual or potential contradictions or sources of disequilibrium for a system, as well as assertions of the expectation that such contradictions or sources of disequilibrium exist.

They elaborate further: Limits to internal harmony (i.e., to the completeness of equilibrium) may be located by pointing to, and describing, elements of the system which are not functioning ­complementarily with each other. Limits to the scope of equilibrium may be located by pointing to, and describing things which are left out of the system, and which could not be easily accommodated by it. Temporal limits to the equilibrium may be recognized by describing the process by which structural stability (which may have been present at one point in time) comes to be interrupted.

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

155

While pointing to limits of stability is entirely possible in formal logical thinking, a logical thinker would not account for limits of stability in terms of an antithesis rooted in nonidentity. Rather, limits of stability would be seen either as an “effect” of some cause or as the “cause” having effect(s). In either case, cause and effect would be isolated from each other as separate entities “governed” by some scientific “law” or “principle.” The relationship between cause and effect would be acknowledged, but it would not be an intrinsic one. It would also not be put to work as a means for understanding effects as systemic transformations embedded in process (TF #7). Even if an effect were to be acknowledged, the transformation the effect embodies would be “frozen” in the sense of TFs #6 and #17. In the end, limits of stability would remain anecdotal since the identity intrinsically referred to is subjective consciousness in the sense of TF #17, not subjective consciousness as a transformational system remaining at the mercy of real-world nonidentity. Temporary findings would be “hypostatized” as “present scientific insight.” As a result, the embedding of subjective consciousness in a larger system called “science” (TF #13) and “society” would be missed. By contrast, TF #22 conceives of what causes a system to have limits positively, “as itself a category of understanding … [and] essential to the processes of change and transformation” (BB 1981, 87). In TF #22, otherness or nonidentity – whether a contradiction or not – is considered as the inevitable driver of change. Not only that, contradiction and disequilibrium are valued for their contribution to change. Limits of stability of a system may be due to the accrual of gradual quantitative changes. This is another aspect of TF #22. This kind of accrual being a hidden one, there comes a point where quantitative changes take a different, qualitative form. For the logical mind, this is inconceivable since the qualitative change that arises can in no way be deduced from the quantitative changes measured, simply because neither TF #7, #9, nor #15 is acknowledged. Global warming is a pertinent example. Since all changes in the system called Earth are systemic, measuring quantitative changes is a sure way to deceive oneself about the potentially explosive impact of such changes, as well as their rapidity, however important measurements per se may be. The relationship of this thought form to nonsystemic thought forms will show the uniqueness of TF #22: • Whereas TFs #10–12 provide the basis for understanding the structural stability of a system, TF #22 articulates the recognition that every kind of stability has limits (BB 1981, 88). • Like TFs #2–3, TF #22 implies a thesis-antithesis-synthesis movement (TAS) by which a new state of affairs is created through inclusion of a perturbing element. However, in TF #22, “[the] thesis is conceptualized as a form [context] and the antithesis is a contradiction in, or implied by, that form” (BB 1981, 88). Clearly, TF #22 is an integration of process and context thought forms. • TF #22 is based on the idea that in every effort made at establishing an organization something is left out or missing, and this absent element then becomes anti-

156

3  Thought Form Descriptions

thetical to the system that has been established. (TF #22 does not account for the second step in the TAS movement exemplified by TF #2, which is left to TF #23.) The examples below will further clarify TF #22: [1] If you have a market position you fit into, that’s great. But you will inevitably run into the problem that the niche must change as you grow your business. You constantly need to look for a real transformation where you move to include what you previously felt was antithetical to your interests. In short, you need to build a system, rather than merely a position. If you fail to do that you leave yourself open to constant instability since there are always antithetical forces trying to grab what you have built. [2] There is a good deal of dissonance around my presence which is exacerbated by my visibility. When something goes wrong, I tend to get singled out. Not a comfortable position but understandable in terms of the company in its entirety. Recently, I was roundly criticized both by my boss and some of the colleagues for certain behaviors that they found unacceptable. So, I had to take steps to change and thus control the damage to my reputation. And although I did not have to have a coach, I was reaching out, because I needed to change, and I wanted to change, and I wanted help in change. I am still in that first move out of my old disposition without having found a helper. [3] Whatever system we put in place in the name of strategy will ultimately be temporary at best. In fact, whatever strategy we may define tends to have within itself its own contradiction, and we need to acknowledge that to remain flexible. Every effort to organize leaves something out of consideration, and what’s left out is going to become the Achilles heel and bring the whole building down like a house of cards. You can clearly see this when you consider the notion of the “balanced scorecard.” That strategy is strictly organized from the top down, and so one ends up with human capital as an afterthought. And that is the real weakness of the scorecard approach, the one that will ultimately overtake the system of balanced scorecards. The first speaker talks about the instability of market positions. He readily acknowledges the need to include what initially may have seemed antithetical to a particular market position. He distinguishes building a system from merely building a position to cope with instability. The second speaker acknowledges a great deal of dissonance around his own role in an organization. It is clear to him that his present position is very instable and needs to change. He has made a first movement out of this position, trying to control the damage that he seems to have done. However, he is still located halfway between his old and a possible new position. The third speaker expresses the awareness that there is no flawless way of organizing things. The example given is that of the so-called “balanced” scorecard which is unbalanced due to its shallow conception of human capital (denial of HCH as a coordinated system, TF #26). This conception will eat away at the stability of the human resources system that the scorecard builders intended to put in place.

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

157

Contrasts The contrasting thought forms for TF #22 are as follows: • TF #3 focuses on the interpenetration of opposites. Because it is focused on motion and change, it lacks the conception of context and therefore cannot account for systems. • TF #12 makes possible an understanding of the structural stability of systems, a concept implied by TF #22. • TF #23 has to do with the first stage of the TAS movement, namely, the step out of the thesis into the antithesis (TA) by which instability is created (Table 3.29). Thought Form #23 23 Value of conflict leading in Value of the conflict itself and the resolution of conflict in a a developmental direction developmental or transformational direction, leading to dissolution of older forms and systems Contrasts: 2, 22, 24

TF #23 deals with the movement out of a thesis into its antithesis which implies that conflict is valued as helping development to occur. The valuation of conflict implies the knowledge that in resolving a disequilibrium or contradiction lies the chance for transformation in a developmental direction. BB state (BB 1981, 91): [TF #23] … involves a presumed category of thought for development – as transformation in the direction of greater inclusiveness, differentiation, and integration – which is employed in order to conceptualize resolutions and contradictions [that have been illuminated].

Poignantly, they continue (1981, 91): Table 3.29  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #22 3

Composition by interpenetrating opposites, correlativity

12 Stability of system functioning

23 Value of conflict leading in a developmental direction

Emergence of something new through an interchange of opposites – energy or ideas. Composition of something that includes its “other” as a necessary ingredient, or as “figure” vs. “ground” Contrasts: 19–22 Grasping the nature of wholes. Describing or explaining the smooth functioning of a system with focus on its stability, maintenance, and survival Contrasts: 9, 22 Value of the conflict itself and the resolution of conflict in a developmental or transformational direction, leading to dissolution of older forms and systems. Systemic form of the move to an antithesis (TF #2) Contrasts: 2, 22, 24

158

3  Thought Form Descriptions

In the operation of … [TF #23], the connection between contradiction … and transformation is established. The contradiction is viewed as leading eventually to a transformation in which it is resolved. Furthermore, the transformation is understood as developmental.

The reader who is beginning to acquire a notion of how thought forms in different classes are connected to each other will notice that the idea of development referred to in the quote above is based on the following thought forms: • • • •

TF #2 TF #3 TF #10 (if not also TFs #11–12) TF #16

TF #2 articulates preservative negation in which the antithetical element is the motor driving development and exploration. This antithetical element is not primarily conceptual but refers to the nonidentity of a real-world referent (Adorno). This referent removes any illusion that we are “just thinking about” development. When combined with TF #3, the antithetical element becomes an opposing force that spreads its energy to the thesis as a related force. The development that derives from the interaction of the two counterforces is embedded in an organized whole one can describe in structural, functional, and equilibrational terms. In this whole, the counterforces operating on each other share common ground by reason of which they are truly different (TF #16). Through their interaction, the resulting organization realizes a higher level of equilibrium, becoming more inclusive, differentiated, and integrated as a result (BB 1981, 92). The common ground articulated by TF #16 is the linchpin that holds the counterforces together. The Nature of Development TF #23 enables us to view any kind of development dialectically, as a synthesis of at least two opposing forces. As we know from Adorno’s work (2008), a synthesis is not necessarily a “victorious positivity” but may move what develops to a lower level rather than a higher one (regression). The move into the antithesis occurs once the thesis is ready to break open. A synthesis is reached when a movement that began with a thesis completes because of an emerging antithesis that differentiates (breaks open) the thesis. The completion of the thesis can be viewed as a remediation of absences in the thesis, thus a remedy for what was “not there” before the antithesis got related to the thesis. What is not there may be something that was initially a mere fake which took time to manifest as real. Viewed from the antithesis, the thesis is transcended in a preservative sense, without being yet included in a higher form. What “hurts” lies in being suspended without a clear resolution. While in TF #22 remediation was seen as a distant possibility, in TF #23, it is seen as realizable. Assuming – as we do in the systemic class of thought forms – that the thesis is an organized whole as explored in the context moment, something that is left out of it, “the forgotten element,” will lead to a synthesis as “a form which organizes the prior form (thesis) and its sources of disequilibrium (antithesis) into a

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

159

more inclusive form” (BB 1981, 92). When it emerges into the light of TF #24, the new form is more differentiated and integrated than the thesis (original base concept) because both thesis and antithesis are now transcended. A good example of this movement is the developmental shift an individual experiences when s(he) moves from one social-emotional stage to another. In the position of S-3/4, for example, the missing element is the ability to embrace self-authoring even minimally, in the form of espousal. As a developmental position, S-3/4 is inherently instable since two social-emotional structures exert their influence on a person simultaneously. However, in this instability (TF #22) also lies the promise of a resolution to a higher, more inclusive, and integrated level – presence of developmental potential permitting. It should be remembered that development is not per se “hunky dory” and that movement to a higher level may fail due to lack of potential. The missing element in preservative negation can equally well lead to breakdown, collapse, and reversal. There is no guarantee that trying to shift to a higher level will succeed. Human psychology and history are full of examples. Nevertheless, TF #23 assigns a positive value to movements in a developmental direction. A speaker using TF #23 is credited with the following abilities: • • • •

To accept conflict as a natural and necessary occurrence To accept emerging contradiction as a source of development To see value in conflict that breaks up stale certainties To focus on the resolution of contradictions and conflicts as forcing development; and • To focus on movement toward forms and systems that are more inclusive, differentiated, and integrated While this sounds like a revolutionary agenda, it is not an agenda for “terrorism.” Terrorism is reductionistic, not systemic, since it sees no value in organized wholes, nor does it see common ground beyond its identification with antitheses. Regardless of how one thinks about conflict, TF #23 announces that developments are not delivered on silver platters but can be painful affairs, both psychologically and historically. The three examples below will further clarify TF #23: [1] As the business grows, you end up spending less time on the investment side, and more time on the business side. This gets you into a real conflict. I want to spend more time on the investment side. And we have had some real challenges getting support on the business side. What I am trying to do is to focus more on things that achieve some kind of balance between investment and business, ­making our efforts more inclusive. I am therefore pushing people outside of my immediate group to deliver and move forward. But I still have a long way to go, where we come to a point of integration of the two activities. For now, we seem to be pretty much bogged down in the conflict, but that, too, has its value in the long run.

160

3  Thought Form Descriptions

[2] They say in biology that a form has a higher survival chance if it is more inclusive, and more differentiated. That’s what development in nature is all about. But it’s not so different where organizations of society are concerned, even commercial companies. You first have to locate the contradiction, or set of contradictions that holds things back, something not previously considered, left out, something antithetical. And then you have to reshape the organization into something more inclusive, as we have recently done by integrating into our strategy a deeper understanding of human capital. We are still far from having found our way out of our ignorance about how to match workforce capabilities with accountability levels, but at least we know where the real issue lies. It’s hard not being able to see the end of the tunnel, but we are certainly working on that. [3] For a long time, I operated from the position that the truth could be found, and people would embrace it once it was pointed out to them. I proceeded on the basis of thinking “me versus them.” But increasingly, I realized that I cannot save other people’s truth – that they need to save their own. This took me to a different take on things where I proceed more from a “me and them” point of view. I now take where people are in their own development more fully into account. This has considerably lightened my burden, although in a way it has also increased it. Because I no longer have to prove the truth to them, I conceive of my efforts as including them from the outset, making allowances for whatever limits in others I cannot change. So I have become better at staying with what’s missing or with conflict, if you like. The first speaker acknowledges the value of conflict. While the present situation does not enable him to rise above the dichotomy of investment-oriented and business activities, he foresees a time when that will change. The second speaker acknowledges the value of hardship that can lead to development in a more integrative direction. There is a missing element or absence which, in this case, is lack of understanding, or ignorance. As long as this element prevails, a solution to the problem is not seen. The third speaker has found it hard to acknowledge the social-emotional and cognitive stratification of the social world. Although he held the truth out for others, nobody wanted or took it because nobody understood it. So now the speaker grinds his teeth and acknowledges that certain expectations he has of others will never materialize. This has ultimately lightened his burden since what others don’t understand is not his responsibility. (This implies that he makes meaning close to, or at, the self-authoring stage.) Contrasts The contrasts of TF #23 are easy to understand: • TF #2 sees development as based on remediating absences implied by the present state (thesis).

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

161

Table 3.30  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #23 2

Preservative negation, inclusion of antithesis

22 Limits of stability, harmony, and durability, including quantitative into qualitative changes 24 Value of developmental potential leading to higher levels of individual and social functioning

Seeing change as the canceling, including, and transcending of what exists, leading to differentiation of events and situations through inclusion of what they exclude and resulting in opening up hidden dimensions in conceptual space Contrast: 27 Pointing to limits of stability, balance, and durability without making their causes explicit. (Emphasis is on the “negative” aspect of negativity which also has a positive aspect, that of emergence.) Contrasts: 3, 12, 23 Value of developmental movement (with or without conflict) for the sake of transformation, establishing a new balance, greater inclusiveness, and higher levels of equilibrium. Systemic form of the move to a synthesis (TF #2) Contrasts: 1, 23.

• TF #22 focuses on the effect of a hidden antithesis within an organized whole that is the source of its instability. • TF #24 makes the move from the antithesis into the synthesis. It associates value not with conflict but with its promise to reach a resolution of conflict, implicitly thus with the developmental potential that makes a systemic transformation possible (Table 3.30).

Thought Form #24 24 Value of developmental potential leading to higher levels of functioning; integration and social change

Value of developmental movement (with or without conflict) for the sake of transformation, establishing a new balance, greater inclusiveness, and higher levels of equilibrium Contrasts: 1, 23

One way to look at TF #24 is to say with BB (1981, 95) that it integrates practical reason into dialectical thinking, by associating value with developmental processes. This thought form not only focuses on the movement from antithesis to synthesis but also on the realization of the synthesis in terms of greater balance, differentiation, or inclusiveness of a situation or constellation. In addition, TF #24 emphasizes the relevance of human agency through which movements in a developmental direction are operated. It demonstrates that matters of value and fact are not separated in dialectical thinking. Another way of understanding TF #24 is that, in contrast to TF #23, it focuses on the potential that can be realized through development, rather than the conflict it may originate in. The value of stability through greater differentiation and inclusion

162

3  Thought Form Descriptions

is foremost wherever human agents become engaged, whether as teachers, coaches, supervisors, or agents of some social cause. Both equilibrium (TFs #9, #12) and disequilibrium (TF #22) are valued by such agents. In TF #24, we find two alternative points of emphasis (1981, 96): (a) Valuing change without a clear notion of development (b) Valuing integration and inclusiveness through development The first aspect pertains to changes that offer a potential for movement in a developmental direction. Such movement is focused on the creation of a more equilibrated form but does not exclude breakdown to a simpler but more stable form. The second aspect relates value to the stability that is achieved through developmental movement and its integrative and inclusive force. As BB formulate (1981, 96): Aspect (b) … derives from the fact that particular forms can be related to the overall developmental movement .. in ways above and beyond recognizing those forms as fleeting moments within the movement. This is so because transformations of forms preserve and reorganize elements of the previous forms. The notion of stability through developmental movement refers to the tendency of certain forms to remain functional within emerging forms while not impeding transformation in the direction of greater inclusion, differentiation, and integration.

TF #24 thus captures the aspect of keeping functionality and identity intact across change. It integrates primacy of motion (TF #1) with the idea of transformation focal in TF #23 (Bopp and Basseches 1981, 96). Consequently, both TF #1 and TF #23 contrast with TF #24. A speaker is credited with using TF #24 if s(he): • Is aware of people’s or situations’ developmental potential • Values movement in a developmental direction • Sees value in development by which higher degrees of integration and inclusiveness are attained • Values the resolution of conflict as leading to a more equilibrated situation • Values the stability brought about by developmental movement • Values the preservation and reorganization of previous forms and structures in the context of a new form or structure • Values all conflicts as moments within the overall developmental movement they partake in The examples below will clarify this further: [1] One of my real thrills is watching my people do some great work. It’s an absolute thrill for me. People have gone on from here to do awesome work, just clever, clever work. And that I get my kicks on. I am not a power guy. I just enjoy watching them blossom. It’s a real treat to be witnessing how people achieve a higher valence of their capabilities, especially if that happens through some hard knocks. I am focused on their potential and want to see it come into the open.

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

163

[2] As a result of this process of introspection and coaching, I feel a much greater equanimity. Previously, there was a part of me that felt as though I was always on thin ice – the image of the firm I was presenting was either a misrepresentation or an exaggeration, or something that, if I didn’t pull it off, could collapse of its own weight. And I am feeling as though I am on a more secure footing now, and what I am engaged in is somewhat less risky. I feel less that a risk is an out-of-­body experience, so to speak, where it’s totally exogenous to me. As a result, I feel somewhat better grounded. So there is some new possibility here, some new value in my own person that I didn’t see before which is now stabilizing my every movement. And what is best about it is that I never lose my equanimity, even in the most turbulent of waters. [3] The potential this company has is far from realized, and much can be done in the way of reorganizing our business process. We need to do better and get deeper into the issues that are holding us back right now. In particular, I think there is value in looking more deeply into why customer research consistently points up failings in our Order Department, not to speak of the quality of goods we are shipping. In my view, it’s wrong to see these weak points out of context with the company’s potential. This potential primarily lies in its workforce, but also in some major players on the executive level. We need a more unified, all-­ encompassing thinking about how we serve customers, what is the value we add for them, and how that value can be made more apparent. We could learn from our customers to serve them better if we tried harder to understand their recent lukewarm reaction to how we handle their orders. But making changes in the Order Department has not been sufficiently valued around here, I’m afraid. So, change per se is not the issue, but rather the development of now unused human resources. The first speaker is primarily focused on people’s potential and how he as a supervisor can bring it into the open by engaging with them. While he does not explicitly say so, he is clearly not interested in change per se, but in developmental movement that leads to greater differentiation of capabilities. The second speaker dwells on his self-development with a focus on his professional work. Having reached a higher level of development, he feels on firmer ground in being the professional he wants to be, and no longer running the risk of losing his balance. The third speaker values the potential of his company, which he sees as far from realized, both in terms of the business process and potential resources of the workforce. He views these two aspects as inseparable and thus also sees value in relating them to each other. His strongest emphasis, however, falls on developing existing potential by first acknowledging the failures that have occurred and then moving on to transcending them. One possibility for doing so lies in focusing on the relatedness of customers’ and the company’s value systems (TF #18), as well as looking

3  Thought Form Descriptions

164

more deeply into the nature of the failures that have occurred in the company’s order department (TF #23). He strongly emphasizes the need to develop heretofore unused resources. Contrasts • TF #1 emphasizes that the human condition is to be embroiled in unceasing change due to the complexity of the world humans live in. It does not refer to the notion of potential nor of system. It also signals the difference between “change” and “development” which is more than just “change.” • TF #23 emphasizes that conflict, in whatever form, is a given and can be seen as the motor of development toward more equilibrated forms and contexts. Being better equilibrated is associated with a higher level of differentiation and integration (Table 3.31).

Thought Form #25 25 Evaluative comparison of systems in transformation

Holding systems side by side as forms and evaluating them as to effectiveness, usefulness, adaptability, and as mutually sustaining Contrasts: 10, 14, 26, 28

This thought form regards the evaluative comparison of systems in transformation. BB elaborate (1981, 99): This involves putting more than one form or system side by side in the mind, as it were, and making an evaluative comparison between or among them. One form is put forth as having greater value, and reference is made to the characteristics of the forms which are the basis for the evaluation … [TF#25] is closely related to (a) other meta-formal schemata ­[systemic thought forms], (b) to [TF #14] for assuming contextual relativism, and (c) [and TF #5] for affirming the practical character of knowledge.

Table 3.31  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #24 1

Unceasing movement, Unselfconscious expression or explicit assertion of unceasing negativity change (inside and outside) as basic to human existence. Awareness of past and future in the present. Sense of “negativity”: what IS is always drifting toward nonbeing and transformation and comprises hidden dimensions Contrast: #22 23 Value of conflict Value of the conflict itself and the resolution of conflict in a leading in a developmental or transformational direction, leading to dissolution developmental of older forms and systems. Systemic form of the move to an direction antithesis (TF #2) Contrasts: 2, 22, 24

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

165

The best way to understand TF #25 is to see it as an elaboration of TF #14, which deals with the multiplicity of contexts. TF #25 sees contexts as transformational systems. It acknowledges the effort it requires to take multiplicity into account, thus implicitly recognizing the value of human agency. In TF #14 we were dealing with (Perry 1968): … a plurality of points of view, interpretations, frames of reference, value systems and contingencies in which the structural properties of contexts and forms allow of various sorts of analysis, comparison, and evaluation.

This focus lacks an emphasis on contexts as systems in transformation that can be evaluated by making comparisons between them and other, related systems. One can compare conceptual or material forms in evaluative terms based on different criteria (BB 1981, 100–101): • In terms of level of equilibrium grounded in higher level of inclusiveness, differentiation, and integration. • In terms of a form’s (system’s) heuristic value, or potential for contribution to developmental transformation. • In terms of a system’s susceptibility of coordination with other forms assuring stability through developmental transformation. This may include reference to TF #24 in which value is associated with stability through development. • In terms of a system’s practical value where forms of thought are compared based on their usefulness for achieving practical goals (related to TF #5). • In terms of a form’s conformity to a “master form” or conception of formal perfection. Such a comparison could more easily be made within the confines of TFs #10–12 except when it concerns entire systems (which requires systemic thought forms of the transformational class). These aspects make up the multiplicity of perspectives announced by TF #14, which is now intensified regarding systems of systems, to evaluate them in relation to each other. Implicit in this comparison is the notion that all systems in a particular domain are interrelated and have a potential for sustaining each other’s existence even by way of competition. A speaker is credited with using TF #25 if s(he): • Puts two systems side by side, making an evaluative comparison between them • Compares and evaluates two ideologies or traditions • Evaluates systems in terms of their level of equilibrium (inclusiveness, differentiation, and degree of integration) • Evaluates a system in terms of its potential to contribute to the developmental transformation of another system • Evaluates systems in terms of their being susceptible of coordination with other systems (as in a merger) • Evaluates two systems in terms of their practical value • Evaluates a system or configuration in terms of its conformity to a “master form” or “ideal type.”

166

3  Thought Form Descriptions

The three interview excerpts below will clarify this thought form further: [1] Our company has introduced a two-year trial system for the hiring of middle managers. I think that it takes an enormous toll on these people since two years is a very long time when you are waiting to obtain a secure position. The alternative framework of keeping a manager once hired is likely to much more engender communal structure in which you could effectively push the person who is slacking off. Thus, you would be more likely to have a productive middle management, or one that is interacting broadly and creatively. By contrast, the twoyear trial system inhibits the development of managerial potential and is overly punitive. [2] Producing the numbers, that is a given. That is not enough. The real question is: How do you get to producing the numbers? There are different ways to do that. And you can be dictatorial and produce mercenaries to produce results, but there is nothing else in that equation. You need a group of people who can go before a group and get them to want to follow you, want to be with you, in your pursuit of trying to reach certain objectives. You need to produce synergies that make people want to go beyond the minimal level of achievement. And when that happens, the entire department is much more highly susceptible to functioning in a manner that enhances the entire company. Especially, when times get tough you have to do something that means something to people. So, the numbers are the lesser part of the equation. [3] I think that building an HR scorecard cannot be compared to building other parts of the balanced scorecard framework. Those other parts are all based on hypotheses and statistical data, and these two data types will not do for building a true HR scorecard. This is so because the latter requires you to have a much deeper insight into what you are measuring, namely, human capability, than in the other dimensions of the scorecard. Human capital is a moving target defined by its developmental potential, and if you disregard measuring that, you are likely to go astray in the long run. What you are striving for in an HR scorecard is a true equilibrium of level of work complexity and individual capability in the workforce. And that requires a degree of integration of function that fully validates how people are assigned to responsibilities commensurate with what they are capable of doing, now and in the future. The first speaker compares two systems for hiring middle managers in terms of their practical value. He considers the 2-year trial system introduced as too punitive and is opting for a more communally beneficial alternative system. The second speaker compares a cultural system in which people are motivated to go beyond minimal levels of achievement with one that is of a mercenary nature. He argues in terms of the higher heuristic value of the first system as well as the susceptibility of coordination with the company at large. The third speaker compares the balanced scorecard to one built specifically for capturing features of a company’s human resources. He argues in terms of different

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

167

levels of equilibrium being in focus in both systems. Human capital is a developmental issue that cannot be successfully approached by way of opinion surveys. Statistical information is insufficient not because such information is quantitative (so are CDF scores) but rather because it is too unspecific for understanding what motivates a workforce. Contrasts The thought forms contrasting with TF #25 are as follows: • TF #10 focuses attention on the structural, functional, and operational specifics of a closed system and is thus not a systemic thought form. • TF #14 focuses on the multiplicity of contexts, not explicitly their comparison, and is not a systemic thought form. • TF #26 focuses on the actual coordination of transformational systems, not their evaluative comparison. • TF #28 deals with the integration of multiple perspectives, not their evaluative comparison, and also critiques the notion that an abstract system description exhausts the richness of the system it describes and from which it is separate (Table 3.32). Table 3.32  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #25 10 (Description of) structures, functions, layers, strata of a social or physical system

Grasping the nature of wholes. System descriptions in historical, functional, structural, and mechanical terms or in terms of strata and levels composing a whole. Emphasis on the complexity of what exists and modeling such complexity. Difference between “reality” and the model meant to simulate it Contrasts: 8–9, 11–13 14 Multiplicity of contexts Simultaneous attention to a variety of contexts or (non-transformational) dimensions in which events, situations, and individuals are embedded [without stressing their relationship or transformation] Contrasts: 25, 28 26 Process of coordinating Attention to the process of coordinating two (or more) systems systems with each other for the sake of bringing them into balance Contrasts: 15–16, 25 28 Integration of multiple [1] Preserving concreteness and realism by juxtaposing or perspectives in order to define integrating different perspectives on the same subject matter complex realities; critique of [2] Critique of formalistic thinking that separates structure formalistic thinking from content and of the associated conceptual hubris of pretending to represent realities fully by man-made concepts (nominalism) Contrasts: 2, 6, 16

168

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Thought Form #26 26 Process of Attention to the process of coordinating two (or more) systems with coordinating systems each other for the sake of bringing them into balance Contrasts: 15–16, 25

Since transformational systems are in constant flux and thereby, and only thereby, remain identical with themselves, it is a reasonable idea that they can be coordinated with each other depending on their suitability for establishing a larger organized whole that combines the strengths of two (or more) systems and avoids the systems’ inefficiencies. Prior to undertaking such a “merger,” it is necessary to gain clarity about what each of the systems to be coordinated stands for. Using TF #25, one can do so from several different vantage points, namely: • In terms of level of equilibrium grounded in higher level of inclusiveness, differentiation, and integration. • In terms of a form’s (system’s) heuristic value, or potential for contribution to developmental transformation. • In terms of a system’s susceptibility of coordination with other forms assuring stability through developmental transformation. This may include reference to TF #24 in which value is associated with stability through development. • In terms of a system’s practical value such that forms of thought are compared based on their usefulness for achieving practical goals (related to TF #5). • In terms of a form’s conformity to a “master form” or conception of formal perfection. Such a comparison could more easily be made within the confines of TFs #10–12 except when it concerns entire systems (which requires systemic thought forms of the transformational class). Comparing two systems in terms of level of equilibrium, practical value, heuristic value, susceptibility of coordination, or conformity to a master form is a first step to coordinating them. In such a comparison, we are dealing with a “hypothetical internal representation of interconnected systems.” Central to this thought form are the following aspects (BB 1981, 104): • The recognition that forms and systems interact with each other • The notion that their interaction can be mutually sustaining • A concern for how this organization is accomplished Both material and conceptual systems are in focus in this thought form. For instance, two organisms may live in a symbiotic relationship, or a particular theory may be coordinated with another one that shares with it central tenets. TF #26 derives from the application of TF #15 (limits of separation of contexts) to systems. Organizing the world into forms or systems is viewed as a useful device for achieving a conceptual grasp of it. In the perspective of TF #15, systems are

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

169

viewed as mutually dependent, and this creates the demand for understanding the nature of their interdependence. As BB detail (1981, 105): The same tools which are used to describe forms in [TFs #10–12] are used for understanding the interdependence of systems. After all, two coordinated systems or forms may be viewed as composing one larger form … of which each of the interdependent systems is an element.

In addition, we may see TF #26 as related to TF #24 where attention is given to the value of developmental movement (1981, 105): If movement to more inclusive, differentiated, and integrated forms is valued, then attention will be paid to the coordination of forms, since the coordination of forms as subsystems is a means by which more inclusive, differentiated, and integrated forms can be created.

Thought Form Coordination The coordination of systems topical in TF #26 can be extended to thought forms. While they are not themselves systems, they are members of a class, and this class constitutes a system that is interdependent with other thought form classes in the sense of the four moments of dialectic. As we saw throughout the monograph, it is not the use of thought forms per se that makes an inquiring system dialectical. Rather, it is the ability to coordinate different moments of dialectic, thus thought forms from different classes (systems) that are the hallmark of such thinking. Thought form coordination is thus itself a topic of TF #26. Such coordination naturally leads to thoughts that are “more inclusive, differentiated, and integrated” and thus more likely to be realistic in view of the complexities of the real world. Since thought forms of different classes often function as contrasts relative to each other, we need to distinguish contrasting scores from thought forms that are open to coordination. For instance, we may decide to score a text as TF #2 “in contrast to” scoring it as TF #27 because it does not possess the systemic features required by TF #27. It is unlikely that we would want to coordinate TF #2 and TF #27 since the latter is a systemic elaboration of the former. This shows that thought form coordination typically involves thought forms other than contrasts. A look at the table of thought forms will show that most contrasts in context and relationship are members of the same class and thus have to do with differentiating thought forms within one and the same class. This is less often the case in process where contrasts predominantly refer to other classes. As we would expect, contrasts in the transformational class are most widely distributed among the illuminative classes whose thought forms they presuppose (P, C, R). We may also be interested in experimental thought form coordination, simply to provoke innovative thinking and develop new conceptual models. For instance, what kind of thought emerges when we coordinate TF #1 with TF #8? We would expect the thought emerging from this coordination to contextualize a particular part within an organized whole and simultaneously emphasize that both whole and

170

3  Thought Form Descriptions

part are undergoing unceasing change. The contextualization of the part would thus imply that the whole in question, if not itself a process in the sense of TF #7, is hard to put boundaries around that would not violate the character of an encompassing whole. This seems to show that the coordination of TF #1 with TF #8 is a more integrative case than one we would want to score in terms of TF #7. The innovative perspective created by coordinating TFs #1 and #8 lacks systemic features in the sense of TF #26. This deficiency invites further linkages with other thought forms. However, we have at least created a conceptual model that may do more justice to a situation than TF #1 or TF #8 could do individually. Similar considerations apply to other thought forms that are not typically coordinated. A speaker is credited with using TF #26 if s(he): • • • •

Recognizes that two or more systems can be coordinated Recognizes that the interaction of two or more systems can be mutually sustaining Attends to problems occurring in coordinating systems Shows a concern for how the coordination of systems, theories, or frameworks is to be accomplished • Conveys an understanding of the interdependence of systems • Sees the coordination of systems as a way for them to become more inclusive, integrated, and differentiated The three examples below elucidate this thought form further: [1] There is always dynamic tension between portfolio management and research. The analysts who do the research want the managers to buy certain funds that they follow, so that even though the portfolio managers generate the rate of return on the portfolios, they get recognized for their contribution in helping us select the right securities or avoid terrible securities. So, I am constantly working to make sure that both parties are working like gears in a machine and function harmoniously. Without an attempt at coordination between them there is not much hope that everybody “gets it” that these are mutually sustaining activities that not only cannot be separated but must actively be brought together on a daily or at least weekly basis. This requires the active engagement of both portfolio management and research. [2] I just delivered a presentation that was very important to my boss. It wasn’t exactly my point of view. It was the company’s point of view, but it was not inconsistent with my point of view, although not entirely connected with it. When you sign on as somebody’s advisor, you offer your point of view when asked, and hopefully, 7 or 8 times out of 10, it will influence the decision. It’s never quite exactly your decision. But as long as you feel it’s not in conflict with your moral standards, or range of tolerance, it’s now a company decision, and you need to take that position, and advance it, even though it is not exactly what you think best. Proceeding this way will ultimately not only enhance your own position but make it more sustainable in the long run.

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

171

[3] Why do most mergers fail? The short answer is that they don’t deliver a system that is more inclusive and differentiated than the old one, just larger or simply different! And that amounts to a failure. Because you are merging not just two or more inert things but forms, living systems! So, to the extent that you don’t understand the interdependence of the systems you merge, you are dead in the water. And understanding that requires more than a reduction or saving of energy. It rather requires you to think through how the new structure you are creating will energize internal business processes (not just “clout” or “market share”). It’s more than social engineering that is required. You need to coordinate, redefine coordinates. Integration by reduction won’t work. You need a deep understanding of the interdependence of two or more systems! The first speaker, obviously motivated by TFs #15 and #16, reports on her engagement with two teams dealing with assets under management in a financial firm. Both approach their task from a different perspective. The speaker’s task is to engage them in daily cooperation so that they can better coordinate their work for the sake of the company. The second speaker comments on the interdependence between his point of view and the company’s decision-making process that plays a role in consulting to his boss. It is the boss’s mandate to make decisions, not his. Although the speaker’s own best thinking is not always exactly like that of his boss, being given an opportunity to assist the boss in making decisions is ultimately the best way to coordinate his own thinking with the company’s future, and thereby assure his own long-term success. As long as there is no moral conflict between him and the boss as a decision maker, coordinating his view with those of the boss is the best policy to follow. (The coordination in question is thus twofold, coordination with the boss and the company.) The third speaker is adamant about why mergers fail. They fail because the interdependence of systems is not deeply enough understood. This kind of understanding is not easy to acquire since two systems, not abstract entities, are involved. Since merged systems create their own dynamics, reduction to a common denominator will not work. Contrasts The contrasts of this thought form are the following: • TF #15 focuses on limits of separation of contexts, not their coordination as systems. • TF #16 regards the value that lies in bringing contexts into relationship with each other but is not systemic in the sense of TF #26. • TF #25 engages the thinker in an evaluative comparison of systems, not their actual coordination (Table 3.33).

