INTEGRATION OF UNDERSTANDING
A PROGRAM
FOR
THE INTEGRATION OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING AND ACTION
HORIZONS ENTERPRISES™
AN EXPERIMENT IN INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
ANIL MITRA PHD, COPYRIGHT © 1989, REFORMATTED May 2003
HOME | SITE-MAP | CONTACT THE AUTHOR
Document status: May 25, 2003
Outdated: maintained out of interest
The idea of this document was a conceptual foundation for Horizons Enterprises™. However the conceptual approach is now outmoded by developments in Journey in Being™
No further action for Journey in Being™
CONTENTS
A Dual Problem; Understanding and Action
Horizons Enterprises and Research Institute: the Concept
Completeness and Adequacy of the Program
The idea of Horizon Research Institute for understanding and action is part of a movement which is committed to resolution of the problems of humanity, and to the creation and realization of human and social potentials
Often, the problems seem overwhelming. In the modern world: hunger, injustice, nuclear threat, resource and environment depletion, population growth, are deep marks against the quality of life – threaten survival. These are significant human problems requiring address. The present movement and program undertakes this address
But, the immediate address of these problems is not sufficient. The means to resolve the problems include a basic knowledge developed over long periods of time – there is continuing need to develop basic knowledge as creation o and investment in the future. And, without the whole picture provided by basic understanding, many solutions to problems are short term or incomplete
Therefore, the movement is also committed to the development of knowledge and understanding at various levels of connection with well-defined applications and problems – and to understanding/developing relations among the levels. The levels of connection include the immediate or “applied” connection and the remote and diffuse – represented by “pure” knowledge. Of course, this pure knowledge is not disconnected from the world – from existence; it is motivated by an intense, even passionate, interest in the world [rather than interest in specific problems]
In the long term “pure” knowledge is practical. The future is unpredictable. Pure knowledge, since it is more general, is better preparation for unforeseen problems than is applied knowledge. There are “risks” connected with free development of knowledge. But, I believe: if we avoid understanding: problems will accumulate until survival is threatened
A related issue: is the passion or capability for understanding an evolutionary mistake? I believe not. They connect us vitally to the world and to the universe in which we live
What if all material problems were resolved? This question provides another approach to understanding a need for levels of knowledge other than the immediate. The experience of affluent nations shows that the resolution of material problems is not sufficient for well being. There is a need to continue to further understanding of human nature. What is real well being, and what are the ways of attaining it? Well being does not seem to be an elimination of all difficulty, or a life of ease: perhaps it is the full engagement of human nature in the processes [and problems] of life. If so, what is this ‘human nature and what are the processes of existence?
The pursuit of knowledge and understanding cannot be dropped while applied knowledge and problem solution is furthered. Both must continue together. In the long term there are no guarantees, but I believe: the development of understanding of the human self, action, and the nature and extent of existence will be essential, true adventure
This understanding of all levels of existence [and by all modes of understanding and action [includes exploration]], including human nature, is an essential human endeavor. Pure knowledge is the universal perspective. Parallel to this adventure, over periods of time, and in the development of human attitudes, there form links to the applied knowledge of more immediate concerns. The universal perspective provides structure and direction to the immediate, while the immediate perspective is the context – provides meaning – for the universal
These considerations will now be formalized
Without understanding and choice based in understanding, there is/can be no action: human action is, in its essence, “action” or movement that has been chosen from [perceived] alternatives on the basis of understanding. Action is the activity associated with, or resulting from a decision to effect change. [Value is associated with decision and choice, and is part of understanding.]
The intended change could be in “internal” [psychological] realms and/or in “external” [natural, social…] realms
There could be close connection between intended change, actual [perceived] outcome or change, and revaluation and modification of intent; or the connection could be less close or frequent. A number of “small actions may constitute a larger action which may, for the actor/perceiver, be in a different category than the small actions
Through comparison of actual and intended effect there is modification of intent. Through repetition, intent is more closely connected with outcome: there is learning. So, there is a connection between acting, learning and understanding. [Intent itself may be learned as the developing human makes connections between “spontaneous actions” with psychological/motor outcomes.]
