Comprehending Connectivity between Logic, Emotion, Intuition and Practice

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 4 Nov 2024

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Strategic Implications of the Relationship between Incommensurable Cognitive Modalities

Introduction

4 Nov 2024 – There is no lack of recognition that the condition of society is complex and confusing — even “surreal” (Surreal nature of current global governance as experienced, 2016; Global surreality farming vs planned reality framing? 2018). It is questionable whether strategic initiatives like the UN’s Pact for the Future (2024) — or the pattern of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) — engage with this complexity appropriately and credibly (Thalif Deenm, UN Remains Paralyzed as “Rogue Nations” Violate Charter and Escalate War Crimes, Inter Press Service, 1 November 2024; Alon Ben-Meir, Has the United Nations Outlived its Usefulness? Inter Press Service, 1 November 2024)

There is a case for considering the patterns of cognitive modalities associated with understandings of conditions of change. One approach from a “Western” perspective is that of Christopher Alexander in identifying an array of some 254 elements in a pattern language. Its focus on tangible realities of the environment invites their use as a template to consider intangible realities of the psychosocial environment (5-fold Pattern Language, 1984). Gregory Bateson has famously warned: Break the pattern which connects the items of learning and you necessarily destroy all quality (Mind and Nature: a necessary unity, 1979, pp. 8-11).

The pattern meme continues to evoke commentary (Merlyn Driver, The Pattern that Connects: Gregory Bateson and the Ecology of Mind, Journal of Wild Culture, 27 October 2019; Jeffrey W. Bloom, Patterns That Connect: Rethinking Our Approach to Learning and Thinking, Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 1999; Paul Andersen and David Salomon, The Pattern That Connects, Acadia 2010; Søren Brier, Bateson and Peirce on the Pattern that Connects and the Sacred, Biosemiotics, 2008; Helene Finidori, Patterns that Connect, Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, 1, 2016, 1).

With the strategic emphasis given to the political slogan — It’s the economy stupid (and its adaptations) — does the focus on patterns invite yet another adaptation: It’s the pattern stupid ? Paradoxically any implication of “stupidity”, through failure of pattern recognition, is itself necessarily problematic in a cancel culture.

A contrasting approach from an “Eastern” perspective is the encoding of the conditions of change in the Chinese classic known as the Book of Changes or I Ching — a focus of commentary by psychoanalyst Carl Jung (Jung and I Ching, Carl Jung Resources). The compilation distinguishes 64 conditions variously transforming into one another, and the subject of extensive commentary and interpretation. As previously noted, this articulation is readily deprecated from a Western perspective as being characteristic of outmoded divination. Ironically that critique can be contrasted with Western preferences for “modelling”, readily seen as a contemporary mode of “divination” in its own right. Hence the merit of an approach encompassing contrasting frameworks, as argued by Susantha Goonatilake ( Toward a Global Science: Mining Civilizational Knowledge, 1999). This has particular implications for “logic” (Coherent Reconciliation of Eastern and Western Patterns of Logic, 2023).

The merit of the 64-fold articulation is the detail it offers in contrast with “global models” such as World3 on which The Limits to Growth (1972) and similar initiatives have been based. Beyond the detail is the insight associated with the manner in which that detail is rendered comprehensible through metaphor — a concern which has been completely absent from the strategic presentation of global models. Arguably this could be recognized as a reason for the lack of uptake of the conclusions of such modelling in practice — as reflected in the currently documented failure of the SDGs, and the concerns of the UN in that regard (2024 SDG Report: Global Progress Alarmingly Insufficient, United Nations Sustainable Development Group, 28 June 2024)

The quest for explanatory patterns is bedevilled by premature closure on simplistic patterns of reality, resulting in the production of too many models that are often wrong and rarely useful, as argued by Brian Klaas (The Forces of Chance, Aeon, 29 October 2024). With regard to any comparison of “divination” with “modelling”, Klaas notes the conclusion of the study by Mark Verhagen of the avoidance of predictions by the social sciences. Over a decade, only 12 articles out of 2,414 tried to make predictions in the American Economic Review. For the top political science journal, American Political Science Review, the figure was 4 out of 743. And in the American Journal of Sociology, not a single article made a concrete prediction (A Pragmatist’s Guide to Using Prediction in the Social Sciences, Socius: sociological research for a dynamic world, 8, 2022).