172

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Table 3.33  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #26 15 Limits of separation. Focus on existence and value of relationship 16 Value of bringing into relationship 25 Evaluative comparison of systems in transformation

Assertion of the existence of relationship(s), pointing to common ground and the difficulty of separating things from each other beyond certain limits Contrasts: 16–21 Assertion of the value of seeing a relationship between things or forms otherwise seen as separate and unrelated Contrasts: 15, 17 Holding systems side by side as forms and evaluating them as to effectiveness, usefulness, adaptability, and as mutually sustaining Contrasts: 10, 14, 26, 28

Thought Form #27 27 Open, self-­ transforming systems

Emphasizing the equilibrium and ability of a living system to remain “itself” based on unceasing transformation; pointing to a formal aspect of identity in transformation Contrasts: 2, 22–24

TF #27 sums up the purpose of dialectic, to emulate  – not to “explain”  – life in thought. This thought form centers on stability through ongoing transformation, the paradox that living systems stay the same only by way of unceasing change of their elements and relations between them. While this is clearly crucial in human and adult development, through TF #27, the developmental or evolutionary perspective is extended to the world at large, to what is called nature as well as society. TF #27 is an expression of critical realism in the sense of Bhaskar (1993). Critical realism would emphasize the changing equilibrium of social, ecological, and meteorological contexts in which we lead our life (Gore 2006). A failure of critical thinking occurs when we fail to focus on balance and forget that we are embedded in organized wholes and are not isolated entities or monads. This failure is connected to a failure to ask historical questions that enlighten us as to where something comes from and where, given its dialectical nature, it is going. TF #27 is not a substitute for an evolutionary philosophy, idealistic or materialistic. It simply points to the formal aspect of identity in transformation, whether it is a personal or organizational identity or the identity of living things. Such an identity is self-generated in the sense that it is based on assimilating what is outside of it, other or antithetical, to its own process, simultaneously accommodating to it. The development topical in TF #27 is sustained by an entire system of thought forms which it coordinates and implies. This thought form demonstrates that in the systemic class of thought forms, insights into process, context, and relationship come together. Thus, just as TF #26 articulates the coordination of thought forms, TF #27 articulates the result of such coordination: a new living entity that is based on constitutive relationships between different systems. BB (1981, 107) state:

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

173

[TF #27] is categorized as meta-formal because it presupposes both the notion of form and the notion of transformation. An open, self-transforming system is a system which, in the course of its functioning, (a) takes elements into itself from outside it (assimilation) and (b) sometimes changes its form in the process of accommodating these new elements.

When tracing the origin of TF #27 in terms of the moments of dialectic, we naturally come upon TF #2, the description of the TAS (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) movement that formalistically circumscribes preservative negation. What is negated – seen as partial – within a system is not obliterated but is seen as an absence (something missing) that, when remediated (retrieved from its hiding place), enriches the fullness of the system. BB spell this as follows (BB 1981, 107): If an open system is regarded as a thesis, the external element which the open system takes in may be viewed as an antithesis. The process of taking it in may be viewed as the bringing of thesis and antithesis into relation. And the transformation of the system may be viewed as the synthesis [as in TF #24, OL].

TF #27 is quite similar to TF #22 (limits of stability) and TF #23 (value of conflict in a developmental direction) taken together. In these thought forms “… a source of disequilibrium – an element which requires system transformation – is located and is seen as giving rise to a developmental transformation” (BB 1981, 107–108): The major difference between [TF #27] and [TF #22] and [TF #23] is that [TF #27] emphasizes the constancy of some formal aspects of a system through any single transformation of other aspects. This leads to referring to the system as a SYSTEM across its transformations. … In contrast to [TF #27], the emphasis in [TF #22] is on pointing out the sources of disequilibrium for systems whose functioning previously had not been conceived as based upon taking in external elements from the outside.

Once the necessity of a transformational system is clearly seen, that is, to take in elements other than itself – thus nonidentical – from the outside, the thinker’s perspective on the system changes from TF #22 to TF #27. What initially is thought as external to the system and is therefore seen as imposing limits on the system’s stability is suddenly understood as being the very element that guarantees the system’s survival across all transformations it may undergo. This paradoxical intake of something foreign by a living system defines the mystery of its living quality. To speak in terms of the context moment, what was initially considered as “another context” and thus “external” is suddenly seen as being part of the organized whole of a living system. For this reason, the system can make the foreign element its own. Elements of the external and intellectual context in which it exists become part of itself, not simply in the sense of learning but of development (thus transformation). There emerges a heretofore unseen common ground that harnesses the external element to the system’s identity. The physical system’s individual processes – there are hundreds of them in a human body – are embedded in the emerging larger identity of the system. By taking into itself the external element, whether physical or intellectual, transformational systems remediate their own instability, thereby defining new limits of stability. As in healing, the body system thwarts attempts by an invasive force to

174

3  Thought Form Descriptions

take over the system and does so as long as it remains alive. The formal aspect referred to in the quote above is “formal” because it is not material or physical but rather defines the system’s identity from the point of view of its own understanding of itself and that of an observer. It is somewhat surprising that the aspect of nonidentity as a necessary ingredient of living systems was never seen, and certainly not stressed, by Adorno, who seems to have focused on the negative aspect of nonidentity. It is one thing to plead paying attention to what cannot be reduced to the identity of subjective consciousness by “thinking” and another to acknowledge that in living systems assimilation constantly accomplishes the absorption of what is nonidentical and thus keeps the system alive. The same system that was declared “damaged” by Adorno (1978) is also the system that lives only by assimilating to it what is not identical with, but is clearly other than, it. This crucial resilience of living systems cannot be overlooked. This example shows that even a dialectical thinker of Adorno’s standing may put ideological stance over available dialectical resources of living systems and thereby distort the nature of dialectical transformation. A speaker is credited with using TF #27 if s(he): • Describes a system as “open” and “self-transforming” • Emphasizes that a living system remains identical with itself across all transformations • Links “form” to the process of “transformation” • Conveys an understanding that a living system assimilates external elements to itself and thereby achieves new forms of identity • Has a notion of emergence of systems through the transformation of existing systems • Views transformation as operating through a synthesis of different, even contradictory forms • Emphasizes the constancy of some formal aspect of a system through the transformation of other aspects, thus being aware that the system’s identity is owed to constant change The three excerpts quoted below exemplify the nature of this thought form: [1] As much as we may think of ourselves as individuals, we all are using certain social schemas to survive in the world. (I call them schemas because they are truly generic.) A schema tells what to do when there are layoffs in the company (like “put your feelers out, or else you are going to be hit in the face”). So, we are all taking in the outside world, and then filter our perceptions accordingly, as a way of survival and security. We live with and through the organization we are part of, so to speak. What really impresses me, though, is how in this way we are also transforming ourselves. So, what happens is not just taking in the outside world and accommodating to it somehow; it’s self-transformation.

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

175

[2] The coaching has helped me figure myself out in more depth. I tended to be torn between different sub-personalities (one “taking charge” and the other “letting things evolve”) I was unable to harmonize. But looking at these more closely in coaching, I began to realize that I encompass all of them, and don’t need to play off one against the other. So, they ceased to be somehow external to me. I need to act from a notion that I am somehow beyond all of them, although I may stress one of them here, and another there. In this way, I am much more in the flow, acting according to my intuition, without thinking of myself as conflicted or instable. I have gained a lot of decisiveness and energy from that insight into my new identity. [3] In coming back from Europe, I was more uncertain about being able to separate my view of my capabilities from others’ views. And so, there is a degree of self-­ confidence involved in that. If you believe in yourself without being arrogant or cocky about it, you are, I believe, open to lots more possibilities than if you try to gauge your own value based on everybody’s feedback. The feedback could be right or wrong, whereas your own authenticity is unequivocal. So, in your core you have to believe in yourself and your ability to self-transform in your own peculiar way. And that has been true for me for the 30 years I have been working, since college. And for a couple of years, I lost that. But the coaching has made it clear to me that, considering my prior successes, I have always managed to come through with my identity once I followed my own original rhythm rather than yielding to pressures from the outside. And I will say as well that the last eight months of my European experience helped with this as well. Whether anybody else recognizes that or not, I did it, and if I could do it there, in Europe, I can probably do it somewhere else. The first speaker is engaged with coordinating two systems, her own individual system and the company that is her employer. Primary emphasis lies on the resulting self-transformation, not on coordination as such. Although the formal aspect of self-­ identity is not clearly spelled out, the taking in of an external element (here information) is noted. The second speaker struggled with the multiplicity of voices in himself that it seemed impossible to harmonize. This struggle came to an end once he understood that the different voices or inclinations shared common ground and were therefore not external to the personal “I.” By taking in, and taking responsibility for, these different voices, the speaker has gained a new strength for being in the flow, no longer afraid to be thrown from one direction into another. The “beyond all of them” came to be seen as the formal aspect of his personality that guaranteed his identity with himself across all changes of mind. In a way comparable to the second speaker but with more of a social-emotional emphasis on self-authoring, the third speaker reports having gone beyond defining himself by others’ views of himself. Once he came to be able to take full responsibility for who he is (in his own judgment), the speaker felt strengthened by the unequivocal nature of his own value system. This was reinforced by his work on

176

3  Thought Form Descriptions

another continent. Now that he has proven to himself that he can be his own master, he trusts that he will be able to be himself back home as well. Cognizant of having lost his self-assurance for a while  – “and for a couple of years I lost that”  – the speaker is confident that his new identity bestows on him new strengths. Addendum on Qualitative Change and Formalism A special case of describing change in an open, self-transforming system is that of qualitative change resulting from an accumulation of quantitative changes (BB 1981, 110). The gradual accrual of quantitative changes suddenly and unexpectedly manifests as a qualitative change. In this manual, this case (well-known from Hegel’s Logic) is subsumed under TF #22 according to which quantitative accrual may unexpectedly manifest as pervasive qualitative change, thus instability, in a system’s equilibrium. Global warming is an example. Thus, the openness of a system elucidated by way of TF#27 may also be its peril. Another aspect of the dialectic of systems concerns the critique of formalism. Formalism is defined as (BB 1981, 113): … the effort to describe relationships and movements of particulars as governed or governable by rules or laws which can be stated at a general or universal level with no reference to the content of the particulars.

In contrast to formalism, the dialectical notion is that form and content are inseparable because a transformational system by nature embodies a constitutive relationship between the two (TF #21). This amounts to a critique of formalistic thinking in which a conceptual abstraction remains separate from the content it refers or applies to. In this manual, this aspect of dialectic is included in TF #28. Contrasts The contrasting thought forms to be consulted before scoring TF #27 are as follows: • TF #2 points to inclusion of an external or different element as antithesis, focusing on preservative negation as the drive toward a synthesis. It does not focus on identity across transformation. • TF #22 points to limits of stability of a system, rather than the formal aspects of its enduring identity across all transformations. • TF #23 draws attention to factors that may be responsible for the disequilibrium noted in TF #22, by articulating the step from the thesis to the antithesis initially introduced in TF #2. • TF #24 emphasizes the power of developmental potential but also of human agency (Table 3.34).

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

177

Table 3.34  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #27 2

Preservative negation, inclusion of antithesis

Seeing change as the canceling, including, and transcending of what exists, leading to differentiation of events and situations through inclusion of what they exclude and resulting in opening up hidden dimensions in conceptual space Contrast: 27 22 Limits of stability, harmony, Pointing to limits of stability, balance, and durability and durability (including without making their causes explicit. (Emphasis is on the quantitative into qualitative “negative” aspect of negativity which also has a positive changes) aspect, that of emergence.) Contrasts: 3, 12, 23 23 Value of conflict leading in a Value of the conflict itself and the resolution of conflict in a developmental direction developmental or transformational direction, leading to dissolution of older forms and systems. Systemic form of the move to an antithesis Contrasts: 2, 22, 24 24 Value of developmental Value of developmental movement (with or without potential leading to higher conflict) for the sake of transformation, establishing a new levels of individual and social balance, greater inclusiveness, and higher levels of functioning equilibrium. Systemic form of the move to a synthesis Contrasts: 1, 23

Thought Form #28 28 Integration of multiple perspectives in to define complex realities; critique of formalism

Critiquing the one-sidedness of abstractions; preserving concreteness and realism by juxtaposing one or more perspectives on the same subject matter. Critique of formalistic thinking that separates structure from content and of conceptual hubris pretending to represent realities fully by man-made concepts (nominalism) Contrasts: 2, 6, 16

TF #28 focuses on the multiplication and integration of perspectives as a way of preserving the concreteness of a situation, event, person, or other entity considered as an organized transformational whole. The larger the number of perspectives on something, the more of its concreteness can be preserved by thought, and the more adequately thought can thus render what is real. In Adorno’s and Horkheimer’s “critical theory,” TF #28 is king (or queen). It provided these thinkers with the appropriate conceptual model for a multitude of insightful sociological, cultural, and musical analyses. In more general terms, this thought form says that, taken individually, single perspectives are abstractions and therefore one-sided. Not only do they need to be brought into relationship with each other (TF #16, value of bringing into relationship), but different perspectives also must be seen as complementary in a systemic sense (TF #26, coordination of systems), especially where they are in opposition to each other in the sense of TF #2 (preservative negation) or TF #23 (value of conflict).

178

3  Thought Form Descriptions

As a result, TF #28 is not only constructive (focused on integration) but has a critical edge as well. The thought form points to the limits of formalistic thinking in which form and content are separated from each other based on the assumption that formalism can render subject matter exhaustively by subsuming it under some superordinate logical category. The temptation to think formalistically arises from language itself when it is used without proper reflection and self-awareness. This occurs when dialectical thinking is either not practiced or only paid lip service to. For instance, developmental stage theory is a formalism that, separated from the concrete and unique individual it refers to, is nothing but a set of abstractions. These abstractions define a profile that the individual whom it describes may not have access to, in which case the profile remains external to him or her (especially if it is not based on a prior interview). When conceived outside of dialectical thinking, a developmental profile can be brought to life only by coordinating it with other aspects of the individual. However, this “filling up the stage concept [with meanings]” by the interpreter of the profile – in this monograph referred to as Loevinger Fallacy – only hides the abstraction from the concrete individual that occurs, and which TF #28 helps to point out. Since dialectical thinking is absent in such a case, developmental constructivism remains formulaic. Awareness of the Loevinger Fallacy is the main reason why in the constructive developmental framework social-emotional scores are never interpreted as entailing cognitive, psychological, or spiritual evidence as well. Since such scores are valid for millions of people who are “on the same stage” the world over, social-emotional stages per se simply do not say much about the concrete individual they are assigned to. CDF is a tool for avoiding formalistic and formulaic thinking in developmental theory as well as the service professions where and when such thinking is applied. As will be clear to the reader, many theoretical approaches and ideologies are open to critique by TF #28 since they stifle thought. This book is in fact a “critical theory” of abstract thinking, including developmental theory. The limits of formalism have been forcefully pointed out by Adorno (1999, 31), who states: The unregimented thought has an elective affinity to dialectics which as criticism of the [closed] system recalls what would be outside the system; and the force that liberates the dialectical movement in cognition is the very same that rebels against the system. Both attitudes of consciousness are linked by criticizing one another, not by compromising.

Adorno rightfully refers to attitudes of consciousness, another term for epistemic position, as a basis of dialectical thinking. He means to say that abstractions always create closed static systems and that what is left out by them is the essence of reality human thought ought to try to capture. Wherever human thinking cannot do so, it is enslaved by ideology. The double nature of TF #28 perfectly captures the intent of dialectic, to be critical of formalism in the service of capturing the concreteness of what is real. Adorno called this epistemic attitude negative dialectics, which one might see as epistemic position 8, a position neither seen nor rendered in King and Kitchener’s research (1994).

∗ ∗ ∗



Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

179

Below, I first discuss the constructive, and then the critical, aspect of TF #28. BB formulate (1981, 121): [TF #28] is … an alternative method to pure abstraction for striving toward greater inclusiveness or universality in one’s thinking. The method is assumed to follow from a concern with inclusiveness, which is maintained in the context of an individual’s knowledge (a) of the limits of abstraction, (b) of the necessary one-sidedness of perspectives, and (c) of the essential importance of the concrete [Adorno’s “non-identical,” OL]. The approach involves looking at a problem or a set of phenomena by juxtaposing a series of alternative vantage points. The articulation of the view from each vantage point relies upon the abstractions associated with that particular vantage point while at the same time it brings out the concrete phenomena which contribute to the meaning of these abstractions.

As BB emphasize, “actually carrying out such an approach is … a project of tremendous magnitude” that cannot be completed within the confines of a single cognitive interview. Rather, TF #28 is scored whenever interview excerpts are ones “which can be interpreted as descriptions of this approach or [as] expressions of the assumptions that underlie it.” From this perspective, “formalisms … may be viewed as statements about the relationship of abstractions and may be contrasted with statements about concrete events.” When thinking about subject matter from the critical vantage point of TF #28, abstractions are viewed (1981, 122): … not as statements about a separate, more universal level of reality which governs the relations of particulars [as in logical thinking, OL], but rather as skeletal aspects of organized systems in which the abstractions are organized with – linked to [OL] – more concrete content. Since the meaning of the abstractions is seen as dependent on the specific nature of the content with which it is organized, purely abstract discourse is seen as discourse robbed of the flesh of its meaning. Since an abstract statement’s implicit concrete content (which is non-universal) is seen as essential to the meaning of the abstraction, the abstraction can be no more universal than the content which supports it – and which cannot even be evaluated once it is lost in abstract discourse.

