Starting theses:
Extended Commentary
An extremely simple dialectical framework offers a path to reducing violence and conflicts while increasing coherence and constructive synthesis. It does this by helping people naturally recognize and appreciate their direct duties and responsibilities within any situation.
The foundation of this framework addresses a fundamental human challenge: how to distinguish between “good” and “bad” choices in an increasingly complex world. While many rely on centralized guidelines to make these distinctions, history shows that individual discernment – the ability to make wise judgments independently – is essential for human liberty and genuine democracy. Yet there’s a paradox: people often gravitate toward uniformity rather than embracing complementary differences, which makes productive collaboration difficult. This explains why utilitarian approaches often default to imposing standardized guidelines that suppress individual uniqueness. While centralized guidelines have their place, they shouldn’t force uniform thinking and behavior. The key is understanding the crucial difference between complementarity and mere uniformity – these represent fundamentally different paths for society. Ultimately, both individual judgment and shared guidelines must work together, with individual discernment taking precedence since society exists to serve individuals, not the other way around.
Two Types of Synthesis
Humans tend to choose negative synthesis over positive because it operates within familiar dimensions. While both types require similar energy, positive synthesis creates new dimensions that reduce pressure in existing ones, yielding space for evolutionary growth (see references below).
Negative Synthesis (S-):
- Fights over existing dimensions
- Expands quantity without improving quality
- Leads to conflict and uniformity
- Like pushing harder on a “pull” door – more force, wrong direction
Positive Synthesis (S+):
- Creates new dimensions of existence
- Reduces pressure in old dimensions while adding new ones
- Fosters unique qualities of both parties
- Like two eyes creating depth perception – new dimension emerges
- Fosters gentleness due to increased dimensionality
Manifestations:
- Fighting feels more natural than understanding – it uses familiar patterns
- Standardization appears safer than individual growth – it preserves known metrics
- Quantitative measures prevail over qualitative wisdom – they stick to existing dimensions
- Centralized control dominates over distributed autonomy – it maintains established hierarchies
The solution lies not in finding an easier path, but in recognizing when we’re expanding in the wrong direction.
References favoring individual discernment over centralized:
Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press. — Kant argues for the importance of individual moral reasoning and autonomy, emphasizing that moral actions should be guided by rationality rather than external rules. His categorical imperative encourages individuals to act according to principles that could be universally applied, promoting ethical discernment
Friedman, M. (1970). “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.” The New York Times Magazine. — This article discusses how businesses should focus on their own ethical standards rather than conforming to societal expectations, suggesting that individual discernment can lead to better business practices and outcomes.
Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. HarperCollins. — Schwartz discusses how individuals often make better decisions when they rely on their own values and judgments rather than conforming to external pressures or standardized guidelines.
Sandel, M.J. (2013). What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. — Sandel critiques the reliance on market-driven ethics and argues for the importance of individual moral reasoning in making decisions that lead to better societal outcomes.
Nussbaum, M.C. (1990). Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. Oxford University Press. — Nussbaum emphasizes the importance of individual judgment and emotional engagement in ethical decision-making, arguing that personal insights often lead to more humane outcomes than rigid adherence to rules.
References on Dimensional Evolution and Synthesis
Kelso & Engstrom (2008) “The Complementary Nature” — Discusses how complementary pairs create new dimensions of understanding, shows how opposing forces can create higher-order patterns rather than cancel each other
Kauffman, S. (1993) “The Origins of Order” — Explains how new dimensions of functionality emerge in complex systems, demonstrates that evolution isn’t just about competition but about creating new spaces of possibility
Margulis, L. (1998) “Symbiotic Planet” — Shows how cooperation and complementarity, rather than just competition, drive evolution, demonstrates how new capabilities emerge through synthesis of different systems
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) “Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience” — Describes how growth occurs through finding new dimensions of challenge rather than just competing in existing ones, explains why quantity-based competition often leads to anxiety rather than development
Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. (1984) “Order Out of Chaos” — Demonstrates how systems evolve by creating new organizational dimensions, shows how evolution isn’t just about optimization but about transformation
England, J.L. (2020) “Every Life Is on Fire: How Thermodynamics Explains the Origins of Living Things” — Explains how systems can increase their complexity and dimensionality through dissipative adaptation, shows how new forms of organization emerge not through simple competition but through novel ways of channeling energy
References on Cognitive Conservation
Kahneman, D. (2011) “Thinking, Fast and Slow” — Documents how brain conserves energy by defaulting to familiar patterns through System 1 thinking, explaining our resistance to cognitive restructuring and new ways of thinking.
Festinger, L. (1957) “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance” — Foundational work demonstrating psychological mechanisms for maintaining existing mental models and resistance to changing established beliefs.
Taversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974) “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” — Shows how people systematically use mental shortcuts to conserve cognitive resources, documenting our inherent bias toward familiar patterns of thinking.
James, W. (1890) “The Principles of Psychology” — Early, foundational discussion of mental habits and resistance to change, describing cognitive conservation as a fundamental aspect of human psychology.
Norman, D. A. (2013) “The Design of Everyday Things” — Discusses how mental models persist even when dysfunctional, demonstrating practical implications of cognitive conservation in everyday decision-making and behavior.
References showing limitations of scientific method and the need for external perspective:
Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. — scientific paradigms can create blind spots that prevent scientists from recognizing alternative perspectives and solutions. He suggests that significant shifts in understanding often require a departure from established scientific norms, indicating that the scientific method alone cannot identify its own limitations.
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge. — critiques the reliance on verification within the scientific method and emphasizes falsifiability as a criterion for scientific theories. He acknowledges that scientists may not recognize the limitations of their methods without critical scrutiny from philosophical perspectives, highlighting the need for external critique.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Verso. — argues against the notion that a single scientific method can adequately capture all knowledge. He posits that different approaches can provide valuable insights that traditional science may overlook, suggesting that critiques of scientific methods often come from outside the scientific framework.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.” In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). Sage Publications. — discusses how different research paradigms can reveal the shortcomings of traditional scientific approaches. It emphasizes that alternative perspectives are essential for uncovering limitations in established methods.
Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. Harper & Row. — explores the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics and how scientific frameworks can lead to misunderstandings about reality without considering broader philosophical perspectives, suggesting that critiques often arise from non-scientific viewpoints.
McGilchrist, I. (2012). The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. Yale University Press. — examines how different modes of thinking influence our understanding and interpretation of knowledge. He argues that reliance on one perspective can obscure important truths, indicating a need for broader viewpoints to critique established methods.
See also: