scholarly journals Semiotic autoregulation: Dynamic sign hierarchies constraining the stream of consciousness

2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (1/2) ◽  
pp. 119-136
Author(s):  
Jaan Valsiner
Keyword(s):  
Human Mind ◽  
Semiotic Mediation ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Stream Of Consciousness ◽  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Psychological Phenomena ◽  
Symbolic Forms ◽  
Time Space ◽  
Psychological System ◽  
The Individual

For all human sciences, understanding of how the mind works requires a new theory that starts from the assumption of potential infinite variability of human symbolic forms. These forms are socially constructed by the person who moves through an endless variety of unique encounters with the world. A theory of symbolic forms needs to capture the essence of hyperdynamic, irreversible nature of the stream of consciousness and activity. The human mind is regulated through a dynamic hierarchy of semiotic mechanisms of increasingly generalized kind, which involves mutual constraining between levels of the hierarchy. It is demonstrated that semiotic mediation leads to a triplet of personal-cultural constructions — a new symbolic form, a metasymbolic form, and a regulatory signal to stop or enable the construction of further semiotic hierarchy. In everyday terms — human beings produce new problems, together with new efforts at solving them, and make decisions when to stop producing the former two. Hence, semiotic mediation guarantees both flexibility and inflexibility of the human psychological system, through the processes of abstracting generalization and contextualizing specification. Context specificity of psychological phenomena is an indication of general mechanisms that generate variability. Scientific investigation of human psychological complexity is necessarily oriented to the study of variability within the individual person’s psychological time-space.

scholarly journals Managing individuality: myths versus art

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 35-44
Author(s):  
Hanne Nørreklit
Keyword(s):  
Basic Function ◽  
Human Existence ◽  
Art And Science ◽  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Symbolic Forms ◽  
Management Models ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Management Discourse ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Insight Into

The purpose of this article is to establish the symbolic forms that are presently used in selected mainstream management models and to assess whether the connection between leadership and individual human reality would be improved if the management models were fundamentally inspired by those used by a successful manager and artist.The theoretical starting point of this article is Cassirer’s (Cassirer 1999) philosophy of symbolic forms. A symbolic form is “a way of having a life world” (own translation) (Cassirer 1999). In a symbolic form, a person discovers and unfolds an ability to build his own universe as an ideal universe which enables the person to “understand and interpret, to articulate and organize, synthesize and universalize his human experience” (Cassirer 1962: 221). Symbolic forms such as art, science, myth and religion thus have common features and structures in their basic function of creating common human existence. When the symbolic form is science, ideals of objectivity and precision in the description of phenomena and their relations dominate man’s formation of his universe. In art, man unfolds an ability to be subjective and create empathetic insight into matters and their diversity (Cassirer 1962). Where science as symbolic form conceptualizes objects, art teaches us empathetic insight. The symbolic forms of art and science perceive a phenomenon differently. For example, science will perhaps see a constellation as a trigonometric function, whereas it may be considered by art as a “Hogarthian shape of beauty” (own translation) (Cassirer 1999: 62). Like the symbolic form of art, the symbolic form of myth builds on emotional sympathy, but differs by believing in the existence of the constellation. It is used to create a natural or magical unity of life. Monotheistic religions also include ideas of striving for a sense of unity, but here the idea is to achieve a universal, ethical sense of unity in an individualized society. Thus the symbolic form of religion helps the individual to choose between right and wrong.With this in mind, we examine the use of symbolic forms embedded in selected mainstream management models. Subsequently, we study the symbolic forms embedded in the management discourse as the concept is unfolded by the successful Artistic Director of the Royal Danish Opera, Kasper Holten, when he talks about management, with a view to determining the extent to which this practice differs from the symbolic forms embedded in the mainstream management models. The analysis shows that mainstream management models are primarily rooted in the symbolic form of science, although they tend to gradually include the symbolic form of religion or the symbolic form of myth. Generally speaking, the mainstream management models tend to exercise power over the individual’s emphatic insight and autonomous reflection and thereby constrain the scope for human creativity and individuality. Distinctively, Kasper Holten’s management discourse integrates the symbolic forms of art and science. With art as the dominant symbolic form, Kasper rejects new public management’s perception about opera and the management of art while at the same time – through discourses that bind to the individuality of the network of players – forming personal and social identities which come together to realize a world of existential ideas about operas in general as well as opera in particular.The article is relevant because it provides insight into the ways in which management models, through the use of myth and science as symbolic forms, exercise influence on human existence and interaction and thereby influence the scope for human freedom and exercise of power and also because it provides insight into the features and structures concerning human existence and co-existence from which mainstream management models cut themselves off by not using art as a form of consciousness. The constructive aspect is a parallel outline of features and structures in a new management discourse which are better suited for postmodern society.