The quote above shows the closest approximation of Basseches’ to Adorno’s thinking, as well as to the notion of dialectic put forth in this monograph. It stresses that the meaning of an abstraction is no broader or deeper than the content and context permit from which it has been abstracted. For this reason, critical thinking in the sense of dialectic always has to play “devil’s advocate” as to ascertaining the scope of validity of abstractions, the term “validity” taken in a qualitative sense, not the quantitative sense of data science. A good example of the formalistic fallacy here in question is today’s “generative AI” which hopes to generate “intelligent” devices based on nothing more than the analysis of huge sets of words treated as data. This “world-based” rather than “thought-based” AI mistakes linguistic surface structure, of what people say, for what emerges from the underlying internal conversations based on which people choose their vocabulary. By contrast, “thought-based AI” would have to accept the challenge of grounding intelligent devices in an understanding of the epistemic structure (thought form structure) of people’s internal conversations as social agents, by which they mediate cultural and social structures (to speak with M. Archer).

180

3  Thought Form Descriptions

The Special Case of Scoring Cognitive Interviews The discussion about critiquing formalistic thinking, above, throws a special light on the procedure of scoring cognitive interviews in the framework of CDF. One of the scoring requirements is to “separate content from structure.” Outwardly, this would seem to be an invitation to use abstractions in the way just criticized. The special dispensation needed here, in all fairness, is to say that in scoring interviews we adopt a formal logical mindset for the purpose of understanding how far a speaker has moved beyond such a mindset. This is a paradox, not a methodological flaw of CDF. To see this clearly, we need to distinguish between the act of scoring and what is being scored. Scoring cognitive interviews is a process by which we turn an interview  – a living transformational system  – into a closed system for the practical purpose of ascertaining an individual’s present fluidity index and cognitive center of gravity (system thinking index). We use abstractions called thought forms, mapping an interview transcript onto a table. We do so to create a window through which we can view what an interviewee has said “objectively,” in terms of what as scorers we know about the four moments of dialectic. Consequently, while the thought form scored has no meaning outside of the text to which it refers and is thus an abstraction in the sense of TF #28, it enables a thinker to pass judgment about the cognitive process expressed in the text and give cogent feedback to an interviewee or coachee. What is more, when all thought forms used in an interview are assembled in a cognitive behavior graph (CBG) [see B7 below], the person giving feedback on a cognitive interview obtains a picture, not only of the dynamics of the cognitive interview but of the present cognitive profile of an interviewee.

∗∗∗



It appears from what was said about TF #28 so far that whether logical or dialectical thinking prevails in an individual’s cognitive profile will depend on how abstractions are handled. As we know from Book 1 Chap. 1, it is only beginning with epistemic position 4 that handling abstractions, thus using thought forms, becomes a possibility for adults. Where no uncertainty of truth exists, as in earlier epistemic positions, abstractions are not needed, nor do they make any sense. Abstractions reside on a “more universal level” than the particulars they describe. As soon as that occurs, logical thinking or formalism is involved and with it the identity of subjective consciousness – the logical ego – that reduces everything that is thought to thought itself. It then takes a shorter or longer stretch of cognitive development to begin to see that formal logic is not the only way to articulate universals. It gradually dawns on the developing thinker that abstractions are, in essence, no more universal than the content that supports them. The difference entailed in dialectical thinking is between abstract and concrete universality, where the latter is always a synthesis (gathering) of form and content, particular and whole.

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

181

As BB formulate this point, dialectical thinking in the sense of TF #28 is (1981, 122): … an alternative approach to pure abstraction as a means to greater inclusiveness than is provided by simple concrete discourse. [TF #28] operates by treating a large problem as a whole … by viewing the whole from several vantage points (either from within or without the whole) at one time.

Given the importance of separating out logical from dialectical thinking for the topic of this book, a longer quote from BB about this topic is appropriate here (1981, 122–124): The Dialectical Approach Consider the effort to understand how hospitals in America are functioning. Application of this schema [TF] might involve first looking at hospitals from the standpoint of the forms of health care they deliver – by investigating the relationship of the hospitals’ functioning to concrete health-care needs. Then one might look at hospitals from the standpoint of a concern with organizational structure – by tracing the evolution of specific patterns of communication within them. Next one might take a specific interpretation of the development of the American economy and look for signs of its historical impact on hospitals. One might try to understand how the hospital as an institution is experienced by various senior staff members, interns, nurses, patients, and maintenance workers, and so on. Each perspective would bring out certain aspects of the whole as salient against the background of other aspects. This process of multiplication of perspectives may be seen as generating a set of systems or forms of understanding and relating [them] to hospitals which could then be treated via the other meta-formal schemata [transformational thought forms which perform a synthesis of all other Moments of Dialectic; OL]. For example, sources of disequilibrium for one system could be due to the impact of another system upon it [TF #22]; and one could attempt to foresee what sorts of developmental transformation might resolve the disequilibrium [TF #23]. Systems could be coordinated [TF #26], or evaluatively compared [TF #25], to see which perspective seemed to be more inclusive, integrated, and differentiated. The Logical Approach The alternative (abstract) approach to universality might take a single abstraction such as “satisfaction with the hospital’s functioning” and compound and report the results of many people’s ratings on that dimension, without regard to the differences in what satisfies different individuals. Application of TF #28 is based on acknowledging the one-sidedness of any perspective (whether concretely or abstractly articulated) and attempting to generate alternative perspectives as an antidote to the limitedness of any one viewpoint. It

182

3  Thought Form Descriptions

assumes that any hope for universality or inclusiveness which exists lies in the process of resolving contradictions between perspectives experienced in their full concreteness, rather than in obscuring the contradictions by purely abstract formulations. Links of TF #28 to Other Thought Forms Viewing a juxtaposition of contradictory concrete perspectives as more valuable (as an approach to inclusiveness, or universality) than a statement of abstraction of broad applicability can be seen as connecting values to development [TF #24]. An abstraction, even if it has a broad concrete basis, does not contain within it the means to further transformation in the direction of greater inclusiveness, differentiation, and integration. It expresses only the lowest common denominator of the perspectives on which it is based and loses track of their differences. However, a juxtaposition of contradictory concrete perspectives (while also providing a broad concrete basis) does contain a source of further developmental movement (i.e., contradiction). [TF #28] also can be seen as connected to [TF #6]. The connection may be appreciated by pointing out that the multiplication-of-perspectives  – dialectical  – approach relies on the process of abstraction no less than does the abstract universal –formal logic – approach. In generating and articulating perspectives, it begins by abstracting aspects of an interrelated whole from that whole. In the example above, organizational structure may be seen as an abstraction from the sum total of what happens in the hospital – an abstraction which provides a handle on certain relationships of events within the hospital. However, the difference between the (two) approaches – the logical and the systemic dialectical one – is that in the latter, the abstractions are used consciously with an acknowledgment of their one-sidedness, and their limits are pointed out by the juxtaposition of alternative perspectives. By contrast, in the logical approach, the abstraction is taken as existing as a separate and more universal level of reality – that is to say, it is hypostatized or reified. In the hospital example, reification would take the form of thinking of satisfaction  – an abstraction used to compound the range of different reactions to different aspects of the hospital – as a thing that could be considered independently of what it was that made a given person satisfied. In the context of this and the previous thought forms, it should be noted that universal-particular and abstract-concrete [pairs of concepts, OL] may be viewed as pairs of relative terms. This means that both ... [aspects of TF #28], criticism of formalism and multiplication of concreteness-preserving perspectives, may be reapplied at greater and greater levels of specificity, to reveal interdependence of form and content and to generate rich and contradictory content.

∗ ∗ ∗



Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

183

It becomes clear from this quote that: • Logical and dialectical thinking do not stand in opposition to each other; rather, dialectical thinking uses logical thinking as a tool for sharpening the contradictions it harvests and thus constitutes a meta-level of working with conceptual abstractions. • Dialectical thinking uses abstractions in the framework of preservative negation (TF #2) as well as the multiplication and integration of different perspectives (TF #28), the latter being the systemic form of the former. • What BB (1981) describe as the striving for universality in logic is based on the notion that (from the perspective of logic) particulars don’t count for much and therefore can be subsumed under high-level concepts that swallow them up, thus replacing them. (Adorno criticized Hegel for having subsumed particulars under dialectical concepts, thus for using dialectic like a formalism; see Adorno (1993).) • Striving for universality in dialectics is an attempt to save the phenomena (to speak with Aristotle), that is, to safeguard the uniqueness of a particular entity instead of sacrificing its concreteness to the voracity of abstract concepts which posture as residing at a higher level of generality than the concrete individual from which they have been taken. • As Hegel’s dialectic shows (Adorno 1999; Bhaskar 1993), swallowing up of individual concrete entities or elements by voracious abstraction can occur in lopsided dialectics no less than in abstract logical thinking. It is the rare individual who is cognitively developed enough to avoid both the Scylla and Charybdis* of abstract thinking (*the monster and the whirlpool referred to by Homer in antiquity). • Wherever dialectical thinking fails, the concrete individuality of what exists falls prey to the abstract identity of thinking to which the richness of the concrete is submitted. Both Th. W. Adorno’s and R. Bhaskar’s writings (1993, 1999) provide an antidote to the triumphalism even of mature thought that is operated by wielding abstractions in such a way that the hapless concretes are sacrificed to them. In the light of this critique of formalistic thinking, one might suggest, as Basseches did in his original design of the four classes of thought forms, that the critique of formalism deserves a thought form of its own. In Basseches’ dialectical schema system, he makes it a member of the transformational and systemic class of thought forms. BB (1981, 84) spell out the reason for doing so as follows: … criticism of formalism asserts the interdependence of form and content in a formalism. Therefore, since it asserts that the form as a whole is constitutive of the content, it leads to the description of relationships within the form as internal relationships of the form (constituting the elements) rather than as external relationships of the elements (confirming or conforming to the form).

In this manual, I have chosen to include Basseches’ thought form #23 that is critical of formalism under TF #28. The critique of formalism has the systemic implication that thinking of forms as separated from content (e.g., laws separated

184

3  Thought Form Descriptions

from the concrete social circumstances that gave rise to them) reveals nonsystemic thinking defending against insight into organized wholes. Following Adorno (1999), such forms independent of content signal the hubris of instrumentalist thinking in which the almighty concept becomes a substitute for the subject matter it is meant to validate and bring to life. Illumination and Remediation Transforms In Book 1 Chap. 3, I introduced the notion of an illumination and a remediation transform in order to illustrate the difference between thought forms of class process, context, and relationship, on one hand, and the systemic thought forms discussed in this section, on the other. I saw both transforms as ways to proceed from the era of understanding to that of reason through dialectics. By distinguishing between two sets of dialectical tools, I meant that only what has been previously illuminated, or commented upon dialectically, can ultimately be remediated, or seen in its concrete universality. On a commonsense level, concrete universality is an outcome of using the principles of change, contradiction, and holism exercised in Asian dialecticism (Nisbett, 2005). In this perspective, the T-moment and thought forms here discussed presuppose the thought forms previously interpreted (CPR) as much as the latter presuppose T – a notion of dialectics I have earlier referred to as a snake biting its own tail. TF #28, focused on the multiplication and integration of multiple perspectives, can therefore be seen as the quintessential systemic thought form by way of which what is initially absent (missing, one-sided, distorted, hidden, etc.) can ultimately be remediated, that is, acknowledged as a living transformational system of great complexity and depth, by making the CPR thought forms T implies explicit. A speaker is credited with using TF #28 when s(he): • Uses abstractions with an acknowledgment of their one-sidedness and limited scope • Points out that all perspectives are necessarily limited • Critiques the use of abstractions as reducing the complexity of a subject matter • Welcomes the multiplication of perspectives on a subject matter • Looks at a system from multiple points of view • Comes up with alternative viewpoints • Is concerned with the inclusiveness and integration of diversity • Expresses the view that a perspective is based on data and cannot be more inclusive than the data permits The four examples below will further clarify the use of TF #28: [1] Coaching has helped me to develop the ability to step back and take another view of the same situation from a different angle, and then link the two together. I am not as bound to the first impression any more. As a result, I have become a little more patient about things, especially in light of my being typically so hard-­ charging. Because, clearly, there is a lot you are missing if you only see things from a single perspective. And the more complex things are, the more you need to be aware of your blinders. For instance, together with your own perspective,

Section 4: Transformational Thought Forms

185

you have to hold at least that of your antagonist, so that when linking them to each other you can begin to see the limitations of your own perspective. [2] I have been sitting in HR meetings for nearly 15 years, and I am getting increasingly bored by the sameness of the complaints and wishes I am hearing. There is a never-ending regurgitation of the moan that HR has too little “clout” at the strategy table. What HR really needs is a multiplication of perspectives while at the same time seeing more clearly that we are fundamentally engaged in managing work capability. I am confident that once that has become clear to everybody, there are many different perspectives we can bring to bear on our task, and not only as HR generalists. And needless to say those different perspectives would be very much welcomed by management and would give us the clout whose absence we are now endlessly bemoaning without ever getting anywhere. [3] Our team had an in-depth discussion of our different takes on the present stock crisis. Aside from being simply scared, we realized that the personal and analytical data we bring to the table all have their limitations, and that these limitations carry over into the perspectives we hold. So, ultimately the most effective strategy for us is to take multiple perspectives on any situation to begin with and integrate the diversity of viewpoints as far as we can manage. That way, we arrive at a much more complex and realistic way of seeing things and are also more fully aware of the risk we are taking in making this or that decision. Any decision we make is naturally one-sided. So, they just cut the Gordian Knot rather than unfolding it. [4] The various academic disciplines are, if you go back to the blind men and the elephant, a collection of various blind men, each with their particular piece of the elephant; and that having granted that kind of breadth diversity, there is then a depth question within each discipline; whereby one does not acquire the insights, the depth, of a particular discipline by a casual introductory course, or by reading an introductory survey book in that area; but you have to do some substantial work there and you have to immerse yourself in it and spend a lot of time acquiring the jargon and working through paradigm examples of the way that particular discipline cultivates its piece of the elephant. And therefore, one can easily spend an industrious four years doing that without exhausting the resources of that particular discipline … I am trying to contrast this depth and breadth trade-off thing – the fact that any individual can’t be all over the elephant himself, … or should he be so narrow as to become solely immersed in the technical details of a particular discipline (BB 1981, 126–127). The first speaker stresses the critical aspect of TF #28, pointing out that any single perspective is one-sided since it is too abstract to render the situation in question in full. He remains focused on the subjective benefit of using at least two perspectives, delving into the example of a complex situation to illustrate his own ability to integrate these perspectives.

186

3  Thought Form Descriptions

The second and third speakers espouse, more than use, TF #28, endorsing it only weakly. This has to do with the fact noted previously that doing justice to TF #28 is a project of tremendous magnitude (BB 1981, 121). This project was undertaken by Adorno in his Negative Dialectics (1999). The fourth gets a little further than pure espousal by using TF #28 (BB 1981, 126–127): The metaphor of the blind men is applied to try to understand what academic disciplines do. The notion of blindness may be understood as characterizing each of their perspectives as one-sided, or limited to the parts of the elephant that are accessible from the point where one is standing. Thus, multiple standpoints must be assumed in striving for inclusiveness: a person should not “be so narrow as to become solely immersed in the technical details or a particular discipline.” … The subject may also be interpreted as expressing the essential importance of concreteness or substance his discussion of the “depth and breadth trade-off thing.” In drawing attention to the “depth question within each discipline,” he seems to be saying that it is important to gain a concrete understanding, rather than just an overview, from each standpoint: “you have to do some substantial work there and you have to immerse yourself in it.”

Contrasts • TF #2 relates an abstraction called thesis and another abstraction called antithesis in order to move to a richer concept of a subject matter called synthesis. The antithesis (non-A) does not need to stand in opposition to the thesis (A). While in TF #2 the thinker’s emphasis falls on inclusion of what is other than the base concept, in TF #28, the emphasis is systemic and falls on including more than a single other or perspective, to arrive at an optimally rich understanding of a subject matter. • TF #6 critiques the arresting of motion which leads to forgetting that an abstraction is not a thing but the conceptual aspect of an organized whole under constant transformation. While TF #6 thus exposes abstractions as the result of arresting motion, TF #28 criticizes abstractions on the grounds that they are not systemic, thus do not promote insight into a living system or system of systems. • TF #16 also criticizes abstractions but foremost under the viewpoint that things, events, etc. that are part of a totality and thus share common ground are kept separate, rather being seen in their (intrinsic) relationship. The value of bringing things into relationship with each other lies in the opening toward a possible antithesis that can be used to reach a synthesis once the relationship is firmly acknowledged and understood (Table 3.35). Thought Forms as Mind Openers We have seen throughout this manual that the use of thought forms is not limited to evaluating cognitive interviews but rather extends to the dialectical scrutiny of any speech or text stating any content, viewpoint, or ideology whatsoever. For this

Chapter Summary

187

Table 3.35  Contrasts (alternatives) of thought form #28 2

Preservative negation, inclusion of antithesis

Seeing change as the canceling, including, and transcending of what exists, leading to differentiation of events and situations through inclusion of what they exclude and resulting in opening hidden dimensions in conceptual space Contrast: 27 6 Critique of arresting Assertion of the relevance of motion, and critique of denying, hiding, motion (reification) or disavowing change. What exists cannot be isolated from unceasing change since it is a form, not a thing Contrasts: 7, 28 16 Value of bringing Assertion of the value of seeing a relationship between things or into relationship forms otherwise seen as separate and unrelated Contrasts: 15, 17

reason, thought forms are paramount in process consultation, whatever form it may be taking. As seen below, questions that emerge from thought forms are very practical and hands-on. They lead to actions not considered possible or relevant prior to using the thought form in question. Below, I make suggestions for how to formulate challenge questions for clients based on thought forms in the transformational class (Table 3.36).

