Alternative Reality Positions
Thinking & Realism
Diagonally opposite quadrants characteristically show antagonism that manifests in social life. Usually, such conflict is evident on both diagonals.
In this TET, however, only the Consensus diagonal appears to be the source of universally-recognized significant social conflict: that between popular culture of the masses and intellectual culture of scholars and thinkers.
Before dealing with it below, we can consider differences between the various in relation to handling reality, and why there is no meaningful antagonism.
Doctrines of Conviction
The 4 Methods on the conviction diagonal reflect different types of «realism» doctrine that produce useful accounts for differing purposes. As a result, conflict between the accounts is not common or automatic.
- language reflects a common-sense realism. The thinking here may be rather fuzzy, but fuzziness does not matter or is simply intrinsic to reality, which we all know is messy. Accounts here deal with immediate situations effectively and are understood by familiars.
- language reflects a doctrine of essentialism. Thinking here is clear and precise, with a focus on distinguishing and naming obvious and necessary differences. Any accounts are provided for general use and understanding is widely encouraged.
- language reflects a doctrine of pragmatic empiricism. Thinking here is built on specific observations and practical visualization. When this is needed, there is no alternative and so no debate or controversy emerges.
- language reflects a doctrine of ironic constructivism. Thinking here involves a directed creativity. Accounts provide ironic insights to those interested. If they reflect on other accounts, the perspective is usually tolerant.
Moving up the diagonal, the method's world-view appears to be increasingly tangible and designed: paralleling perhaps the emergence of modernism and post-modernism. There is no reason or need for any of the accounts to come into conflict because they each serve such different purposes.
Two Cultures
Delusions of Consensus
By contrast, on the consensus diagonal do not appear to spring from a specific philosophy or have such distinctive purposes. Instead, they rather grandly purport to specify what should be regarded as real or true. All methods assume reality is explainable, but there is an antagonism between quadrants.
- the expects careful disciplined writing and inevitable errors;
- the and expect values and emotion to provide certainty.
As a consequence, conflicts between accounts are common. For a start, accounts are difficult to follow for those not versed in the field. Simplification and conversion into language may be attempted, but it usually produces excruciating errors or distortion in the view of conceptual experts.
accounts de novo are commonly subject to withering criticism by formal thinkers due to their bias and willingness to cater to social conventions or to sensationalize. accounts with their non-sequiturs, emotive imagery, and archetypal scenarios like good v evil or purity v pollution are often scorned and ridiculed.
In practice, social consensus determines reality in the upper left quadrant. Insofar as scientists are also members of communities, they too regard social consensus as the determining factor: but only within their own specialized community.
Errors perpetuated by experts en masse are probably as common and certainly as egregious as those perpetuated by ordinary people. Group-think is a pathology of expertise.
The consensus diagonal therefore reveals a major antagonism across quadrants that can be labeled as shown: Popular Culture v Intellectual Culture.
Objectivity and Subjectivity
Much of the conflict between these two cultures/quadrants revolves around accusations of subjectivity.
In intellectual culture, subjectivity is exploited positively to enable speculation. However, subjective bias can be acknowledged and taken into account during debates. Subjectivity needs to be managed if a conceptual framework is to be established dispassionately. Experts and scientists generally aspire to objectivity. Yet, their critics have no difficulty finding bias in what is written, not least based on self-interest and sometimes political leanings.
In popular culture, objectivity is an anathema because the goal is to affirm values and arouse feelings. language accepts and desires subjectivity even if it often proclaims objectivity. It is easy for any persuasive narrative to be taken for reality e.g. the daily commentary on stock-market price movements are value-based rationalizations. Deliberate subjective selectivity is the norm. To an objectivist that sort of talk looks like a manipulation and wilful distortion of reality. language goes further and may dissolve the subject-object boundary and its direct participation in reality denies both objectivity and subjectivity.
Control of subjectivity in Conviction methods is less problematic:
- : control by the personalities involved.
- : control by validity checks instigated by self and others.
- : control by feedback from performance by users.
- : control by a genuine inner fidelity to the topic.
Objectivity
When objectivity is sought, subjectivity needs to be managed.
For Conviction methods, objectivity is increasingly difficult and the focus in objectivity is on who benefits.
- : the local group benefits.
- : there is a general benefit.
- : practical benefit for users of the instructions.
- : the wider community potentially benefits.
For Consensus methods, objectivity is somewhat illusory and becomes increasingly irrelevant as the diagonal is ascended.
- : while objectivity is an aspiration, it is never fully achievable.
- : as this is the realm of values, objectivity is always doubtful given the likelihood of manipulation and distortion to serve the ends of the speaker.
- : this is a realm where objectivity and subjectivity are the same, or both terms are meaningless or inapplicable.
Originally posted: 4-Sep-2016. Last updated: 28 Feb-2023.