Cultural psychology and human development

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nandita Chaudhary ◽  
Sujata Sriram ◽  
Jaan Valsiner
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Psychology ◽  
Developmental Psychology ◽  
Meaning Making ◽  
Open Systems ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Personal Meanings ◽  
Psychological Phenomena ◽  
Time Space ◽  
Separate Branch

Cultural psychology is a theoretical approach that treats human beings as intimately intertwined with the surrounding social world, which is filled with meanings conveyed through signs. It is based on the axiom that cultural contexts and psychological phenomena are assumed to be mutual, inseparable, and co-constructive. This focus fits the general scientific status of all open systems, which exist only due to the continuous exchange of materials with the environment. Cultural psychology is an integrated approach to psychology rather than a separate branch, as is sometimes believed, since psychology and culture “make each other up.” This involves constructive internalization (intra-mental construction of personal meanings) and equally constructive externalization (changing the environment in the direction specified by the internal meanings). As a collaborative, multidisciplinary perspective, cultural psychology is closely linked with disciplines like anthropology, sociology, linguistics, literature, and others. Cultural psychology focuses on the study of cultural—sign-mediating—processes within the mind. A common misconception relates to the fact that the term “cultural” refers to the study of similarities and differences between various communities. Rather than focusing on static comparisons, meaning-making and dynamic organization of personal and collective reality are studied. Differences between societies are important only as illustrations of the possible patterns of human psychological variation as they emerge in a particular time-space coordinate. Thus, another important axiom is that there can be no psychology without culture. Culture is constructed by goal-oriented human actions and involves continuous thought, action, and emotion in the face of uncertainty. Thus, the centrally important feature of cultural psychology is the inclusion of personal, interpersonal, and collective processes as they make up the different layers of meaning in irreversible time. Culture is both inside a person’s mind, as a personal manifestation, and also a shared system or collective set of customs. Cultural psychologists tend to treat the person as a whole rather than as separate different domains of activity because a comprehensive and multidimensional approach to a person within context is believed to be the key to meaning. Cultural psychology attempts to bring the notion of context into the central focus in psychology and the notion of person back into ethnography, as these are believed to be constructive. Context is viewed in two ways—as inevitably and inseparably linked with the phenomenon and as external social setting (e.g., home, school) in which human activities take place. Another important feature is that “cultural psychology is inherently a developmental discipline and developmental psychology is inherently cultural” (Shwartz, et al. 2020, p. 2). All levels of culturally organized human ways of living—persons, communities, societies—are constantly developing systems.

How Cassirer explains myth and other symbolic forms through semiotic functions

Semiotica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (233) ◽  
pp. 125-144
Author(s):  
Masoud Algooneh Juenghani
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Evolution ◽  
Specific Form ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Ernst Cassirer ◽  
Symbolic Forms ◽  
Philosophy Of Culture ◽  
Independent Functions ◽  
Theoretical Assumptions ◽  
The World

AbstractErnst Cassirer (1874–1945), Neo-Kantian philosopher of Marburg school, studies myth as a component of symbolic forms. He considers myth as the cornerstone of philosophy of culture as well as the source of such other forms as language, religion, art and science. Cassirer, applying an epistemological approach towards myths and other realms of human culture, argues that human beings experience the world through a mediated process. Of course, this mediated encounter with the world has different aspects in the evolving course of culture. These aspects are completely dependent upon the symbolic form through which man experiences his world. However, it seems what Cassirer puts forth as an explanation of the cultural evolution of mankind is basically influenced by his semiotic viewpoints. Therefore, the present article tries to find the theoretical resources of Cassirer’s thought and analyze his reasoning in this regard. Emphasizing Cassirer’s theoretical assumptions as well as his methodology, we have tried to better understand his claims about myth and other symbolic forms. It has been revealed that Cassirer’s theory is mainly shaped by his particular models of semiotic functions. Analyzing the semiotic functions of each specific form indicates that Cassirer has differentiated three independent functions. Each of these functions works on an expressive, Ausdrucken. representative, Darstellungen. or signifying Bedeutungen. basis and is respectively correspondent with myth, language, and science.