Chapter Summary Dialectical Thinking as “Deep Thinking” We have come full circle regarding the four moments of dialectic and their representation as human thought forms. As we have seen, epistemology follows ontology, not the other way around. We have acquired a taste for broad-scoped remedial thinking using process, context, and relationship thought forms to detect what the initial base concepts our thinking starts out with omit, distort, hide, and cannot grasp. In this manual, we have also learned more about the historical roots of dialectical thinking, especially the Frankfurt School. The writings of Th. W.  Adorno have exemplified for us what phase 4 of dialectical thinking looks like. Clearly, these writings articulate practical wisdom, especially in Minima Moralia (1978). As with all other cognitive profiles, Adorno’s profile is highly idiosyncratic. Since we don’t have social-emotional scores for this “interviewee,” nothing can be said about the balance of his sense-making and meaning-making profile. A CDF assessment of Adorno based on his lectures and written works remains a worthwhile project. As Asian dialecticism demonstrates, some of the dialectical thought forms presented in this manual can be used on the level of common sense. A study of Asian dialecticism from the vantage point of CDF would be an enlightening undertaking. As we know, dialectical thinking does not amount to some kind of elitist thinking as the Western philosophical tradition taken by itself, or its interpreters, may suggest.

188

3  Thought Form Descriptions

Table 3.36  Transformational thought forms as mind openers Thought form class Transformational system 22  Limits of stability, harmony, and durability (incl. accumulation of quantitative into qualitative changes)

Ways of challenging interlocutors’ thinking (Contrasts are listed in Tables B1–3) (a) What makes this system so easily perturbed? (b) What are the limits of stability of the system we are considering? (c) What would be the best way to test the limits of this system’s stability? (d) Being aware of the limits of stability of systems, what assumptions are we are making that are not cogent? 23  Value of conflict leading in a (a) Before we get lost in the negative implications of developmental direction the conflict we are facing, what are the positive aspects this conflict could be resolved toward? (b) Might this conflict be an indication that there is a potential for development here? (c) Is this a minor disturbance, or would we do better seeing this event as a conflict and working on resolving it? (d) Shouldn’t we focus on moving toward a more inclusive solution? (a) How can we gauge the potential indicated here? 24  Value of developmental potential leading to higher levels of individual and (b) Taking the potential we are aware of seriously, social functioning how could we determine its parameters and manage its unfolding? (c) Is there a potential for working out a higher level of integration of functions that are now separate? (d) How can we keep the functionality of our operating process intact while we reengineer it to link better to the evolving market? 25  Evaluative comparison of systems in (a) Which of the two systems has the greater potential transformation to contribute to a transformation of the situation we are presently in? (b) How do the two organizations we merging enhance or weaken each other? (c) In terms of the present crisis, what major institutions and their processes do we need to coordinate? (d) Is there a master form [ideal type] we can consult to concretize our ideas of what this new system should look like? 26  Process of coordinating systems (a) What precisely does it mean to “coordinate” the two systems we are speaking about? (b) Are the criteria of coordination we are considering optimal in this attempt to create a bigger and better system? (c) Given the different contexts in which these two systems exist, what functionality should be centrally safeguarded in merging these systems? (d) Of the two systems to be coordinated, which one can guarantee the immediate practicality we require? (continued)

Chapter Summary

189

Table 3.36 (continued) Thought form class Transformational system 27  Open, self-transforming systems

Ways of challenging interlocutors’ thinking (Contrasts are listed in Tables B1–3) (a) What does the identity of the system consist of that we are attempting to preserve through these proposed changes? (b) What inputs flow into the system, and how do they show up in the outputs? That is, what transformations are taking place? (c) What strategic and tactical issues arise from the transformations this system seems to be undergoing? (d) What are the risks of keeping the system open to external influences? 28  Integration of multiple perspectives – (a) What is the most inclusive perspective we can in order to define complex realities; take on this situation to include all stakeholders? critique of formalistic thinking (b) What are some alternative viewpoints that better render the complexity of the situation? (c) What are the data this perspective is based on, and what other data it excludes do we need to consider in order to understand what is really going on here? (d) What alternative viewpoints exist that play into this topic (context)?

Beginning with limits of stability (TF #22), we have increasingly moved onto firmer ground regarding the asking and answering of questions concerning transformational systems. We have schooled ourselves in a technique of consultation that can be used to challenge clients’ thinking, provide models for “good thinking,” and that has wide application inside and outside of organizational environments. As we saw, using transformational thought forms can relieve personal suffering since it recasts what is initially taken as falling outside of social or personal history as an important ingredient of evolving life (Basseches 1997). Specifically, we have the following ways of overcoming closed-system thinking or, to speak with Adorno (1999), identity thinking: 1. Using our awareness of preservative negation to ascertain what stands in the way of a particular system’s survival (TF #22). 2. Becoming aware of the value of conflict and contradiction as pointers to new developments (TF #23). 3. Focusing on manifest potential with an eye to achieving higher levels of integration, inclusiveness, and supporting social change (TF #24). 4. Making comparative evaluations of two or more systems for the sake of understanding their specific strengths and weaknesses of each (TF #25). 5. Thinking about the coordination of systems in terms of their combined transformational potential (TF #26). 6. Approaching the miraculous-seeming quality of living systems, to retain their identity across change, from the perspective of their ability to assimilate what is external to them (nonidentical) and simultaneously accommodating to it (TF #27).

190

3  Thought Form Descriptions

7. Becoming more construct-aware regarding the tendency of language and formal logic, to let the mind abdicate when it is essential to save the phenomena in their concreteness, by realizing that they cannot be subsumed under abstract concepts without losing their essence. Also, becoming able to point out where formalisms occur that are unsupported by the concreteness of the content they pretend to render, and thus potentially ideological (TF #28). 8. These new ways of thinking essentially work to free up human agency since, reflexive as we have become, we have a clearer understanding of the social and cultural antecedents that tend to block us in launching our projects. We now can also assist others in boosting their agency and reflexivity, as facilitators, mentors, managers, supervisors, and coaches. 9. In terms of Bhaskar’s dialectical critical realism, in using transformational thought forms, we are less likely to fall prey to committing either the epistemic or ontic fallacy and can avoid “de-totalizing” complex configurations, reducing intrinsically related constellations to each other, committing category errors, and de-agentifying social and cultural world situations and events. 10. In short, we have graduated to a new level of understanding layering, transformations, networks, and open systems, including ourselves. Practice Reflections 1. Considering that the improvement of organizations is based on knowing and using people’s developmental potential, how could one go about measuring the limits of their stability from a social-emotional and cognitive point of view? 2. What can be done if due to corporate climate the psychological profile of members of the workforce operates as an antithesis to the optimal use of their capabilities? 3. What in your view is the concretizing effect of viewing organizations equally in terms of HCH and MAH, rather than MAH alone? 4. As a leader or person manifesting integrated leadership, what is your pragmatic answer to the negative dialectics of transformation? 5. To safeguard your organization’s success, what, as a dialectical thinker, is required of you to hinder accumulative quantitative changes from manifesting as pervasive qualitative change? 6. What is the practical teaching implied by the critique of formalism articulated by TF #28, particularly regarding human resources? 7. If you consider the organizational system you are in charge of as being under constant assault from its own antitheses (contradictions), what practical steps can you imagine that would harness the power of these antitheses? 8. When focusing exclusively on the MAH in your organization, what developmental potentials in HCH are you closing yourself off from? 9. What parts of reality is your present inquiring system hiding from you? 10. How would you describe the transformations that have occurred in your company over the last year in terms of transformational thought forms?

Bibliography

191

Exercises 1. Describe the major points of emphasis that define the class of transformational thought forms, especially in contrast to those of class context. 2. What thought forms are implied or presupposed by TF #22? 3. What, in your own words, is the difference between TF #23 and TF #24? 4. Does TF #26 presuppose TF #16, and if so, in what way, or is it an elaboration of TF #16. 5. What is the difference between TF #14 and TF #28? 6. Describe in what way TF #2 underlies TF #22. 7. In what way is TF #28 fundamental for saving the phenomena, meaning their concreteness and individuality? 8. In what sense does TF #27 teach us not to restrict our attention to the negative aspect of nonidentity? 9. Is there a transformational thought form that could be said to refer to the dialectics of figure and ground? 10. In what sense are transformational thought forms meta-systemic, not just systemic?

Bibliography Adorno, Th.W., E. Frenkel-Brunswick, and D.J. Levinson. 1950. The authoritarian personality. New York: Norton. Adorno, Th.W. 1978. Minima moralia. London: Verso. ———. 1993. Hegel: Three studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ———. 1999. Negative dialectic. New  York: Continuum. [Negative Dialektik. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1966]. ———. 2008. Lectures on negative dialectic: Fragments of a lecture course 1965/66. Malden: Polity. Ahrendt, H. 1971. The life of the mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers. Archer, M.S. 1995. Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press. ———. 1998. Culture and agency. Cambridge University Press. ———. 2003. Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press. ———. 2007. Making our way through the world. Cambridge University Press. Basseches, M.A. 1978. Beyond closed-system problem solving: A study of metasystemic aspects of mature thought. Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University. Ann Arbor: UMIO, #79/8210. ———. 1980. Dialectical schematas: A framework for the empirical study of the development of dialectical thinking. Human Development 23: 400–421. ———. 1983. Dialectical thinking as a meta-systemic form of cognitive organization. In Beyond formal operations. Late adolescent and adult cognitive development, ed. M.L.  Commons, F.A. Richards, and C. Armon, 216–238. New York: Praeger. ———. 1984. Dialectical thinking and adult development. Norwood: Ablex. ———. 1989. Intellectual development: The development of dialectical thinking. In Thinking, reasoning and writing, ed. E.P.  Maimon, B.F.  Nodine, and F.W.  O’Connor. White Plains: Longman. ———. 1997. A developmental perspective on psychotherapy process. Journal of Adult Development 4: 85–106.

192

3  Thought Form Descriptions

———. 2005. The development of dialectical thinking as an approach to integration. Integral Leadership Review 1: 47–63. Bhaskar, R. 1979 (1989, 1998). The possibility of naturalism. London: Routledge. ———. 1993. Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Verso. Bopp, M., and M.  Basseches. 1981. A coding manual for the Dialectical Schema Framework. Unpublished dissertation. [Cited as BB.] Gore, Al. 2006. An Inconvenient Truth. New York: Rodale Inc. Hegel, G.W. 1977 (1806). Phenomenology of spirit. London: Oxford University Press. Hegel, G. W. 2010 (1816–32). The science of logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Horkheimer, M., and Th.W. Adorno. 1997. Dialectic of enlightenment. London: Verso. Jaques, E., and Cathryn Cason. 1994. Human capability. Falls Church: Cason Hall & Co. Jaques, E. 1998a. Requisite Organization. Arlington: Cason Hall & Co.; (2021 edition of Requisite Organization Publishing, https://www.amazon.com/Requisite-­Organization-­Complete-­ Guide-­2021/dp/1867418932?source=ps-­sl-­shoppingads-­lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc=1&smid= ATVPDKIKX0DER) ———. 1998b. Time-span handbook. Gloucester: Cason Hall & Co. ———. 2002a. The life and behavior of living organisms. Westport: Praeger. ———. 2002b. A simple objective measure of size of roles in managerial systems. In Executive leadership certificate program course materials, 1–20. Gloucester: Cason Hall & Co. Kegan, R. 1982. The evolving self. Harvard University Press. Kegan, R., and Lisa L. Lahey. 1994. In over our head. Harvard University Press. ———. 2009. Immunity to change. Harvard University Press. Kegan, R., et al. 2016. An everyone culture. Harvard University Press. King, P.M., and K.S. Kitchener. 1994. Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Kitchener, K.S. 1983. Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development 26: 222–232. ———. 2006. Development of reflective judgment in adulthood. In Handbook of adult development and learning, ed. C. Hoare, 73–98. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press. Nisbett, R.E. 2005. The geography of thought. London: Nicolas Brealey Publishing. Perry, W.G. 1968. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Chapter 4

Interview/Text Scoring Materials

Compact Table of Thought Forms (Table 4.1) Table 4.1  Table of thought forms with contrasts Process TFs 1. Unceasing motion, negativity

Context TFs* 8. Contextualization of part(s) within a whole; emphasis on part Contrast: 22 Contrast: 10–13 9. Equilibrium of a 2. Preservative negation, inclusion whole; emphasis on of antithesis (non-A) whole Contrast: 27 Contrast: 10–13 10. (Description of) 3. Composition by structures, functions, interpenetrating layers, strata of a opposites, system correlativity

Contrast: 19–22 4. Patterns of interaction

Contrast: 2, 19–20 5. Practical, active character of knowledge

Contrast: 8–9, 11–13 11. (Emphasis on the) hierarchical nature of layers systems comprise Contrast: 9 12. Stability of system functioning

Relationship TFs** 15. Limits of separation. Focus on the existence and value of relationships Contrast: 16–21 16. Value of bringing into relationship Contrast: 15, 17 17. Critique of reductionism and “de-totalized,” thus isolated, entities separated from their shared common ground Contrast: 18–21 18. Relatedness of different value and judgment systems

Transformational (meta-systemic) TFs*** 22. Limits of stability, harmony, durability (incl. quantitative into qualitative changes) Contrast: 3, 12, 23 23. Value of conflict leading in a developmental direction Contrast: 2, 22, 24 24. Value of developmental potential leading to higher levels of individual and social functioning Contrast: 1, 23 25. Evaluative comparison of systems in transformation

Contrast: 20 Contrast: 10, 14, 26, 28 19. Structural aspects of 26. Process of relationship coordinating systems (continued)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 O. Laske, Advanced Systems-Level Problem Solving, Volume 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40339-2_4

193

4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

194 Table 4.1 (continued) Contrast: 23 6. Critique of arresting motion (reification) Contrast: 7, 28 7. Embedding in process, movement

Contrast: 3–4, 6

Contrast: 9, 22

Contrast: 4, 15–17, 20–21 20. Patterns of 13. Intellectual interaction in systems: frames of reference, traditions, relationships ideologies Contrast: 9, 28 Contrast: 4, 21 21. Constitutive, 14. Multiplicity of intrinsic relationships contexts (logically prior to what (nonthey relate) transformational) Contrast: 25, 28

Contrast: 2–3, 15–20

Contrast: 15–16, 25 27. Open, selftransforming systems

Contrast: 2, 22–24 28. Integration of multiple perspectives to define complex realities; critique of formalistic thinking Contrast: 2, 6, 16

Adapted from Basseches and Bopp 1981 *Thought forms #8–9 and #10–12 are closely linked **Thought forms #15–16 and 19–20 are closely linked ***Thought forms #23–25 entail valuations. Basseches’ original schemas #22–23 have been subsumed under thought forms #22 and #28, respectively. [Schema #22 regards qualitative change deriving from changes in quantity; schema #23 regards the interdependence of form and content.]

Detailed Table of Thought Forms (Table 4.2) Table 4.2  Detailed table of thought forms Process •  Dialectical image: emergence (from a void) • Figure: what does not exist yet (is absent) but is emerging through unceasing change • Ground: unified by the category of absence from which the whole circuit of the four moments derives •  Relationship to system: always embedded in system • Scope: spanning negation, contradiction, critique • Theme: the presence of the past and future, motion in thought and reality • Dialectics: process, transition, interaction, opposition (including reversal) Thought form description # Thought form keywords and key (intent of sense making) phrases Unselfconscious expression or explicit assertion of unceasing 1 Unceasing change (inside and outside) as basic to human existence. Awareness movement, of past and future in the present. Sense of “negativity”: what is is negativity always drifting toward nonbeing and transformation and comprises hidden dimensions Contrast: 22 Seeing change as the canceling, including, and transcending of what 2 Preservative negation, inclusion exists, leading to differentiation of events and situations through inclusion of what they exclude and resulting in opening hidden of antithesis dimensions in conceptual space Contrast: 27 (continued)

Detailed Table of Thought Forms

195

Table 4.2 (continued) 3

4

5

6

7

Composition by interpenetrating opposites, correlativity Patterns of interaction

Active, practical nature of human knowledge Critique of arresting motion and process (reification) Embedding in process, movement

Emergence of something new through an interchange of opposites – energy or ideas. Composition of something that includes its other as a necessary ingredient, or as “figure” vs. “ground” Contrasts: 19–22 Patterns of motion in interactive relationships with focus on motion. Processes of give and take that negate, contradict, critique, and provoke a shift in social reality Contrasts: 2, 19–20 Active (questing) and practical (rather than passive) character of knowledge; knowledge as always under construction, never absolute Contrast: 23 Assertion of the relevance of motion, and critique of denying, hiding, or disavowing change. What exists cannot be isolated from unceasing change since it is a form, not a thing Contrasts: 7, 28 Focus on the fact that what exists is embedded in an ongoing process or motion, with the past and future as an aspect of the present Contrasts: 3–4, 6

Context •  Dialectical image: “big picture” in the sense of a whole encompassing parts • Figure: what appears as a stable, well-balanced form • Ground: unified by the category of differentiation that introduces variety and depth into what is real, making it alterable • Relationship to system: pre-figuration of a system in a static form Scope: multiplicity of entities and thoughts partaking in a common frame of reference • Theme: equilibrium of what exists • Dialectics: parts of a whole shifting their balance, stratification, generative mechanisms Attention to an organized larger whole of which something is a part 8 Contextualization or element and which forms the encompassing context of something of part(s) within a whole; emphasis on Contrasts: 10–13 part Attention to the balance of a larger whole, or the way in which it 9 Equilibrium of a whole; emphasis on forms a Gestalt. Holistic perspective where the parts are subordinate to the whole whole Contrasts: 10–13 Grasping the nature of holons. System descriptions in historical, 10 (Description of) functional, structural, and mechanical terms, or in terms of strata structures, functions, layers, of and levels composing a whole. Emphasis on the complexity of what exists and the need to model such complexity. Difference between a system “reality” and the model meant to simulate it Contrasts: 8–9, 11–13 11 (Emphasis on) the Grasping the nature of holons. Description of the nature of hierarchy hierarchical nature in systems, or lack thereof, and relevance thereof. Emphasis on transcendence and inclusion of lower levels as implicit in higher of structures and ones layers systems Contrast: 9 comprise 12 Stability of system Grasping the nature of holons. Describing or explaining the smooth functioning functioning of a system with focus on its stability, maintenance, and survival Contrasts: 9, 22 (continued)

196

4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

Table 4.2 (continued) Grasping the nature of holons. Describing the larger philosophical Intellectual systems: frames of or ideological environment and context of assumptions, ideas, principles, and paradigms reference, Contrasts: 9, 28 traditions, ideologies Simultaneous attention to a variety of contexts or dimensions in 14 Multiplicity of which events, situations, and individuals are embedded (without contexts stressing their relationship or transformation) (nonContrasts: 25, 28 transformational) Relationship •  Dialectical image: common ground (totality) • Figure: what does not exist other than held within a totality of (possibly oppositional) links and connections • Ground: unified by the category of totality, thus of holistic causality •  Relationship to system: living core of any system • Scope: all parts of a whole, however split and split off, center to periphery • Theme: unity in diversity, internal relatedness, illicit separation and fission, (undialectical) fixation on unrelated (isolated) elements and multiples • Dialectics: reciprocal, intrinsic, based on constitutive relationship (logically preceding parts of a whole) and shared, common ground Assertion of the existence of relationship(s), pointing to common 15 Limits of ground and the difficulty of separating things from each other separation. Focus beyond certain limits on existence and Contrasts: 16–21 value of relationship 16 Value of bringing Assertion of the value of seeing a relationship between things or into relationship forms otherwise seen as separate and unrelated Contrasts: 15, 17 Critique of de-totalizing reality by neglecting relationships between 17 Critique of opinions, assumptions, and ideas, leading to a reduction of reductionism and “de-totalized,” thus complexity, to overlooking underlying shared frameworks, thus common ground. Critique of absence of holistic thinking isolated, entities separated from their Contrasts: 18–21 shared common ground Assertion of the relatedness of seemingly different, even opposed, 18 Relatedness of different value and values, judgments, ideas, and principles, stressing cultural commonalities judgment systems Contrast: 20 19 Structural aspects Focusing on what is the formal structure of a relationship (or of relationship relationships) to locate the essence of how things are related Contrasts: 4, 15–17, 20–21 Describing a pattern of interaction and influence in a relationship, 20 Patterns of emphasizing the pattern(s) of interaction between the elements that interaction in are in relationship relationships Contrasts: 4, 21 Describing a relationship as constitutive, i.e., as being the force that 21 Constitutive, intrinsically relates parts according to their true nature. intrinsic Emphasis on the logical and other priority of the relationship over relationships the elements it relates (logically prior to Contrasts: 2-3, 15–20 what they relate) (continued) 13

Detailed Table of Thought Forms

197

Table 4.2 (continued) Transformational system •  Dialectical image: organism, e.g., beehive • Figure: what is in constant transformation seeking equilibrium, through physical or mental growth, shift, sudden reversal, virtualization, collapse, breakdown, and pain • Ground: unified by the social category of transformational praxis or agency •  Relationship to system: itself under constant transformation • Scope: all of reality with a focus on human practice • Theme: stability through developmental movement, attention to problems of coordination and change in a developmental direction, multiplicity of perspective, acknowledgment of human agency as intentional causality in the cosmos • Dialectics: special affinity with process as social change 22 Limits of stability, Pointing to limits of stability, balance, and durability without harmony, durability making their causes explicit. (Emphasis is on the negative aspect of (incl. accumulation negativity which also has a positive aspect, that of emergence.) of quantitative into Contrasts: 3, 12, 23 qualitative changes) Value of the conflict itself and the resolution of conflict in a 23 Value of conflict developmental or transformational direction, leading to dissolution leading in a of older forms and systems. Systemic form of the move to the developmental antithesis (TF #2) direction Contrasts: 2, 22, 24 Value of developmental movement (with or without conflict) for the 24 Value of sake of transformation, establishing a new balance, greater developmental potential leading to inclusiveness, and higher levels of equilibrium. Systemic form of the move to the synthesis (TF #2) higher levels of Contrasts: 1, 23 individual and social functioning Holding systems side by side as forms, and evaluating them as to 25 Evaluative effectiveness, usefulness, adaptability, and as mutually sustaining comparison of Contrasts: 10, 14, 26, 28 systems in transformation Attention to the process of coordinating two (or more) systems with 26 Process of each other for the sake of bringing them into balance coordinating Contrasts: 15–16, 25 systems Emphasizing the equilibrium and ability of a living system to 27 Open, selfremain identical with itself only based on its unceasing transforming transformation, pointing to a formal aspect of identity in systems transformation Contrasts: 2, 22–24 [1] Preserving concreteness and realism by juxtaposing or 28 Integration of integrating different perspectives on the same subject matter multiple [2] Critique of formalistic thinking that separates structure from perspectives to content, and of the associated conceptual hubris of pretending to define complex realities; critique of represent realities fully by man-made concepts (as in science) formalistic thinking [3] Awareness of the ontological dependency of the empirical and actual world on real-world generative mechanisms that give rise to what in human thinking takes the form of scientific “laws” – understanding such laws as closed-system abstractions and approximations of intransitive reality Contrasts: 2, 6, 16

198

4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

Table of Questions About Thought Forms When scoring a cognitive interview in terms of thought forms, one engages with the mental process of asking oneself: “Which of the thought forms representing the Moments of Dialectic most closely relates to the selected text passage?” This is no simple “table lookup.” Rather, you are referring to your own knowledge and practice of thought forms for which the table of thought forms is only a crib sheet. Whether you listen or read, you are trying to understand from which vantage point – process, context [form], relationship, or transformation – the speaker conceives of the world(s) s(he) engages with. Is what you hear or read (a) about the world being in unceasing motion, (b) about the form that keeps items and entities together as a Gestalt, (c) about the common ground things share and on account of which they differ, or is it (d) about the ways in which a transformational system remains intact and thrives not despite but because of undergoing constant change (as you as a person do)? Or could it be all of these, and to what extent is it one or the other? Your knowledge of thought forms will mightily assist you when searching for answers to one of these questions. These forms come together in the form of discovery procedures. They set forth epiphanies (even in your sleep) – as long as you act on their intrinsic relationship (see the Foreword to Book 1). Thought forms guide your premonition as to what you want to express before you express it. They are bundled in your mind, separated only by emphasis; and it is you, the thinker/speaker, who decides what thought form to choose and express, and with what emphasis. Your movements in thought, anchored in the thought forms you have internalized, in fact form the core of your internal conversations in which you are in dialogue with yourself and answer, as well as respond, to the questions you are posing for yourself (Archer 2003, 95–116). As a dialectical thinker, the questions you need to ask yourself whether as a reader or listener regard implicit but unrevealed assumptions, incorrect inferences, unarticulated nuances, and unwarranted comments. You need to take the speaker’s or writer’s perspective to find out what his or her way of using language implies about him as a social and cultural agent, his or her stance regarding first-person authority and human agency. What dialectical innervations can the speaker (writer) be credited with once you, as an interlocutor, give him or her your benefit of doubt? In the table below, the reader finds useful questions for clarifying what specific thought form  – within a class chosen by him or her  – is involved in a particular interview, discourse, or text passage. For each thought form, the table presents a (limited) set of questions one can ask oneself to test whether one has understood the gist of the utterance, or written text, under scrutiny well enough. How far have you entered your interlocutors’ world? How would you give your interlocutor feedback on what you discovered? The scrutiny, whether as an interviewer or systems analyst, is based on a form of discretion that is typical for dialectical thinking alone (see the Foreword to the monograph).

Thought Forms as Mind Openers

199

The closer the text scrutinized and “scored” comes to a real-time conversation, whether in the form of an interview or even a lecture, the closer one gets to the way the speaker makes sense of the world in the moment. While written texts other than transcriptions, such as memoranda, can also be scored, they are one step removed from the living person. In cognitive interviews, it is best to assume that the speaker (interviewee) is not simply describing the world but is creating it before your ears. That is what living in a language-suffused world (Jaques, 2002a) really amounts to. As in the social-­ emotional domain, language is a highly sensitive tool for expressing stance and the form in which somebody understands the world to which s(he) stands in a part-­ whole relationship. What is the speaker saying about being embedded in the world created by him or her? How aware is s(he) that she is constructing her world for you, the listener? What is her intention in what s(he) is conveying? As in social-emotional listening, expertise in dialectical thinking and listening begins with a change in oneself. It is not simply a skill but requires an attitude (stance) – in this case openness to thought possibilities not previously entertained. In this sense, dialectical thinking and listening are about going to the limits of oneself as an open transformational system (Table 4.3).

Thought Forms as Mind Openers Dialectical thought forms are powerful tools for challenging and opening minds, both one’s own and others’. They refer to the real, not a hypothetical, world structured in terms of the four moments of dialectic which: • • • •

Is engaged in unceasing motion Constitutes an organized whole (is a Gestalt) Serves as the common ground of the “thousand things” making up the world Is a system in constant transformation aiming for a new equilibrium

This “ontological” view of the world finds its correspondence in dialectical theory of knowledge. In terms of this theory, all concepts and thoughts are intrinsically linked forming a transformational system (“consciousness”), just like the world they are trying to render. Far beyond their application in analyzing cognitive interviews as exercised in Chap. 11, thought forms help explode ideologies, clear away obfuscation, critique defensive postures, make space for change, clarify contexts and situations, establish common ground, and point the mind to developmental potential buried alive (Table 4.4).

1. Unceasing motion, negativity

Process •  Dialectical image: emergence (from a void) • Figure: what is “not there” but is emerging through unceasing change • Ground: unified by the category of absence from which the whole circuit of the four moments derives •  Relationship to system: always embedded in system • Scope: spanning negation, contradiction, critique • Theme: the presence of the past and future, motion in thought and reality • Dialectics: process, transition, interaction, opposition (including reversal) •  Does the speaker imply (without being conscious of it) that unceasing change is basic to human existence? •  Does the speaker explicitly state that change defines the basic nature of knowledge as well as life? •  Is the speaker aware of the presence of the past in the present? •  Is the speaker aware of the presence of the future in the present? •  Is the speaker aware that the past may foreshadow the future? •  Is the speaker’s attention focused on what is changing, whether inside or outside? • Is the speaker implying or expressing that what exists is always drifting toward its transformation (including reversal and virtualization)? • Does the speaker realize that the distinction between past, present, and future is an artifact of human thinking, not a real-world phenomenon? Contrast with related TFs: •  TF #22 describes limits of stability and durability

Table 4.3  Questions about thought forms

200 4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

3. Composition by interpenetrating opposites, correlativity

2. Preservative negation, inclusion of antithesis (“non-A”)

(continued)

• Is there a movement from one thought (thesis) to another (antithesis) so far excluded that is outside of the thesis or base concept used? • Is there a second movement for relating thesis and antithesis, whether they are different from each other or are contradictory? •  Is there a cyclical movement, where the synthesis is becoming the new thesis? • Is there the insight that what is negated by change is not destroyed but lives on, in a different form, in what newly emerges? •  Is there an emphasis on incorporating other (new) thoughts to broaden the present conceptual field? • Is there awareness that by linking thesis to antithesis one enriches the thesis and is preparing a synthesis of two elements initially seen as different or even contradictory? • Is an effort made to show that one thing requires another for its comprehensive definition (with an emphasis on process)? •  Is there awareness that there are hidden dimensions or absences in what exists that need to be remediated? • Does the speaker discern some movement that opposes what s(he) describes and thereby changes the nature of what is said? Contrast with related TFs: •  TF #27 describes open, self-transforming systems • Does the speaker recognize that something A owes its existence or appearance to something other than itself (non-A) that co-defines its existence? • Is there recognition of interdependence between two forms, such as in figure and ground, that make up a larger whole? •  Is there recognition of how one form or person adapts to another thereby bringing new qualities into being? •  Is there recognition that something is related to something else so that they strongly influence or shape each other? •  Is there awareness that any process comprises a counter-process as its other or shadow? Contrast with related TFs: • TF #19 details correlative energy by focusing on the relationship of two forms rather than the process(es) they undergo •  TF #20 describes a pattern of interaction in a relationship beyond mere correlativity or influence •  TF #21 describes constitutive, logically prior, relationships that make something A what it is •  TF #22 conceptualizes thesis as form and antithesis as a destabilizing contradiction to, or in, the form

Thought Forms as Mind Openers 201

5. Practical, active character of knowledge

4. Patterns of interaction

Table 4.3 (continued)

• Is the speaker focusing on ongoing interaction between two things or people both of whom change on account of the interaction? •  Is the speaker focusing on how change and motion occur as one thing acts upon another? • Does the speaker describe a pattern of motion, influence, or give and take that produces a shift in a situation or constellation of forces? • Does the speaker focus on a subject matter by which different situations and scenarios are created that set up an interaction? • Does the speaker convey what it takes to move a process forward by engaging with the elements or entities it comprises or the forces that stand against it? • Does the speaker convey that the movement occurring between two entities or processes is more essential to their existence than each of them taken by themselves? Contrasts with related TFs: • TF #2 describes a three-step, thesis-antithesis-synthesis movement leading to a larger conceptual field, shift, or bigger picture •  TF # 19 describes the formal structure of a relationship (or of relationships), not a change or motion •  TF #20 describes patterns of interaction in a relationship • Does the speaker emphasize the active character of knowledge in contrast to the assumption that the knowledge is already there and just needs to be applied? •  Does the speaker emphasize that human knowledge is the root of causative human agency in the world? •  Is the speaker emphasizing the interaction of ideas as a motor of knowledge creation? •  Is the speaker focusing on the interaction of what is known with new empirical data being collected? •  Does the speaker focus on creating knowledge through interacting with the environment or other people? •  Does the speaker affirm that knowledge is primarily practical, geared to accomplish things in social life? •  Does the speaker emphasize thoughts that would be more workable? •  Does the speaker emphasize that knowledge is always in flux? •  Does the speaker emphasize that knowledge is useless until it is applied? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TF #25 focuses on comparing forms and structures for the purpose of evaluation, including practical value

202 4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

(continued)

6. Critique of arresting motion •  Is the speaker aware that what seems to be static or like a thing is a part of an ongoing process? (reification) •  Is the speaker avoiding or exposing abstractions that have “materialized” as fixed entities? • Is the speaker emphasizing that s(he) or someone is attributing material or separate existence to something that is without it? • Is the speaker aware that something thing-like is changing or is embedded in a process of change or modification that is hidden or denied? •  Does the speaker attempt to inject motion into something that appears [to others] as static or stable? •  Does the speaker oppose viewing human activity as separate from what it creates? •  Is the speaker aware that something cannot be separated from the process of which it partakes? •  Does the speaker expose objectification and reification as a simplification of reality? Contrasts with related TFs: • TF #7 interprets a specific event from a holistic perspective in which prior and subsequent events give meaning to the event • TF #28 consciously acknowledges the one-sidedness of abstractions, pointing out their limits by the juxtaposition of alternative perspectives 7. Embedding in process, •  Does the speaker explain things historically or developmentally? movement •  Does the speaker appeal to other events occurring over a broader time span than linear causal explanations do? •  Does the speaker refer to events taking place prior, to and/or subsequent to, what s(he) describes? •  Does the speaker refer to processes of which the event described is a part (moment of a process)? •  Does the speaker communicate the expectation of further change, either explicitly or implicitly? • Does the speaker compare or contrast the present moment (event or situation) with a prior event or situation, rather than establishing a necessary connection between the two events or situations, thereby emphasizing process over linear causality? • Does the speaker see events as parts of an organized whole, interpreting phenomena within the context of primacy of motion? •  Does the speaker criticize the notion of one-to-one linear causality, pointing to a much broader set of factors? •  Does the speaker reject linear causal explanations as too simplistic? Contrasts with related schemas •  TF #3 and #4 focus on the overall unfolding or pattern of motion, not on embedding in motion •  TF #6 exposes reification, with a focus on the relevance of process, not embedding in process

Thought Forms as Mind Openers 203

Context •  Dialectical image: big picture in the sense of a whole encompassing parts and strata • Figure: what appears as a stable well-balanced form • Ground: unified by the category of differentiation that introduces variety and depth into what is real, making it alterable •  Relationship to system: pre-figuration of a system in static form • Scope: multiplicity of entities and thoughts partaking in a common frame of reference • Theme: equilibrium of what exists • Dialectics: parts of a whole shifting their balance, stratification, generative mechanisms 8. Contextualization of part(s) •  Does the speaker locate an event or situation or person within a configuration of which it forms a part? within a whole, emphasis on • Does the speaker describe a situation or task in the context of a larger social or physical context with a focus on its part contribution to the whole? •  Does the speaker point to an event or situation as deriving its meaning from the larger context to which it belongs? •  Does the speaker point to an element as implying a larger context or being embedded in it? •  Does the speaker outline the big picture of an isolated event or situation? • Does the speaker locate a phenomenon in a context by describing other phenomena to which it is related, focusing on the phenomenon (rather than its relationship to other phenomena)? •  Does the speaker understand an idea or thought or event in the context of alternative thoughts? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TFs #10–13 do not emphasize single parts or elements but attempt to grasp the nature of organized wholes 9. Equilibrium of a whole, •  Does the speaker focus on the balance of a larger whole? emphasis on the whole •  Does the speaker convey that what exists is an organized whole held in balance by its parts? •  Is the speaker expressing a thought that is holistic? •  Does the speaker see what s(he) describes as a Gestalt having its own peculiar shape and form? •  Does the speaker point to the ground of what s(he) sees as a mere figure? •  Does the speaker emphasize the equilibrium of opposing forces as defining elements of a whole? •  Does the speaker emphasize that, and explain why, the elements add up to more than their sum? •  Does the speaker focus on the intellectual or physical environment of what s(he) is speaking about? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TFs #10–13 not only draw attention to wholes, forms, or systems but provide a way of grasping their nature