The dual problem of action and understanding is that there are degrees of immediacy to the connection between action and understanding – and this includes all of human knowledge and all of human action. Action and understanding are always interconnected; but thee is a sphere of knowledge and creativity which is not connected to any definite problem – rather, this sphere is one of developing relations with all of existence through “pure” understanding; and there is a sphere of applied knowledge which is connected to, or interactive with definite problems or problem contexts
More precisely, there is a continuum or hierarchy of degrees of immediacy to the connection between understanding [and its included disciplines] and action
Also, as noted in the introduction, there are interactions among the elements of the pure-applied continuum. These interactions include: [1] Interactions due to the relations between problems and between problems and problem contexts [the understanding associated with the most general of problem contexts may be regarded to be pure understanding]; [2] Relations between spheres or disciplines of knowledge/understanding which develop when knowledge itself is regarded as the object; or the problem or problem context. [This discussion indicates the blurring of boundaries between problems; and between problems and problem contexts – that is, between problems and existence]
The concept of and need for a research/action group has developed over a number of years. An outline of the concept and need follows
The basic ideas are that:
[1] Understanding has a number of levels of connection to well-defined problems: there is an applied movement in which development of knowledge is connected to short-term, well-defined problems. In the long term, because of unpredictability [including the unpredictability of understanding itself], there are problems and problem contexts which cannot be well defined - they evolve, and they merge with existence – and there is a need and an occasion which are not motivated by interest in any definite problem, but by an intense, passionate interest [motivated by curiosity, beauty…] in existence itself [external – the world, and internal – psychological]. Of course, not all “pure” knowledge is motivated by an undifferentiated interest in existence; but there are spheres of coherent behavior/problem contexts of varying human significance, levels of generality, and spheres of coherence which define modes, divisions and disciplines of knowledge. [It is not argued here that the modal/divisional/disciplinary structure is unique; further, it can be argued, from the inactivity of problem contexts and of the human modes of knowing, that the divisional/disciplinary structure is an interconnected one.]
[2] The development of knowledge and understanding is not a mere passive response to problems and given potentials, but creates potentials and problems [in both the constructive and the negative senses] just as much – conceptually –as it responds to them
[3] There are appropriate levels of balance and communication among the pure-applied hierarchy; this includes the cyclic/evolutionary processes of understanding-action-learning [more completely: awareness-motivation-understanding-action-comparison-learning – and the origin of these processes in the simpler psychological world of the embryonic human]
[4] There is, within knowledge, a system of disciplines [contents] which by their structure and origin must be interconnected, and:
[5] The modern institutions of learning pervasively [though not totally] emphasize the specialisms and fragmentations – creating, often an anarchistic sense [in the negative sense of anarchism] of isolation. There is often an unnatural [“ivory tower”/academic pride] source to this fragmented specialism. There is also a positive source to specialization: there are, indeed – in any actual historical/cultural setting –definite problem contexts. And, this is the strength of specialization [as long as the present and future are, to some extent, continuations of the past, but also its weakness [as the future is discontinuous with the past] – in terms of fullness of understanding and general adaptability
[6] The specialisms of the modern system along with elements of openness [other systems and modes are not de-emphasized – and this includes those modes which may be not purely human] and integration provide the basis for an adaptive [re-]integration of knowledge, of understanding, of action; and of understanding with action]
[While I promote [re-]integration, priorities/cleansing may imply termination [premeditated/natural] of some spheres of endeavor in the public-supported spheres of knowledge and understanding.]
Regarding social-global needs there are strong indications that: while the modern system of learning [including the university system] and knowledge [factual and valuational] has many strengths, there is need for adaptive revaluation and reintegration
From the point of view of adaptation to change, that is, evolutionarily: for continuity of complex systems there is a balance of needs: stability or conservatism and adaptability or liberalism. So, it is; not rational to advocate either dogmatic conservatism or radical liberalism – except in extreme cases. In the non-extreme situations, a reflective balance between conservatism and change is possible
Clearly the modern system of learning has not resolved the modern world system of problems. This is not necessarily a criticism: it is not the function of any facet of culture to resolve all problems – the maximal function can be to approach the problems. Certainly, without modern learning, the problems may have been worse. However, the signs of the times are: [a] There are many unbalanced emphases of culture, especially in the areas: value, understanding the fullness of human nature, developing universal rather than parochial perspectives; and [b] Many of the environmental, technical and social problems are the result of interactive effects coming to maturity. I argue that the modern system of specialisms can be reevaluated and reintegrated for greater effectiveness. Reintegration may be based, at least in part, on the system of specialisms. This approach, the details of which remain to be developed and formulated, will be an integration of conservatism and liberalism [rather than a mere balance between the two]
[7] I have developed a system which addresses a number of issues which include those discusses in items 1 through 6, above. The issues are briefly addressed below, especially in the discussions of “ADEQUACY AND COMPLETENESS” and “SOME IMPLIED DEVELOPMENTS AND APPROACHES”. The idea have been developed in much greater detail in the works described in the section on “REFERENCES AND FOUNDATION WORK”
Further developments of the conceptual system; development of details, of programs and of actin; and integration into communal life [through action and symbolic diffusion] will require the coordinated effort of a group of individuals. And this group will require a structure that is in accord with the principles of integration [and of specialization]
Further requirements for the group are discussed below in the section on “CONSTITUTION AND DEVELOPMENT” for Horizon Research Institute
[8] Modern institutional systems are not well equipped for a program of this type – for reasons stated in items 5 and 6 above. [From the conceptual point of view, one aspect of what is required is an interaction, not merely interdisciplinary, but between the conceptual systems of the major modes and divisions of knowledge and understanding so that [a] the primary concepts shall be regarded and felt as fluid, interactive and responsive to interactive as well as empirical needs; [b] to enhance this process the communication shall be a close and intense one between well-qualified, open individuals working towards common goals. The openness of these individuals shall include non-attachment to any conceptual system, especially the primary system of their background; at the same time they shall have the agility to work effectively with different conceptual systems…]
It is often thought that this kind of ability is unusual – but this is a function of, is encouraged by, the modern institutional system [indeed it is probably true that the majority of professionals – the faculty – at modern institutions of learning do not explicitly recognize the relativisms in their conceptual systems, the possibility of fluidity. [Or, recognizing this possibility, they are encouraged by the peer process of the specialized divisions to reject or ignore it].]