Betekent de monteerbare mens de antropologische heilstaat? Systematisch-theologische vragen

2009 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-115
Author(s):  
Luco van den Brom
Keyword(s):  
Medical Technology ◽  
Religious Faith ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Brain Functions ◽  
Mind And Brain ◽  
The Individual ◽  
God Machine ◽  
The Brain

Developments in medical technology summon the image of a novel ‘bionic’ humanity of the cyborg. Is it possible to entirely reproduce human beings and retain their identity? This technological enhancement aims at improving the physical make-up of the human phenomenon as an individual. Mankind thus assumes control over their mental evolution, creating a techno-sapiens. This prompts the question whether religious faith, emotion, intention or responsibility are physiological reproducible. Experiments with a ‘God Machine’ seem to evoke religious impressions and to deny the individual meaning of God and the human mind. Hick’s dualism of mind and brain as dancing partners is unsuccessful by actually personalizing the brain. This article proposes to describe mental and brain functions as complementary instead of tracing their physiological origin. Then, religious faith is not reduced to fides quae, as merely physiological reproducible information, but remains an existential attitude to life, as fides qua, by itself within the context of a community of believers.

The Nature of Culture in Design

2009 ◽  
pp. 25-36
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Young
Keyword(s):  
Human Nature ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Learned Behavior ◽  
Mother Nature ◽  
Symbolic Forms ◽  
Socially Constructed ◽  
Simple Question ◽  
Genetic Makeup ◽  
Cultural Theorist

There have been many definitions of culture hypothesized by theorists and scholars as a way to understand human beings, other species and entities; human nature; Mother Nature, and artifacts (Giles & Middleton, 1999; Hall, 1996; Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1966; Williams, 1958). Culture has been characterized as being descriptive, historical, normative, psychological, structural, and genetic (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1966). Kroeber (1948) theorized culture as “how it comes to be” versus “what it is” (p. 253). Therefore, culture is socially constructed. Geertz (1973) interpreted culture as a “historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (p. 89). Hofstede (1991) proposed that culture is learned; it is not part of one’s genetic makeup. In the area of cultural studies, culture is concerned with how meanings are interpreted and created in a society (Gray & McGuigan, 1997; Hall, 1997). Williams (1958), a cultural theorist, believes that “culture is ordinary” (p. 74). It is made in the human mind, making possible effort, examination, and explication. This means culture is what is known (tradition) and what comes to be known through investigation and invention (creativity). Baumeister (2005) argued that culture is not innately human. Other species (e.g., monkeys and chimpanzees)show patterns of learned behavior that is passed on from generation to generation. Culture is artificial; it is civilization. (Kroeber, 1948). A simple question-and-answer scenario about culture might proceed as follows: What is culture? Culture is everything human made and nature made. What is the purpose of culture? The purpose of culture is to serve humans. How does culture function? Culture functions as directed by humans. When will culture end? When humankind ends, culture will end. Where is culture? Culture is everywhere. Why do we need culture? We need culture to tell our history.

Behaviourism in the social sciences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rom Harre
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Human Action ◽  
Psychological Processes ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Psychological Phenomena ◽  
The Social ◽  
Dependent Variables ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Direct Reflection

Classical behaviourism has had almost no direct reflection in the social sciences, in that there has never been a behaviourist social psychology or sociology. However, various features of the cluster of behaviourist doctrines have been widespread in the human sciences. Behaviourism as it developed from its roots in the proposals of Watson, and in its transformation by Skinner, had two influential aspects, one metaphysical and the other methodological. The metaphysics of behaviourism was positivistic. It was hostile to theory, favouring a psychology the subject matter of which was limited to stimuli and responses. It was hospitable to the conception of causation as regular concomitance of events, rejecting any generative or agent causal concepts. The methodology of behaviourism was hospitable to simple experimental techniques of inquiry, seeking statistical relations between independent and dependent variables. It was hostile to descriptions of human action that incorporated the intentions of the actor, favouring a laconic vocabulary of neologisms. Metaphysically and methodologically behaviourism favoured the individual as the locus of psychological phenomena. But, in practice, the use of statistical analyses of data abstracted psychological processes from real human beings leaving only simplified automata in their place.

Reading Maimonides' Mishneh Torah

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Gillis
Keyword(s):  
Jewish Law ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Knowledge Of God ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Fundamental Unity ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Guide Of The Perplexed

This book demonstrates that the Mishneh torah, Maimonides' code of Jewish law, has the structure of a microcosm. Through this symbolic form, Maimonides presents the law as designed to perfect the individual and society by shaping them in the image of the divinely created cosmic order. The commandments of the law thereby bring human beings closer to fulfilling their ultimate purpose, knowledge of God. This symbolism turns the Mishneh torah into an object of contemplation that itself communicates such knowledge. In short, it is a work of art. The book unpacks the metaphysical and cosmological underpinnings of Maimonides' scheme of organization, allowing the reader to understand the Mishneh torah's artistic dimension and to appreciate its power. Moreover, as the book makes clear, uncovering this dimension casts new light on one of the great cruxes of Maimonides studies: the relationship of the Mishneh torah to his philosophical treatise The Guide of the Perplexed. A fundamental unity is revealed between Maimonides the codifier and Maimonides the philosopher that has not been fully appreciated hitherto. Maimonides' artistry in composition is repeatedly shown to serve his aims in persuading us of the coherence and wisdom of the halakhic system. The book sets in high relief the humane and transcendental purposes and methods of halakhah as Maimonides conceived of it, in an argument that is sure-footed and convincing.