Table 4.3 (continued)

204 4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

(continued)

10. (Description of) structures, •  Does the speaker describe a whole (system or form) in structural terms (stable configuration)? functions, layers, strata of a •  Does the speaker describe a whole (system or form) in functional terms (of how it works)? system • Does the speaker describe a formal mechanism (algorithm, formalism) or model meant to explain an event or situation? •  Does the speaker describe a system in historical terms, by its antecedents? • Does the speaker explain events or situations by way of a detailed description of interlocking functions, structures, or a sequence of steps culminating in a higher form of social system? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TF #8 pays attention to wholes, forms, and structures by emphasizing the part. •  TF #9 pays attention to wholes, forms, and structures, without describing them in detail • TFs #11–13 strive to grasp the nature of wholes by focusing on their hierarchical nature (TF # 11), stability (TF # 12), and historical or ideological provenance (TF #13), respectively 11. (Emphasis on the) • Does a speaker describe a system in hierarchical terms, by way of layers (strata) such that one layer presupposes all hierarchical nature of the preceding ones and leads to higher layers? layers systems comprise •  Does the speaker emphasize that a particular stratum or function presupposes lower-level elements? • Does the speaker develop notions about how one moves from one stratum to another without focusing on the movement itself but rather its preconditions or outcomes? • Does the speaker outline what each level contributes to an integrated system, and in what way each level is a function of the system? • Does the speaker emphasize that single-level descriptions distort the complexity of reality, bypassing the hierarchical nature of things? • Does the speaker emphasize that judgments made on a higher stratum are more objective and realistic or differentiated than those made on lower levels? • Does the speaker emphasize the nature of transcendence, or inclusion of lower levels, as a characteristic of hierarchical systems? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TF #9 emphasizes the balance of an organized whole without describing it as a set of layers or levels

Thought Forms as Mind Openers 205

12. Stability of system functioning

•  Does the speaker describe a whole (system or form) in terms of stability of functioning? • Does the speaker assert the degree of stability of a whole by describing relations among its elements in terms of harmony/disturbance (without focusing on relationships)? • Does the speaker assert the degree of stability of a whole in terms of the relation of a system to its context in terms of fit, harmony, regulation, functioning or order? •  Does the speaker focus on what maintains, supports, or complements a configuration? •  Does the speaker provide a basis for understanding the structural stability of a system? •  Does the speaker develop a model of what keeps something at its present level of complexity or efficiency? Contrasts with related TFS: •  TF #9 draws attention to wholes as Gestalten but does not specify the stability of a Gestalt •  TF #22 points to the limits of stable system functioning 13. Intellectual systems: •  Does the speaker see something as falling within an established paradigm, framework, or set of regulations? frames of reference, traditions, •  Does the speaker relate ideas or definitions to their context (applying TF #8 to ideas)? ideologies • Does the speaker understand an intellectual context as a relatively stable point of reference for changing or critiquing ideas? •  Is the speaker evaluating an idea or thought in terms of a larger context or paradigm? •  Does the speaker express the need for a frame of reference in trying to understand a phenomenon? • Does the speaker focus on building some kind of position that is making his/her position acceptable, logical, or reasonable? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TF #9 focuses on the equilibrium an intellectual system maintains over historical time •  TF #28 focuses on the integration of multiple perspectives, not on single frames of reference

Table 4.3 (continued)

206 4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

• Is the speaker aware of a multiplicity of contexts that define an event, situation, phenomenon, or personal achievement? •  Is the speaker aware of different lines of interpretation for one and the same phenomenon? • Is the speaker aware that an observation or piece of data can have different causes or lead to more than a single conclusion? •  Is the speaker aware of different sides of a debate? • Is the speaker outlining a number of relevant contexts for an issue without detailing their relationship or transformation? • Does the speaker emphasize the need to ponder or analyze something in terms of more than a single perspective to do justice to it? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TF #25 evaluates different systems either within the same context or across different contexts • TF #28 alternatively outlines different perspectives to be considered when defining complex and shifting realities, or it criticizes single perspectives as formalistic abstractions that do not capture the fullness of such realities

(continued)

Relationship •  Dialectical image: common ground (totality) • Figure: what is “not there” other than as held within a totality of (possibly oppositional) links and connections • Ground: unified by the category of totality, thus of holistic causality •  Relationship to system: living core of any system • Scope: all parts of a whole, however split and split off, center to periphery • Theme: unity in diversity, internal relatedness, illicit separation and fission, (undialectical) fixation on unrelated (isolated) elements and multiples • Dialectics: reciprocal, intrinsic, based on constitutive relationship (logically preceding parts of a whole), based on common ground

14. Multiplicity of contexts (non-transformational)

Thought Forms as Mind Openers 207

15. Limits of separation. Focus • Is the speaker aware that what exists is part of a totality and therefore cannot be separated one from that totality on the existence and value of without loss of accuracy or verity? relationships • Does the speaker emphasize that events, situations, etc. need to be seen as intrinsically related without specifying how exactly they are related? •  Does the speaker imply or explicitly assert that relationships exist where they are typically not noticed or denied? •  Is the speaker asserting that focusing on isolated entities distorts what makes them real? • Does the speaker turn his/her attention to relationships that make him/her aware of limits of separation between entities? •  Does the speaker argue for unity in diversity, aware that unity and diversity require each other? •  Does the speaker point out the hidden referents of a subject matter without which it would not be what it is? • Does the speaker notice or assert the risk of separating ideas, events, and individuals from each other, pointing to the sharing of common ground between them? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TF #16 asserts the value of bringing into relationship •  TF #17 critiques the results of disregarding limits of separation •  TF #18 implies TF #15, focusing on value and judgment systems •  TFs #19–21 provide ways of describing and conceptualizing relationships with precision 16. Value of bringing into •  Does the speaker assert the value (benefit) of bringing what has been (or is typically) kept separate into relationship? relationship •  Does the speaker demonstrate the value of bringing into relationship by giving examples? • Is the speaker demonstrating the existence of common ground between different entities or persons typically thought of as unrelated? • Is the speaker’s thinking imbued with an awareness of relationships, intrinsic or extrinsic? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TF #15 focuses on the risks of neglecting relationships • TF #17 focuses on the risk of reductionism following from isolating what shares common ground (or is in relationship)

Table 4.3 (continued)

208 4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

(continued)

17. Critique of reductionism • Does the speaker criticize the reduction of concreteness that results when entities that share common ground are and de-totalized, thus isolated, treated in isolation? entities separated from their • Does the speaker criticize subjectivism, the view that the individual is an ultimate source of truth or insight, thus shared common ground denying commonality and relationship between subjective evaluations or points of view? •  Does the speaker criticize pluralism, which assumes the existence of aggregates of unrelated, discrete elements? • Does the speaker criticize that “anything goes” on the grounds that what goes in one case is related to what goes in another? •  Does the speaker criticize superficial diversity that only seems to dispel the absence of common ground? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TFs #18–21 provide ways of describing or detailing relationships 18. Relatedness of different •  Does the speaker see commonalities between outwardly different value or judgment systems? value and judgment systems • Does the speaker point out that subjective beliefs cannot be “bottled up” in discrete individuals (as occurs in “each person is entitled to their own viewpoint”)? • Does the speaker see evaluations and opinions in the context of more comprehensive, culturally pervasive “judgment systems” or conventions, pointing out patterns of evaluation or opinion? • Does the speaker value linking isolated opinions and judgments to a broader historical or developmental context to which they implicitly refer? Contrasts with related TFs: TF #20 describes patterns of interaction in relationships, thus patterns of influence, not related systems of valuation

Thought Forms as Mind Openers 209

20. Patterns of interaction in relationships

19. Structural aspects of relationship

Table 4.3 (continued)

•  Does the speaker describe relationships in detail (rather than only drawing attention to them)? •  Does the speaker describe that something goes or can go both ways? •  Does the speaker describe systems by pointing to relationships that either make them possible or hold them in place? •  Does the speaker detail aspects of systems that are grounded in relationships between system components? • Does the speaker point to relationships as exist between figure and ground, fore- and background, and thus tend to be difficult to see? • Does the speaker demonstrate that relationships between entities, persons, and situations determine the essence or identity of what they relate? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TF # 4 describes a pattern of ongoing interaction, not a relationship •  TF #15 signals limits of separation between what is related •  TF #16 asserts the value of relatedness •  TF #17 critiques the absence of relationship •  TF #20 focuses on the interactive aspects of relationships •  TF #21 focuses on the constitutive, not the interactive, aspects of relationship •  Does the speaker describe patterns of how different related parties are acting upon each other? •  Does the speaker describe interactions that could be realized if people shared similar aspirations? •  Does the speaker describe the reciprocal influence of one thing and another? • Does the speaker detect and describe (shifting) patterns of interaction over time with an emphasis on pattern, not motion? •  Does the speaker stress the relational aspect of interactions? • Does the speaker emphasize that elements that are in relationship with each other interact in ways different from how they function outside of a particular relationship, demonstrating how exactly they interact? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TF #4 describes patterns of interaction with a focus on movement, not relationship •  TF #21 describes constitutive relationships

210 4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

(continued)

21. Constitutive, intrinsic •  Does the speaker see two entities or individuals as determined by the relationship they are in? relationships (logically prior to •  Does the speaker point out that a relationship is internal and intrinsic and thus has defining quality? what they relate) • Does the speaker point to a relationship that is logically prior to the elements it (intrinsically) relates making them what they are? • Does the speaker demonstrate that two or more things could not be defined or else would become untrue to their nature if the relationship that determines them is left out of account? • Does the speaker describe how an element has two facets, being something else taken by itself compared to being seen as an element of a relationship? • Does the speaker point out that a system is held in place by constitutive relationships that are hidden or not in evidence? • Does the speaker assert that, given the common ground shared by two or more things, they are held together by a constitutive relationship? Contrasts with related TFs: • TF #2 points to the inclusion of an antithesis or “other” as constitutive of a higher-level synthesis, either of a thought process or entity •  TF #3 describes composition by interpenetrating opposites that cannot be explained by a linear causality model •  TFs #15–18 turn the speaker’s attention to relationships but do not point out their constitutive aspects •  TFs #19–20 focus on the interactive, not the constitutive, aspect of relationship Transformational System •  Dialectical image: organism and/or beehive • Figure: what is in constant transformation seeking equilibrium, through mental growth, shift, sudden reversal, virtualization, collapse, breakdown, or pain • Ground: unified by the social category of transformative praxis or agency •  Relationship to system: itself under constant transformation • Scope: all of reality with a focus on human practice • Theme: stability through developmental movement, attention to problems of coordination and change in a developmental direction, multiplicity of perspective, acknowledgment of human agency as intentional causality in the cosmos • Dialectics: special affinity with process as social change

Thought Forms as Mind Openers 211

23. Value of conflict leading in a developmental direction

22. Limits of stability, harmony, and durability (including quantitative into qualitative change)

Table 4.3 (continued)

•  Does the speaker assume specific limits to the durability of systems, agreements, constellations, etc.? •  Does the speaker see the harmony and equilibrium of systems at peril as they undergo change? •  Does the speaker point to the genesis of a structure or form out of chaos? •  Does the speaker think in terms of systems as living forms that are constantly changing? •  Does the speaker point to limits of the stability of forms and structures? •  Does the speaker point to a movement from one state or form to another (transformation)? •  Does the speaker assert that development occurs in steps, and that every step along the way is unstable? • Does the speaker welcome the developmental stratification of the social world since it makes it possible for underdeveloped functions, capabilities, etc., to collapse of their own accord? • Does the speaker point to the accumulation of quantitative changes that have resulted in, or are likely to result in, sudden qualitative changes? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TF #3 focuses on reality as defined by opposing forces without regard to resulting instability •  TF #12 describes structures and functions accounting for system stability •  TF #23 emphasizes the value of conflict for further development, not the power of conflict to create instability •  Does the speaker see the relationship of thesis to antithesis in systemic terms, in the form of conflict? •  Does the speaker point out that the term development implies conflict as a natural occurrence? •  Does the speaker welcome the emergence of conflict and imbalance as a source of development? •  Does the speaker assert the value of conflict as a motor of development in individuals or social life? • Does the speaker see value in forcing a conflict as a way of propelling an individual or social group to a higher level of functioning? •  Does the speaker focus on the resolution of contradictions that force development? • Does the speaker deal with specific conflicts or contradictions as sources of disequilibrium that may propel a system into a new, transformative direction? • Does the speaker focus on movement toward forms and systems that are more inclusive, differentiated, and integrated? Contrasts with related TFs: • TF #2 focuses on the movement introduced by an antithesis but does not envision systemic conflict; rather, it aims for synthesis •  TF #22 focuses on the power of antithesis in introducing instability or breaking up forms and structures • TF #24 associates value with developmental potential that underlies, or gives rise to, conflict resolution, stepping from an antithesis to a synthesis (thus coordinating TF #1 with TF #23)

212 4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

25. Evaluative comparison of systems in transformation

24. Value of developmental potential leading to higher levels of individual and social functioning

(continued)

•  Is the speaker aware of the developmental potential of both people and situations? • Does the speaker value movement in a developmental direction? Does the speaker see and value development as implying a higher degree of integration and inclusiveness? •  Does the speaker value the stability brought about by developmental movement? •  Does the speaker value the resolution of conflict as leading to a more equilibrated situation? • Does the speaker value the preservation and re-organization of previous forms and structures in the context of a new form or structure? • Does the speaker value all structures as well as their conflicts as moments within the overall developmental movement they partake in? •  Does the speaker value functionality that is kept intact across developmental movement? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TF #1 focuses on unceasing change without seeing it as a systemic force •  TF #23 focuses on the value of conflict, not of potential and its realization through developmental movement •  Does the speaker put two systems side by side in order to make an evaluative comparison? •  Does the speaker make comparisons across different systemic contexts? • Does the speaker compare or evaluate two ideologies or traditions in terms of their difference or commonality or both? • Does the speaker evaluate systems in terms of their inclusiveness, differentiation, and degree of integration or equilibrium? • Does the speaker evaluate systems in terms of their potential to contribute to developmental transformation in another system? •  Does the speaker evaluate systems in terms of their being susceptible of coordination with another system? •  Does the speaker evaluate systems or configurations in terms of their conformity with a master form or ideal type? •  Does the speaker evaluate systems or frameworks in terms of their relative practical or heuristic value? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TF #10 defines systems but does not compare them •  TF #14 assumes that forms and structures are context-dependent without evaluating them •  TF #26 attends to the process of coordinating forms and structures but does not evaluate them • TF #28 focuses on the value of integrating diverse perspectives without comparing them with each other; rather, it critiques single perspectives as nonsystemic for the sake of realistic thinking

Thought Forms as Mind Openers 213

27. Open, self-transforming systems

26. Process of coordinating systems

Table 4.3 (continued)

•  Does the speaker view the coordination of systems as a natural outflow of their interdependence as organized wholes? •  Does the speaker recognize that two or more systems or frameworks could be (should be) coordinated? •  Does the speaker recognize that the interaction of two or more systems or frameworks can be mutually sustaining? •  Does the speaker attend to problems occurring in the process of coordinating systems? • Does the speaker show a concern for how the coordination of systems, theories, or strategies is to be accomplished, and what its results may be? • Does the speaker convey an understanding of the interdependence of systems, in the sense that two coordinated systems compose a larger system with each of the coordinated systems as elements? • Does the speaker see the coordination of systems as a way for these systems to become more inclusive, differentiated, and integrated? Contrasts with related TFs: • TF #15 focuses on the limits of separation between two systems but does not deal with the possibility of their coordination • TF #16 focuses on the value of bringing two systems into relationship but does not detail the process of their coordination •  TF #25 evaluates two systems in terms of their potential for coordination, not the implementation of coordination •  Does the speaker describe an intellectual, social, or physical system as open or self-transforming? •  Does the speaker emphasize that a system remains identical with itself across its transformations? •  Does the speaker link a form to a process that defines, or results in, its transformation? •  Does the speaker view transformations as grounded in the synthesis of different, even contradictory, forms or forces? • Does the speaker convey the understanding that a living or transformational system assimilates external elements, accommodates to them, and thereby (re)generates its structural identity? • Does the speaker convey that there is no other identity-preserving process than unceasing change that regenerates a system’s identity? •  Does the speaker have a notion of the emergence of systems through the transformation of related systems? •  Does the speaker see the identity of systems as a matter of unceasing regeneration of self-similarity? • Does the speaker see the living quality of a system in its ability to accommodate to what is external to it (nonidentical with it) and to use externals to transform its internal structure? •  Does the speaker see the future as a systemic transformation of the present and recent past? Contrasts with related TFs: •  TF #2 describes movement toward synthesis on account of an antithesis without applying it to systems •  TF #22 locates a source of disequilibrium necessary for transformation to occur, or instrumental in bringing it about •  TF #23 focuses on the value of conflict as a motor of transformation •  TF #24 focuses on developmental potential as a requirement for transformation

214 4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

28. Integration of multiple perspectives in order to define complex realities; critique of formalistic thinking

(continued)