The lack of equipment of the modern system to deal directly with the processes being described, derives from the structure of both the modern institutional and the modern conceptual system, and their relation. And, as pointed out above, this has origin in the very stability of modern problems and problem contexts
I am in the process of developing an institution [Horizon research Institute] whose form and function shall be a response to these imperatives
In addition to the disciplinary/divisional integration, a primary objective will be the integration of understanding and action. This integration will be [a] Conceptually based: this will require study and researching the foundation of knowledge and understanding, not only as independent entities, but also in their co-evolutionary relation with humanity and society – with the world of action; [b] Empirically based: this will require study of the world of institutions and their functions; and [c] Experientially based: Horizon Research Institute will develop its own programs of policy-planning and action [or implementation’ and will study these programs through comparison of planned and actual effects [the long-germ goal will be to develop programs in global-social policy and planning. In the short term, as initial development in policy-planning, it will be most natural to develop programs in policy-planning for the system of education, research and creative synthesis.]
The program of and the motivation for Horizon research Institute is appreciative of the strengths of the modern university system as much as it scrutinizes and criticizes its weaknesses. Therefore, Horizon Research will seek a complementary and cooperative relation with that system. The Institute has foundation in the entire modern tradition of knowledge; indeed, it seeks more: it seeks foundation in the history of human culture. However, in its historical development, human culture is not an integrated system; rather, it is a developing, evolving system. The program seeks, then, to be a part of the evolutionary adventure of the traditions of culture, knowledge, understanding and action
It is not possible to provide, here, a foundation for these aspects of the program. Such a foundation ha been developed in the works described in the references
In summary, the program has the following strengths: [a] It is responsive to the general needs for understanding and resolution of problems and to the creation and realization of potentials; [b] It is responsive to the needs of the modern world – it seeks to approach this system of problems and potentials by integration of action and understanding, and the divisions and disciplines within knowledge. It will provide critical review of the modern systems for approaching the needs. It seeks to develop specific programs of action and associated learning; [c] It seeks to relate to the modern university system by drawing on its strengths and complementing it in its areas of weakness. In the long term it will seek to develop a synthesis with the modern systems – as they continue to evolve and develop; [d] It seeks to be a part of the evolutionary traditions of knowledge, understanding and culture – by its contributions and by incorporating appropriate principles of knowledge, adaptation and evolution
A primary objective of the program is proper integration of understanding and action. The focus of understanding includes understanding itself, action, and the interaction of understanding and action. Regarding action, the objectives shall include development of a comprehensive system of programs. However, it shall not be an objective to develop programs of implementation in all areas; rather, specific areas of implementation shall be chosen: [i] For their relation to the primary objectives [e.g., policy in the field of learning – where learning is understood to include education, research and creative synthesis]; and [ii] As representative of the field of action
An outline of the main components of the program for Horizon Research Institute is: [a] Ongoing development of a conceptual framework for understanding, action, and the interaction between understanding and action: the field of concern includes ideas such as learning, motivation and the origins of learning and motivation, intention and perception [and so: comparison of intended and actual/perceived effects], the field of human existence and experience, individual action over time, and individual group/social process; [b] Development of a global-social program for action – which will include programs for resolution of immediate material problems and questions of understanding. The objective will be to develop a comprehensive [complete] set of programs up to the point of specifying paths of action. [The meaning of “complete” is discusses below.] Regarding the “human agenda” [against the background of the world, of existence], I have at this point defined the field of human action to be: understanding and resolution of problems [and problem contexts – and these include the existential “context]; understanding and creation of human nature and well being, and definition of the fields or backgrounds for which “understanding” and/’or “creation” are appropriate concepts; and creation and realization of human and social potentials; and, in addition to the development of a comprehensive system of global-social programs: [c] A system of specific programs of policy-research, policy-planning, consulting and implementation [roughly in the order indicated]. As noted above, it is not intended that this system shall constitute a complete set of programs
A beginning towards most of these components/objectives of the program has been made – as outlined in this essay and as detailed in the works described in the section on references
Regarding programs of the type described here, it is natural to inquire about their adequacy. What are the parameters of adequacy? Two natural concerns are: first, that the entire range of concerns be considered and, second, that the individual concerns be adequately addressed. These are the concerns of adequacy of the individual components and of completeness of the system of components
I will elaborate the meanings of the terms adequacy” and “completeness” below. What can these terms mean, and: what is the specific meaning adopted here? The meanings will be formulated within the conceptual framework for understanding and human-social development of items [a, b, and c] above. I argue briefly, in what follows, that the meaning adopted is natural and complete within these frameworks, and that the frameworks are relatively complete with respect to the field of action