In this context it is striking to note the extent to which the widespread emergence of “fascism” is readily cited as a matter of major concern. The current election of the acclaimed leader of the free world features one candidate characterizing the other as “fascist” (Is Kamala Harris right to call Donald Trump a fascist?, The Economist, 24 October 2024). The term has been applied more generally by Naomi Wolf (We’ve reached ‘step ten’ of the 10 steps to fascism, The End of America, 2008). The framing is characteristic of ongoing conflicts (Odette Yousef, The Russian-Ukraine conflict could strengthen neo-fascist groups in both countries, NPR, 5 March 2022; Jonathan Cook, How the war on Gaza exposed Israeli and western fascism, Middle East Eye, 13 September 2024). Legislative measures are now widely made to prohibit the display of the Swastika, despite limited ability to recognize its variants or the traditional symbolic significance of the pattern.

The concern here is with the curious collective inability to interrelate disparate cognitive modalities, notably those associated with logic and emotion — rendered even more problematic by the role of spiritual or intuitive dimensions, and the resource to concrete action by contrast. This “disconnect” is only too evident in political discourse evoking emotion, the strategic options it frames, and the values righteously cited in justification for any action. All such modalities are only too evidently at play in the current campaigns for the election of the leader of the free world — with little ability to disentangle them or recognize conditions in which they are appropriate.

Beyond the more comprehensible disconnect between logic and emotion, the current election campaign features a “spiritual” dimension, as highlighted from a Christian perspective (Pope urges Catholics to pick ‘lesser evil’ between Trump and Harris, BBC, 14 September 2024). Indeed, beyond logic or emotion, each of the potential leaders has framed the other as inherently “evil” (Trump calls Harris ‘evil’ at rally as Republicans struggle to coalesce on attacks, USA Today, 29 July 2024; Kamala Harris facing backlash after comparing Trump to ‘evil mass murderers’, Sky News, 30 October 2024). Both may be so framed (Roger Waters claims Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are “evil beyond all imagination”, Far Out Magazine, 29 October 2024). Such recognition may even extend to their supporters (Trump to his supporters: Harris sees you as ‘subhuman’ and ‘evil’ (Just News, 31 October 2024). This is consistent with a more general pattern (Existence of evil as authoritatively claimed to be an overriding strategic concern, 2016; Framing by others of claimants of evil as evil, 2016).

Seemingly disconnected to an incomprehensible degree from logic, emotion and any spiritual dimension is the modality framed by conflict and its escalation — with the current anticipation of nuclear warfare (Nuclear Warfare Risk at Highest Point in Decades, Secretary-General Warns Security Council, United Nations, 18 March 2024; Nobel Peace Prize winners warn of rising risk of nuclear war, Reuters, 13 October 2024).

The responses to the earlier exchange included the implication that AI might well be able to offer significant insights into the transitions between logic, emotion, spirituality, and action — to the seemingly subconscious pathways between them — and the manner in which each was potentially able to “trump” the other. The following exercise interrelates considerations with regard to logical connectives and their analogous emotional connectives — as evoked in earlier efforts with the aid of AI (Pathways in Governance between Logic, Emotion, Spirituality and Action, 2024). It is potentially appropriate to make use of AI to this end, given increasing strategic dependence upon its logical operations, but also in the light of concerns at the possibility of its role with respect to emotion (Artificial Emotional Intelligence and its Human Implications, 2023) and, more controversially, “artificial spiritual intelligence“.

The following is a further exploration of that possibility, despite the variety of fearful reactions to the potential of AI, notably on the part of the UN (Global Digital Compact, 2024). A particular interest of such exercises is the question of what can be gleaned from AI “re-search” of its unprecedented access to vast data resources in response to evocative questions. Also of interest is the manifest engagement of AI with such challenging questions — if only from a speculative perspective, calling for repeated iteration by which insights of practical value could potentially be derived.

As in the previous experiments, the responses of ChatGPT 4o are distinctively presented below in grayed areas in parallel with those of Claude 3.5. Given the length of the document to which the exchange gives rise, the form of presentation has itself been treated as an experiment — in anticipation of the future implication of AI into research documents. Reservations and commentary on the process of interaction with AI to that end have been discussed separately (Methodological comment on experimental use of AI, 2024). Web technology now enables the whole document to be held as a single “page” with only the “questions” to AI rendered immediately visible — a facility not operational in PDF variants of the page (in contrast with the original).

The juxtaposition of the responses of ChatGPT and Claude not only offers complementary perspectives on the themes evoked, but also indicates conditions under which one or other may be preferred. A particular constraint of Claude is the restriction of its memory to the content in a current session (irrespective of limits on its length or composition) in contrast to ChatGPT. By contrast the latter may well feed into responses potential references from a previous exchange — thereby anticipating questions later evoked in the current exchange.

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.