“Utopia First!” A Machiavellian Conception of Solidarity in More's Utopia

Moreana ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (Number 209) (1) ◽  
pp. 79-93
Author(s):  
Marie-Claire Phélippeau
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Farm Work ◽  
The World ◽  
Social Difficulties ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Democratic Elections ◽  
Communal Organization

This paper shows how solidarity is one of the founding principles in Thomas More's Utopia (1516). In the fictional republic of Utopia described in Book II, solidarity has a political and a moral function. The principle is at the center of the communal organization of Utopian society, exemplified in a number of practices such as the sharing of farm work, the management of surplus crops, or the democratic elections of the governor and the priests. Not only does solidarity benefit the individual Utopian, but it is a prerequisite to ensure the prosperity of the island of Utopia and its moral preeminence over its neighboring countries. However, a limit to this principle is drawn when the republic of Utopia faces specific social difficulties, and also deals with the rest of the world. In order for the principle of solidarity to function perfectly, it is necessary to apply it exclusively within the island or the republic would be at risk. War is not out of the question then, and compassion does not apply to all human beings. This conception of solidarity, summed up as “Utopia first!,” could be dubbed a Machiavellian strategy, devised to ensure the durability of the republic. We will show how some of the recommendations of Realpolitik made by Machiavelli in The Prince (1532) correspond to the Utopian policy enforced to protect their commonwealth.

Chimeras In Time-Honored Societies

Think India ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-466
Author(s):  
TUMMALA. SAI MAMATA
Keyword(s):  
Major Elements ◽  
The Sun ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Life Changes ◽  
Inner Self ◽  
The World ◽  
Nature And Nurture ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
Superstitious Beliefs

A river flows serenely accepting all the miseries and happiness that it comes across its journey. A tree releases oxygen for human beings despite its inner plights. The sun is never tired of its duty and gives sunlight without any interruption. Why are all these elements of nature so tuned to? Education is knowledge. Knowledge comes from learning. Learning happens through experience. Familiarity is the master of life that shapes the individual. Every individual learns from nature. Nature teaches how to sustain, withdraw and advocate the prevailing situations. Some dwell into the deep realities of nature and nurture as ideal human beings. Life is a puzzle. How to solve it is a million dollar question that can never be answered so easily. The perception of life changes from individual to individual making them either physically powerful or feeble. Society is not made of only individuals. Along with individuals it has nature, emotions, spiritual powers and superstitious beliefs which bind them. Among them the most crucial and alarming is the emotions which are interrelated to others. Alone the emotional intelligence is going to guide the life of an individual. For everyone there is an inner self which makes them conscious of their deeds. The guiding force should always force the individual to choose the right path.  Writers are the powerful people who have rightly guided the society through their ingenious pen outs.  The present article is going to focus on how the major elements bound together are dominating the individual’s self through Rabindranath Tagore’s Home and the World (1916)

CYBERBULLYING PADA MEDIA SOSIAL: Menyoroti Perilaku Cyberbullying Menurut Perspektif Model Konseling Realitas

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darimis Darimis Darimis
Keyword(s):  
Social Relationships ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Important Goal ◽  
Application Procedure ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
Use Of The Internet ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Counseling Model ◽  
Real Responsibility

Use of the Internet has changed the paradigm of human beings communicate with one another, especially on social media. Indonesia as one of the highest in the world Facebook users make significant consequences specifically for teenagers. The trend using Facebook by teenagers has created negative impacts that is the rise of cyberbullying.Cyberbullying can significantly influence the lives of teenagers and it can be a huge burden as it can happen for a long period of time. In cyberbullying, there are cyber bullies and cyber victims as individuals involved to make the message as a reference the behavior of cyberbullying. This paper attempts to looking at the perspective of the cyberbullying behavior by reality counseling model, because reality counseling as one of the models of counseling that focuses on behavior now unrealistic and dysfunctional.Reality counseling based on the choice theory, counselee make more effective choices about the development of relational satisfactory with others. The most important goal of therapy is to make people aware of the reality that the real responsibility for her behavior was himself. This counseling can helping the individual reality of cyberbullying offenders realize the consequences of his behavior, responsible, develop positive social relationships through the application procedure techniques WDEP and techniques reality Counseling.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document