One elaboration of adequacy and completeness arises as follows: inquire about the validity of dividing the entire field of action into components. I first note that boundaries are an essential part of existence – but no claim is made about the absolute or permanent nature of these boundaries. Therefore, the possibilities of “process”, of interaction, and of multiple modes of understanding must be admitted. These features shall be built into the structure of the programs of Horizon Research Institute as described in what follows. Granted the relative and tentative status of systems of understanding, and having noted the issue of the components, it is now natural to inquire about the adequacy of the component systems as an interacting whole [system]. The idea of adaptation is significant. Entities [objects, ideas] may come into existence but, to remain in existence they must be mutually adapted. Any adequacy is “in process” – that is, not complete, but an ongoing adaptation. [There may be periods when adaptation to given local circumstances is apparently complete. History – natural and other – seems to indicate that these apparently complete adaptations contain hidden parameters of change; these may be internal or external. A detailed account of evolutionary mechanism/theory tends to support this view. It should be noted, however, that the periods of history available for review are very limited. The process of self-adaptation of the components is similar to mutual consistency or stability. This is an elaboration of the adequacy concerns: that of the mutual adaptation or consistency of the programs and their contents. The idea of adaptation is more general than the idea of consistency; by locating the idea of consistency within a framework of adaptation, an improved understanding of consistency results
When the idea of mutual adaptation is applied to understanding – and more specifically to a system of understanding which includes knowledge, policy-planning and program development – a significant appreciation of these concepts results. Noting that ideas are about “reality” [“things”], about ideas and about the relations between things and ideas, the following types of adaptation can be discerned: [i] The interactive adaptation of things – or the stability of the real world [which includes the natural world]; [ii] The interactive adaptation of ideas which includes natural and symbolic logic, and formal logic – the forms of natural and symbolic logic; and the study of these forms or meta-logic; and [iii] The adaptive relations between ideas and things [things include actions and human creations] or knowledge, rationality and value analysis [that is, ethics], and the study of these relations which includes epistemology, method and criteria [scientific, rational….] and meta-ethics. Regarding the development of programs for Horizon Research Institute, the following elements of rationality/rational action are significant: policy-planning and development: experimental/incremental ‘and other concepts/theories of planning and design: the explicit relations of understanding and action]
These final aspects of the adaptive relations among ideas and things arise when ideas and things are admitted to be “in process” [by which I imply that the future is not contained in the present, that actual learning is essential’, that adaptation and adaptability are included in “method”, and that human actions are admitted as elements among “things”
Some aspects of the constellation of ideas just presented receive continued elaboration in what follows
Completeness for any social philosophy/system [of programs] is often understood to mean that all elements of understanding and action relevant to the full field have been considered. There is a conceptual and an empirical side to this. The empirical side relates to the inclusion of all relevant aspects of the social-human world, and the conceptual side relates to the inclusion of all these aspects in a scheme of understanding/explanation [and inclusion of all significant ideas: this relates to the creative aspect of the conceptual endeavor: that is, social and human “reality” are not give but are in creation]. However, we can only know what our system ‘or systems’ of knowing permits. Therefore, there is an apparently inescapable circle which prevents us from realizing actual completeness. The only way out of this circle is to realize that completeness in the sense of explicit, full and final comprehensiveness is not possible
In the psychological realm there is no completeness. Human minds cannot know all [even all of relevance to their local circumstances], and human actions cannot control all. To attempt to do so is frustrating and destructive. Psychological completeness consists in accepting this: in embracing what is known and what is not known, in being in process, accepting what is given while transforming[without compulsion] the unknown and uncontrolled into the known and controlled
What is true in the psychological: is true [in this case] in the formal realm. The idea of process is transformed into the idea of evolution. The relevance of evolution as the idea of emergence is clearly significant for the present situation, and this is elaborated in what follows [and in the reference section for this essay]
At the same time “being open to process” does not at all imply fatalism or giving up to fate. Being in process means accepting the interface between the known and the unknown and the inter-transition. Accepting the unknown is related to the idea of flow, of wonder, of art, of learning. Accepting the known is related to the idea of structure, includes all of human knowledge -–in its actual form, perfect or imperfect. This includes the conventional systems of completeness and adequacy – including philosophical and formal logic, and the sciences. Being in process implies continued adaptation of these systems at all levels to the imperatives of change
Being in process is a balance which locates the given human framework of understanding in evolution
The system of completeness I develop is based [1] On the premise that actual completeness is not possible – that all completeness is in being in and openness to the elements of awareness, action and existence, [2] In existing systems of understanding: pre-human, primitive, ancient and classical, modern and universal [this refers to ideals]…these form the ground and basis for development, and [3] A process of development which, starting from this ground, is one of being aware of/open to and seeking new horizons [inner and outer] through a system of imagination or inner perception [both iconic and symbolic], criticism, experience, and free and critical experiment
This is the idea of Horizon Research: the initial [present] point is a firm base in the present ground of [human] knowledge [and not in the absolute foundation of any given system]; the journey is one of free experiment, of imagination and critical comparison of the horizon of change against the ground of experience. The motive forces are contribution and process and their psychological correlates – empathy, fear, beauty, the call of adventure
While openness to change – the adventure of change – is essential, the strength and equilibrium of developed systems is important. Horizon Research emphasizes both and their interaction
Adequacy with regard to each “problem” [or aspect of potential, well being, or understanding] means that the data-concept-value system is sufficient to imply appropriate action. As for completeness, final adequacy is not possible. Rather, value and the resolutions in relation to problems evolve together, along with the conceptual and transformational [e.g., technology] tools. Thus the question of adequacy is also one of being in process: a conceptual system [what is possible], a data system [what is], combined with a value system [what is desirable] and a system of action and transformation [tools] combine in change: transformation results in change, not only of the data, but also in concepts, values and tools. [A beginning toward the foundation of these issues is contained in the works listed in the reference section for this essay.]
I now consider some developments and approaches which are implied by these considerations. A key issue arises as follows: start with the conventional/formal and the subjective/developmental notions of knowledge, planning and so on. Recall that the ideas of adequacy and consistency are expanded in significance by placing them within a framework of adaptation. Consistency can be seen as a very special case of adaptation. The idea of adaptation arises from “process”, from “emergence”. Standard treatments of emergence and process are the evolutionary ones: these are the treatments which are [seem[ capable of providing explanations of emergence based in the more restricted grounds of ordinary human knowledge. So, the evolutionary systems of explanation are the ones which maintain continuity between the actual and the universal – are both detailed and unitary
Notions of evolution arise in emergence and proliferation of: physical forms – the constituents and structures of the physical universe, chemical and biological forms, social and psychological forms. Through the idea of adaptation these realms are related and synthesized
I now turn to the details of the implied developments:
[A] A system of conceptual development [understanding], starting with the psychological birth – and growth to maturity – of the individual;
[B] A system of active perceptual-conceptual growth from the immediate into the understanding of global-universal processes. [Further details of the perceptual-conceptual growth are in the references.] Examination of the conceptual fields, each in turn, leads to the unitary systems of explanation and understanding described above
[C] These systems include a hierarchy of degrees of comprehensiveness of metaphysical description. And:
Result in an understanding of process as [including] evolution: in the “first” process of becoming, form [function] and information coincide: the forms which are “correctly informed” in relation to other forms merge. Through elaboration:
Information and function evolve into:
Knowing -- acting -- learning -- modified knowledge… and various elaborations
These considerations show the unification of human knowledge with the earlier structure of existence that result by seeing consistency as adaptation and process as being located in evolution
[D] Elaboration of such considerations show the evolutionary unification [relation] of the following dimensions of being: Natural-social-mental-universal which include human depth and knowledge. [Evolution is seen as a key to the universal, to appropriate interaction with the unknown, in the merging fields of metaphysics and epistemology – with foundation coming from both empirical science and its merging with the evolutionary idea applied to the conceptual field. All modes of knowing –including feeling and wonder – become understood as appropriate forms of knowledge. This is elaborated below.]
Note: at varying degrees of completeness/extension, many other systems of explanation/prediction are consistent with evolutionary explanation. Careful study – much more careful than has been yet performed – will be required to assess the full and true implications of evolutionary explanation and its relations to other systems of explanation
Values of the evolutionary framework:
Shows the relation of knowing and being; knowing and being can be seen as identical. This will result in a better appreciation of the nature of knowledge and its use. Combined with [non-teleological] explanation, this will lead to realistic expectations and uses. The structure and relations of basic and applied knowledge are clearly seen; their values better appreciated
Connects the human to the universal [before evolutionary explanation, the only conceptual connection was religious dogma]
Provides a better understanding of the universal
Provides improved understanding of human intention, objectives, meaning, planning
Provides improved understanding of the elements of knowledge: science, humanities… Enhances understanding oaf understanding, action and their integration; and the components of the program for Horizon Research Institute [see above]
[E] The idea of Horizon Research [see above] encourages examination of other elements of the modern ‘and other] conceptual systems in turn. This is permitted since evolutionary explanation is a framework and is consistent with many other systems of explanation
To perform this examination systematically, start with a structure of knowledge, and an outline of the elements of knowledge [such as in the discussion of Program Adequacy above]. Review the implications of adequacy of each element for the total system and the implications of the total system for each element. In this way the system is modified. If data elements are included in the process – it is empirical
[F] A concept of knowledge as agreement among the modes of knowing [iconic, conceptual, perceptual, experiment, experiential, intuition, feeling, organic…] In other words, knowledge attains a status of validity when all modes are in agreement; [this includes the interpersonal]
[G] A comprehensive, structured, organic arrangement of knowledge: as given to the modern phase of humanity and as growing… and a social-developmental understanding of the processes of understanding and action, including symbolic creation and criticism – and symbolic diffusion into common intuition. Also included is an understanding of individual action through reflection; individual action over time; and individual group/social process
The completeness of these systems [items A through G] lie in ongoing openness to examination of all elements of all cultures – present and past – and in its openness to all experience
[H] A resultant meta-logic for enumeration of the elements of knowing, action and understanding – and so for completeness
The elements of this logic are as follows: [Discussion will necessarily be brief. One source is item E, above.]
[As known to humanity] there is no actual completeness of being and knowing. Therefore completeness [wholeness] consists in being in process – in embracing the known and the unknown
Start with the present ground of structure-as-known: this includes the following elements: Natural-Social-Mental/Psychological-Universal, where terms are understood in the most general available sense. The universal includes the unknown and the potential. It is not claimed that this division of the elements of existence is unique [or that it can be made accurate]. However, it represents common knowledge and, owing to the inclusion of the universal element, it is complete. Further if we accept the non-decomposability of subjective [mental] and objective [natural, social’ elements of existence, then this non-uniqueness is not fundamentally problematic
A process of evolution is a trial-and-selection [process] of elements-of-existence in transition. Applied to the conceptual realm, this leads to:
[a] The present ground of human knowledge provides a system of elements over which search is performed. The ground includes both the elements of knowledge and their hierarchic structures. Owing to the lack of any fundamental level in the hierarchy, the element by element scanning includes the possibility of focusing on more than one element at a time
[b] The process of conceptual transition is one in which the elements of the ground are compared against the horizon of experience. Those elements of experience which are not mutually adapted with the conceptual system call for a modification of the “fit”. This modification may be in the “data” elements of experience-as-known and/or the conceptual structure
[c] One form of modification is integration. Of the many integrations which may occur, the following list includes some general ones:
Structure-process [elements-in-transition as more fundamental than elements or transition; this includes as a special case the conceptual integration; space-time], subject-object [where the subject, the object, and their relations may all be elements –in transition], levels of existence, elements of psychology, determinism-indeterminism [fatalism-choice], humanities-science [humanities or philosophy as the ultimate in human being –distinguished from the literature or discussion of philosophy, and of which philosophical thought is but one element], teleology-mechanism [or purpose vs. fatalism [in the case of deterministic mechanism] or trial-and-selection [in the case of indeterministic mechanism]]
One foundation of these integrations [and the implied distinctions and understanding] is improved understanding and performance in the development of knowledge, in planning and choice, and action
[d] A corollary of these considerations is that while the given structure of perceptual-conceptual systems is important, these systems are also incomplete – and remain open if they are to remain adapted to the actual situation
[e] The processes described are a phase of general evolution
[I] The structures of knowledge and understanding, as described above, lead to a system of needs which are an enhancement of existing systems. This system, based in the division Nature-Society-Mind-Universal and in the openness of process, has implications for policy-planning and general human-social process. A discussion of the system of needs is in the words described in item [A] of the references to this essay
Conclusion: The above discussion has necessarily been brief. The scheme remains in development ad detailed discussion of progress to date may be found in the references
A detailed preliminary design for the development of Horizon research Institute forms the content of Part III of reference A [section on references]. In this discussion, I will provide an outline of the plan for development and the resulting [intended] constitution for Horizon Research. There will be three parts to the discussion: Phases of Growth; Selection of Individuals; and Transformation. [Transformation refers to the modes of interaction with the world – society – and includes interaction with intent to change.]
The outline plan below draws on the discussions provided in the earlier part of this essay
[A] Phases of Growth
Intrinsic: [the program]
Development of understanding
Of understanding itself, of action and the integrated system of understanding and action,
Modes of understanding, action,
Fields of understanding: outlines of modern systems of knowledge,
Levels of being and process
Development of guidelines and ideas for development of the program and similar programs and similar programs
Similar programs,
The full range of issues and understanding
A system of interests, policy issues, policy-planning and consultation
A selected system of action/implementation; educational activity
External: support for program activities
Detailed plans for development exist [Reference A, Part III]. Areas are:
Initial [seed] phase
Management of programs, publicity
Material support and facilities: equipment, building, library, computer system
Financial support: procurement and administration
Note: Significant parts of the intrinsic phase of development have received preliminary treatment. See earlier discussions of this essay, and the references: especially items A, C, E, and F
[B] Selection of Individuals [See references A and C.]
Principles:
Specific interests [see Phases of Growth: Intrinsic, above, and other discussions],
Breadth/depth,
Openness, communication [for interaction: see items E and H, pp. 14 and 15],
Administration
Initial Phase: Although understanding will be the key focus, there will be a need for individuals with understanding of applied programs and contacts
[C] Transformation
Provision of Information [For content, see: Item A: Phases of Growth: Intrinsic]
Modes of Communication
Recruitment of personnel
Education [initially informal]
Publication, seminars, workshops, grants, advertisement
Consultation
Application
Action: programs of action and implementation [See the first paragraph of p 8]
Action: Example
In transformation, ideas, programs are not [always] sufficient to motivate or justify change. Individuals [including members of Horizon Research Institute] will be encouraged to live as examples of the system being forwarded…and to learn from individual and collective experience
The general principle is that the organization of Horizon Research should be included in [or related to] its conceptual system
Horizon Research [the concept and the institute] seeks support in its objective of empowerment
The program of Horizon Research seeks empowerment through development of:
A sense of understanding, of history, and of openness to modes of perception and judgement,
Understanding the nature of individual action:
Necessarily based in understanding and choice
Is experimental
Transformation occurs over time
Sense of potency
Action over time
Individual-group relations; general; use and creation of institutions
Individual-universal relations: sense of actin, heroism, wonder; the dimensions of the unconscious
A direct call: regarding the emphases noted above
Participation: assistance in program development
External: Initial [seed] support; material and financial support
A talk
I call to those who would act upon the issues of fulfillment and suffering in the world; and to those who seek perception, understanding, self-knowledge, and knowledge of the particular and universal arenas of life
This dual call recognizes that redress of immediate issues and development [change and evolution] of depth in understanding must occur together
A Plan
I have developed a system of understanding [based in the cumulative learning of primitive life through modern societies] and action; and openness to growth, experiment, experience and reflection. Based in this as a starting point:
I am working toward forming a group of individuals [with diverse and complementary backgrounds] working on the dual problems of humanity
The diversity of the group will be keyed to the dual needs of understanding [knowledge] and action [redress of problems; creating and realizing potentials]
Our processes and study of understanding will be in depth into the inner [psyche] and outer [universe] worlds of humans
We will seek: not mere understanding, but empowerment
And our paths of actin will be application in the world, including development and sharing of understanding
Your Support
I encourage your support in these areas:
[1] Direct support through practice of principles of understanding; and experiment with a dual system of understanding and action
[2] Intrinsic support of the program through communication of the ideas and principles
[3] Material and financial support towards the objectives of the program
Information
Further information on objectives, content, and plans are available
AND FOUNDATION WORK FOR
A PROGRAM FOR THE INTEGRATION OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING AND ACTION
What follows is a listing and brief description of my written work towards the objectives discussed in “A Program for the Integration of Human Understanding and Action”. There are three areas of focus: [1] Conceptual Foundations and Development, [2] Planning, and [3] Reference and Access to Information – Access Systems. These are in manuscript form and will be made available. They are in a form which will facilitate revision and update – as development occurs. An outline of the entire system is currently available: see item [F] below
[A] Evolution and Design, Humboldt County, California, April, 1987-
The motion of this work is from understanding, through planning and design, to action [or implementation] and learning [which includes primary or original learning and secondary learning or education and imitation.] Understanding includes knowledge and its development but also the more composite system of subject and object [knower and known], and action and learning
It is accepted that there is a realm of knowledge which exists in connection with and is embedded in the composite of knowing-communicating-acting-learning, and that there is a realm which has [at least for practical purposes] developed intrinsic criteria of acceptance [or validity]. The dynamics of these developments is considered. The questions of nature, validity/acceptance, growth and completeness [including means or “methods” for these] are approached, first, by placement in an evolutionary-developmental context and, second, in the context of the whole system of interactions [knower-known]. Here, evolutionary and philosophical analysis makes a significant contribution
Planning is understood in a general form and is not restricted to problem solving, program development, short term or narrow focus situations. Planning thus includes all forms of anticipation. Anticipation includes both short- and long-germ foci. The short-term focus justifies an emphasis on applied knowledge: knowledge which relates to a specific problem, set of problems, or problem context. The long-term focus justifies pure knowledge – which is defined to be knowledge which relates only to an interest in the world [all of existence], and not to some specific problem or problem context; and this justification follows from unpredictable and unknown aspects of the future
The questions of completeness and validity of planning can be related to those of knowledge – and have meaning in the context of ongoing process. How is planning for the future possible even when prediction is not even possible? The answer is twofold: first, in the development of intrinsic criteria for knowledge [including validity, beauty and simplicity], and, second, in the development of or emphasis on appropriate human attitudes
Contents for Evolution and Design:
Part I: Understanding; January, 1987. 270pp. [Contents: 1. Introduction, 2. Evolution, 3. Philosophy]
Part II: Knowledge, Planning, Action, Learning: April, 1987. 180pp
Part III: A Planning System/The Future of the “Evolution and Design” Project: A Plan, April, 1988. 111pp
Part IV: A Journal Supplement to Evolution and Design; April, 1987-. [Additions, changes, syntheses, synopses and evaluations of other works; development of rigorous foundations for positions and arguments which were previously intuitive or incomplete.]