• Does the speaker point out that any single perspective is necessarily limited, unable to capture the richness of a form, process, or relationship? • Does the speaker welcome the multiplication of perspectives on a particular subject matter to escape the risk of falling upon abstractions? •  Is the speaker concerned with inclusiveness and integration of diversity? •  Does a speaker realize that understanding complexity is a matter of juxtaposing a series of alternative vantage points? • Does the speaker express the view that a perspective is based on data, and cannot be more inclusive than the data permits? • Does the speaker look at a system from multiple points of view, distinguishing different aspects not visible from a single perspective? •  Does the speaker come up with alternative viewpoints as an antidote to the limitedness of a single viewpoint? • Does the speaker critique formalistic thinking in which a structure is treated in isolation from its implementation or realization? • Does the speaker use abstractions with an acknowledgment of their one-sidedness, by juxtaposing alternative perspectives? •  Does the speaker reject abstraction as simplification of a complex subject matter? • Does the speaker realize that the world of empirical “laws” is a closed-system abstraction from a far more complex actual and real world investigated by human science? • Is the speaker aware that the world of scientific objects is a closed-system abstraction from complex generative processes and relationships that undergird physical and social reality? • Does the speaker criticize the view that the real world can be understood as a set of objects having attributes, thereby reducing it to the identity of a subjective mind? • Does the speaker critique the use of concepts or conceptual models that pretend to reveal “the whole truth” of a subject matter? • Does the speaker critique the attempt to separate content from structure rather than acknowledging that the structure (form) is constitutive of the content and determines its validity and/or nature? Contrasts with related TFs: • TF #2 focuses on relating a thesis to its other or antithesis for the sake of enhancing the thesis in the form of a synthesis. It considers the thesis by itself as an abstraction not rich enough to render what it pretends to render •  TF #6 critiques the arresting of motion, not the one-sidedness of abstractions or perspectives •  TF #16 focuses on the value of bringing into relationship, not the integration of different perspectives

Thought Forms as Mind Openers 215

216

4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

Table 4.4  Thought forms as mind openers Corresponding mind openers Process/change Process is that aspect of dialectical or systems thinking that focuses on what is in motion, either in thought itself or in the world thinking is constructing 1. Unceasing motion, negativity (a) What complications might arise from the fact that the situation you describe is in constant flux? (b) What would happen if this situation changed further, as it has changed before? (c) What is gained by assuming that this situation will remain stable? (d) In what way is this situation determined by past events or trends foretelling the future? 2. Preservative negation, inclusion of antithesis (a) Is there something we might be excluding here that would be important to include, so we have a broader picture of how this situation might develop further? (b) What emerges when you take other, similar, situations into account? (c) Can you discern a countertendency to what you have been describing? (d) What might be the way to account for this countertendency for the sake of managing the change that is occurring? 3. Composition by interpenetrating opposites; (a) How can this situation be dealt with correlativity considering the competitive influences in the environment? (b) Which of the aspects of the situation function as figure and which as ground? (c) In what way is what you are describing (A) partly or entirely owed to what is antithetical to it (non-A)? (d) Might these events or findings be in correlation with each other? 4. Patterns of interaction (a) Is there a pattern to the interaction between these two events, situations, persons, ideas? (b) Is there a pattern of influence of one process on the other that you can discern? (c) What shifts in energy (political or other) are involved here? (d) Is there a pattern “for” or “against” the movements in question that you can discern? (continued)

Thought Forms as Mind Openers

217

Table 4.4 (continued) 5. Practical, active character of knowledge

6. Critique of arresting motion (reification)

7. Embedding in process, movement

Context/big picture Context is that aspect of dialectical or systems thinking that focuses on what remains relatively stable throughout change, forming a structure that holds things in motion together, thus providing a big picture 8. Contextualization of part(s) within a whole; emphasis on the part

(a) How could we strengthen our insight into this matter by involving others, a team or community? (b) What other ideas or new data can we bring to bear on this issue? (c) How can we apply this theory in practice? (d) What would a more workable theory have to account for? (a) Might we be simplifying the topic by assuming we are dealing with fixed entities (aspects), rather than something undergoing unceasing change? (b) What emerges if we look at this as a historical process, with us in the middle of it? (c) Are we falling prey to abstractions here that blind us to the process that is going on? (d) How would you trace this result to the process it emerged from? (a) Would it be more enlightening to understand this event (situation) as part of a larger process? (b) What is the historical or political environment this event/situation is embedded in? (c) What have been some of the precursors of this situation or event? (d) What consequences might this event or situation have looked at long term?

(a) How would your view of this situation/ event/person change if you saw it (more objectively) in a broader context? (b) What does this situation, event, person contribute to the larger context of which it is an element? (c) What does this occurrence say about the context in which it appears? (d) In what way does this situation reflect a larger context? (continued)

218

4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

Table 4.4 (continued) 9. Equilibrium of a whole, emphasis on the whole

10 Description of structures, functions, layers, strata of a system

11. Emphasis on the hierarchical nature of layers systems comprise

12. Stability of systems functioning

13. Intellectual systems: frames of reference, traditions, ideologies

(a) Are these facts part of a larger Gestalt that you can discern? (b) Taking a big picture perspective, what do these details (facts) amount to? (c) Have we viewed this event/situation sufficiently holistically? (d) How does this occurrence disturb the equilibrium of the situation as a whole? (a) How would you describe the system as a holon in structural or compositional terms? (b) Is there a discernable mechanism behind this jumble of events that would model what is going on? (c) How do the elements/functions/strata you describe make up a whole? (d) What makes the layers/functions/ elements you describe function as an integrated structure? (a) How are these strata or functions integrated with each other? (b) What is required to move from one stratum to another? (c) What could happen if one jumped over one of the functions or layers? (d) Can one judge each of these strata by themselves or only in combination with others from a higher level? (a) What accounts for the seeming stability of this situation? (b) What makes these elements function together so harmoniously? (c) Is the harmony of the situation pre-ordained? If not, what upholds it? (d) Is this situation typical for the system when it is stable? (a) What exploratory intellectual framework is appropriate for understanding this situation or event? (b) How does this assumption derive from the conceptual framework you have referred to? (c) What ideological framework does this thesis reflect and reinforce? (d) Would the larger conceptual framework you mention guarantee the validity of taking this step? (continued)

Thought Forms as Mind Openers

219

Table 4.4 (continued) 14. Multiplicity of Contexts (non-transformational)

(a) Is the context we are considering here perhaps too narrow to render a good explanation of what is going on? (b) What are the different contexts that play a role in this event or situation? (c) Can you describe what this action step would look like in another (cultural) context? d. What do these different contexts have in common?

Relationship Relationship is that element of dialectical or systems thinking that holds elements together, either extrinsically (from the outside) or intrinsically (by logically preceding them or being intrinsic to the parts of the system) 15. Limits of separation; focus on existence and (a) Do we separate this fact, event, or value of relationship situation from others at our peril? (b) What new insights do we gain when we begin to link these seemingly separate situations, events, or theories? (c) Is there a different side to this thought or situation that we have been failing to see? (d) Are these events in fact as unrelated as they seem to be? 16. Value of bringing into relationship (a) How is what you are trying to do in these circumstances related to similar efforts in your environment? (b) Would it be helpful to think about how this relates to X? (c) What is the common ground between X and Y? (d) Would this decision have an ever-­ greater impact if you were to relate it to decisions made in other parts of the organization? 17. Critique of reductionism and “de-totalized,” (a) Is X as much of an isolated entity as you are describing it? thus isolated, entities separated from their (b) Does not the multiplicity of different shared common ground views point to a hidden commonality? (c) Are we not here reducing the complexity of the situation too much, by isolating what is defined by relationship? (d) What is the common denominator of all these seemingly different opinions (theories)? (continued)

220

4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

Table 4.4 (continued) 18. Relatedness of different value and judgment (a) Are these value systems which seem systems different at first sight in fact as different as they seem, given that they are part of the same social or physical context? (b) Are the assumptions made in what you consider a judgment standing in opposition to yours truly as different as they appear? (c) While these parties (points of view) seem different, even opposing, in the present historical context, is it not true that they were closely related in the past? (d) What might be the common cultural denominator of these opinions or principles? 19. Structural aspects of relationship (a) How might one describe the elements comprised by this relationship in structural terms (as components of a system)? (b) What makes for the balance of the elements of this relationship? (c) Does the fact that these elements are in opposition to each other enhance the persuasiveness of their relationship? (d) Is this relationship one of figure and ground, and thus difficult to perceive? 20. Patterns of interaction in relationships (a) Is the pattern of influence we see here of a reciprocal nature (each side indirectly supporting the other), or is it rather more oppositional? (b) How could you influence the other party to be more in line with your goals without exerting direct control? (c) How might your goals be influenced by others without a clear realization of this relationship on your part? (d) What is the underlying interaction that occurs in the relationship between the components we are seeing? (continued)

Thought Forms as Mind Openers

221

Table 4.4 (continued) 21. Constitutive, intrinsic relationships (logically prior to what they relate)

Transformational systems Transformation is that aspect of dialectical or systems thinking that occurs when opposites (A and non-A), since related, are included in a larger context or system (A’). The system then acts in an organic way, by assimilating its “other” and transforming itself in the process of adaptation to the “other” 22. Limits of stability, harmony, and durability (including quantitative into qualitative change)

23. Value of conflict leading in a developmental direction

(a) What would you say is the overriding relationship that makes these elements what they are? (b) Would these elements be what they are if their essence were not defined by their intrinsic relationship? (c) Do these parties to this relationship have aspects that fall outside of the relationship they are in? (d) Are we not mistaking the role these people play in the relationship as something intrinsic to them rather than seeing them as deriving from the nature of the relationship they are in?

(a) What makes this system easily perturbed? (b) What are the limits of stability of the system we are considering? (c) What would be the best way to test the limits of this system? (d) Being aware of the limits of stability of systems, what assumptions that we are making are highly risky? (a) Before we get lost in the negative implications of the conflict we are facing, what are the positive aspects this conflict could be resolved toward? (b) Might this conflict be an indication that there is a potential for development here? (c) Is this a minor disturbance, or would we do better to see this event as a conflict or as in opposition to our intentions, and to work on resolving it? (d) Shouldn’t we focus on moving toward a more inclusive solution? (continued)

222

4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

Table 4.4 (continued) 24. Value of developmental potential leading to higher levels of individual and social functioning

25. Evaluative comparison of systems in transformation

26. Process of coordinating systems

(a) How can we gauge the potential indicated here? (b) Given the potential before us, how could we determine its parameters and manage its unfolding? (c) Does this situation have the potential for working out a higher level of integration of functions that are presently separate? (d) How can we keep the functionality of our operating process intact while considering how to better embed it in the rapidly evolving market? (a) Which of the two systems (parties, situations) has the greater potential to contribute to a transformation of the situation we are presently in? (b) How do the two organizations about to merge going to enhance or weaken each other? (c) In terms of susceptibility to coordination, what major institutions do we need to regulate to solve this global problem? (d) Is there a master form (ideal type) we can consult to concretize our ideas of what this new system should look like? (a) What precisely does it mean to “coordinate” the two systems we are speaking about (what aspects of these systems lend themselves to coordination)? (b) Are the criteria of coordination we are considering optimal in this attempt to create a “bigger and better” system? (c) Given the different contexts in which these two systems exist, what functionality should be centrally safeguarded in merging these systems? (d) Of the two systems to be coordinated, which one better guarantees the immediate practicality we require? (continued)

Thought Form Selection Sheet

223

Table 4.4 (continued) 27. Open, self-transforming systems

28. Integration of multiple perspectives to define complex realities; critique of formalistic thinking

(a) What does the identity of the system that we are attempting to preserve consist of? (b) What inputs flow into the system, and how do they show up in the outputs? That is, what transformations are taking place? (c) What strategic and tactical issues arise from the transformations this system seems to be undergoing? (d) What are the risks of keeping the system open to external influences? (a) What is the most inclusive perspective we can take on this situation for the sake of including all stakeholders? (b) What are some alternative viewpoints that better render the complexity of the situation? (c) What research is this dataset based on, and what other data not included in it do we need to consider to understand what is really going on here? (d) What alternative viewpoints exist that play into this topic? (e) Are there more complex models of this phenomenon that better account for its coming into being and its intrinsic relationships with other, seemingly different, phenomena?

Thought Form Selection Sheet Once a cognitive interview has been transcribed, it becomes the task of the assessor (interviewer) to select from the recorded interview those text passages that can be scored in terms of the table of thought forms. This selection presupposes that the assessor be conversant with dialectical thinking and can separate between what is mere content and what is thought form structure, quite comparable to the social-­ emotional interview (where “structure” equates to “stage”). For this task, the preceding table of questions about thought forms can be very helpful. The procedure of selecting and scoring passages from the cognitive interview is quite different from the social-emotional case. While with practice it becomes equally intuitive, it is overall more analytical, as befits cognitive subject matter. Specifically, the assessor must think the passages lifted out of the interview anew, so to speak, by asking him- or herself: • Consciously or unconsciously, which of the four moments is the speaker implying in formulating these sentences?

224

4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

• What is in the foreground of the speaker’s attention: a process, an existing context, a relationship, or a transformational system? • (If two classes of thought forms seem to apply simultaneously) Which class of thought forms is the predominant one? This requires standing back from the selected passage and making an informed judgment, by playing devil’s advocate. • (Once the class has been decided upon) Among the thought forms in the class chosen, which one optimally fits the expressed thought? • (Once the individual thought form has been decided upon) With what degree of clarity is this thought form expressed: weakly (weight 1), with moderate clarity (weight 2), or clearly and emphatically (weight 3)? According to the decision made, the assessor first numbers the selected passage (bit) and secondly writes the thought form into column two (see below). S(he) also excerpts the passage, in part or full, and underneath the text in column 3, and writes a terse justification for having chosen the selected TF underneath (or in an additional column). The justification should be detached from the content quoted. See the table of questions about thought forms (4.3) from which such justifications may be taken. People choose their words based on the thought forms that structure their internal conversations. They therefore use thought forms at different levels of clarity and complexity which convey different understandings of the thought form they use. In evaluating cognitive interviews, we score the least elaborate use (lowest weight) as 0.25 and the most elaborate use (highest weight) as 3.0. However, in scoring, we need to keep in mind that we need to score “globally,” in the sense that the highest weight a thought form can attain across an entire interview is 3, thus 7x3=21 per class of thought forms. This kind of scoring entails that to avoid “overscoring” a thought form one needs to consider that the same thought form could reoccur in other places of the interview, to the effect that the total weight given to a thought form (at the end of the interview, when computing the fluidity index) could be larger than 3. As a consequence, we need to score “conservatively,” meaning so as to keep the entire interview in mind. As shown in column 2, the weight of thought form use scored is attached to the thought form integer name. 1

#1, TF no. [weight Quote of interview text [no longer than ½ page, with omissions from 0.25 to 3.0], e.g., of anecdotal parts that have been replaced by “……” See also TF 9 [0.75]. Part 2 Appendix 1, pp 170-187, Justification …

Once all thought forms occurring in the interview have been entered into the thought form selection sheet, the weights associated with their use (over the entire interview) are summed to yield what is called the interview’s “fluidity index.” (This is

Thought Form Coding Sheet

225

Table 4.5  Thought form selection sheet, example Interview ID and page

Bit number, # thought form TF#, and assigned weight

1

1, TF #x [a]

3 3 …

2, TF #y [b] 3, TF #z [c] ….

Questions to ask yourself: 1. What structural evidence leads you to selecting this Thought Form? (See the table of questions about thought forms.) 2. If several thought forms are applicable, explain your choice Note: Thought form weights are summed across the entire interview Text quotation (interview, memorandum, presentation, official document, etc.) Justification (from table of questions about thought forms)

facilitated by designing a cognitive behavior graph, an example of which is found in Section B5.) The total sum is entered into the thought form coding sheet (shown below) as the fluidity index and is further partitioned according to thought form class and expressed in percent for determining the cognitive score. The latter comprises the systems thinking index (STI), which represents the cognitive center of gravity that indicates the extent to which an individual is able to coordinate thought forms of different classes and thus think systemically and dialectically. In IDM case studies, inter-rater reliability in scoring cognitive interviews is enhanced by feedback given to those submitting case studies. Such feedback is in the form of countersuggestions to their original scoring (if needed). The case study author then has a second chance to rethink his or her scoring, and a full consensus is reached in the completion interview before the IDM director of education signs off on the case study. As is to be expected, the scorer of a first cognitive case study is highly insecure as to how to formulate cogent scores. His/her inter-rater reliability is thus low, for which reason the scorer needs to be supervised (and corrected) by an expert. Higher inter-rater reliability is achieved in scoring the second and third case studies, simply on account of accrued experience (Table 4.5).

Thought Form Coding Sheet Interview scoring is one of classes of thought forms, not of individual thought forms used, although the latter are important in giving feedback and designing interventions. The thought form coding sheet serves as a summary sheet into which to enter all findings about thought form uses made by a particular interviewee. Each column

226

4  Interview/Text Scoring Materials

in the table corresponds to one of the four classes of thought forms scored. Each row of the table is subdivided into three columns, one each for each weight. Thought form uses are determined based upon two criteria: frequency of occurrence and emphasis (weight) of use. Scoring accomplishes a trade-off between the two. In most cases, the weight assigned to a thought form use is “1” (weak use), synonymous with frequency of occurrence. Only occasionally does a speaker emphatically elaborate a thought form, in which case weights “2” or “3” are assigned. A scoring of “3” indicates that the thought form in question has been used with recurring frequency across the entire interview or has been exhaustively articulated locally (in a single place). A weighting of “3” thus can be justified by a single emphatic use of the thought form (weight “3”), repeated weak uses of the thought form (weight “1”), or a mix of “1” and “2” weightings of the thought form. In the rare case where the frequency of occurrence of an individual thought form is an “outlier” (exceeding average uses in the four classes), two options exist: • Comparing the weight assigned to each use of the thought form in question, to eliminate weak thought form uses previously “overscored” by assigning to them a weight of “1” • Designing a “scaling procedure” that accommodates “outliers,” such that strong thought form uses can be scored comparably in all four classes In supervised IDM case studies, this is handled separately for each individual case. In the coding sheet example, below, the highest weight assigned to using an individual thought form is 3 (TF #1), and the total of thought form uses in a particular class (e.g., Process) is 9. In the lower part of the table, summary scores for a particular interviewee are entered: 1. F score (fluidity score): the sum of all weights of thought form uses in each of the four classes across the entire interview. This score is never expressed in percent but is a raw integer between [> 0