Related Developments:
The following work is an extension of discussions of research and education in Evolution and Design with application in a particular area:
Engineering Research, Education Policy, and Curriculum Development, [With Integrated Text System Development], 1990-, Version 1.0. June, 1989. 135pp. Part I: General Considerations for learning; Part II: Engineering Education and Research
This work is an initial example of policy-planning by the Horizon research Institute. The first part [General Considerations for Learning] formulates a general philosophical-social framework for global social planning. The long-term plan is that this part shall be the basis for general global-social policy planning. An alternative title for this part is The Concept of Learning: Its Understanding, Development and Use, or [with modification] An Evolutionary, Philosophical, Learning Framework for Planning and Understanding
Further related developments which could be considered a part of Evolution and Design, are in items [B] and [C] below
[B] Personal Design, Humboldt County, California, August, 1986. 72pp. [Contents: 1. Philosophical and Psychological Basis. 2. Transformation. 3. Meanings and Priorities]. Supplements: Priority Systems, Blocks and Resolutions, October, 1988, 25pp
An examination of the task of personal priority and analysis in the light of, first, philosophical-psychological investigations into human and universal nature and, second, ways of transformation
Meaning, completeness and validity of analysis of human/universal nature is considered in depth. The nature of “being human” is not restricted to the meaning of any particular culture. Significance is attached to the following aspect of cultural-human process: the process in which an individual educated within a given cultural system may outgrow-transcend the cultural context and develop as an individual center of meaning, perception and truth. This process of growth is briefly reconsidered in the supplements [to Personal Design] to include growth beyond the individual context
One of the basic attitudes of the work is that of the deep relation of human nature and existence. This connection is rooted in evolution. Evolutionarily, Homo sapiens is by our psychic nature adaptable to many environments. This adaptability is not only physiological but mental and emotional: the elements of adventure, beauty, speak to an openness to new experience Thus, in the context-adaptable nature of symbolic systems and the psychological openness of human nature, there is an adaptability to the world – even the universal – context. A conclusion: one mode of meaning and vitality for humans is concern and activity in the context of the growing community rather than focus on the ends of the self
The discussion above points to the continuing need for scientific-metaphysical-valuational systems which show the deep connection between and transformation among existence-self-consciousness
The processes of transformation: knowing-acting-learning which are advocated in Personal Design are found, in varied forms, in modern planning and Hindu philosophy
Personal Design stands separately, but may also be incorporated in Evolution and Design
[C] A Planning System: [This is Part III of Evolution and Design – see item A.]
This work contains a planning system applied to Horizon Research Institute – for which it is a preliminary blueprint
The foci of the system are: [1] A process of initiation and transformation which expands the knowledge-action-learning framework by including a seeding or entrepreneurial process, and [2] Detailed consideration of the elements of a research group, initiation and development of programs and support
[A general planning system may be extracted from the work.]
The following aspects are considered: [1] Objectives, [2] Intrinsic dimensions: quality of human existence, understanding, applications and methods, [3] Means of development of the intrinsic dimensions, [4] External dimensions [support]: environment, technical and financial, [5] Development of Support, and [6] Research Management
In a project of the magnitude of the present one, it is necessary that a wide-ranging system of literature should be studied, reviewed and developed for on-going and planned work
Following are some works in this area:
[D] Reference and Access Systems, Humboldt County, 1988
Part I: Knowledge and reference Systems: A System of Reference According to Epistemic Principles. 26pp. [1. General Reference Works, 2. Knowledge and Reference Systems, 3. Outlines of Knowledge.]
Part II: Reference Works. 56pp [4. Philosophy, 5. Symbolic and Information Systems – general, language, mathematics, and information, 6. Natural Science, Technology, and Medicine, 7. Society and Culture: social analysis and social sciences [general/social/behavioral sciences, history, sociology, psychology, education, policy analysis.]
Part III: Use of Reference Systems. 100pp [8. Types of Source, 9. Library and Information, 10. Uses of Sources]. [In progress: 1983-]
[E] Bibliography for Evolution and Design, Humboldt County, California. 3 volumes. Over 6000 entries
Volume I: General Bibliography: by an Epistemological Scheme for Classing Disciplines, 1986- . 500 pp
Volume II: General Bibliography: by Period, Source/Author, and Secondarily by Discipline. Emphasis on key periods, individuals and contributions in historical-cultural evolution… 1. Period of Myth: to 700 BC, 2. Period of Philosophy: to 300 AD, 3. Period of Imagination: to 1500 AD, 4. Period of Knowledge: to Present. 1988-. 200pp. [Not a reorganization of Volume I. The information is significantly new.]
Volume III: Special Bibliography: Research Management, Developing Support for Research, and Publishing. 1987-. 6 pp
Outline
[F] An Outline of Content and Progress in the “Evolution and Design” Project, Humboldt County, California, May, 1989. 10pp
An outline of the works in items [A] through [E] above
Supplementary readings [over 9000pp] and a library of over 1000 volumes have been collected. The readings cover all areas of the “Evolution and Design” Project. The library focuses on Evolution, Religion, Myth, Philosophy, the Experience of Nature, and advanced topics in Mathematics, Science, and Engineering