Arnold Cornelis and "social theory of knowledge"

Started by Henk, January 20, 2011, 11:39:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Henk

I'm studying the work of Arnold Cornelis. I write an article summarizing and clarifying some basic ideas of his work. In this thread I want to introduce his philosophy to you, because it really can be of interest of anyone I think, because it clarifies our world view and (the future of) society and culture we live in and because I like to post about what keeps me busy these days.

Cornelis sketches the whole history of society to our time and describes what follows logically and it this way clarifies our current time. His books were published at the end of 20th century, short after that he died. His work hasn't been translated so with my article, which I want to publish in Dutch, German and English (and maybe also other languages), I want to make it accessible for a larger audience.



In short his philosophy:

Cornelis regards feeling as the unconscious steerer in ourselves. It's being made conscious in culture and science. Culture is being built in stability layers during history, each stability layer brings forth a different type of human being. It began with the stability layer of the natural system, which consist of the build up of intelligence (in language) against fear. This brought forth the "secured human being", but negatively spoken the "hided human being". From the 17th century with Descartes and Durkheim a new stability layer is developed, the stability layer of the social regulation system, there came rules for operating, society got organised in rules and the principle of justice is leading. This stability layer nestles the emotion anger and brings forth the "obedient human being", but negatively spoken the "quiet human being". Each stability layer has a different logic. In our times a new stability layer is developed, Cornelis calls this the stability layer of "communicative self-steering". People become self-steerers with respect to their own life, their learning processen and in their job. Sadness is being nesteld in this stability layer. This stability layer in essence harmonizes the stability layer of the natural system with the stability layer of the social regulation system. There is no one rationality but an infinite amounts of rationality. This stability layer makes possible the self-development of the human capacity. This stability layer brings forth the "self-steering and creative human being", but can also bring forth "the lost human being" in "the culture of being lost" (comment: not a good translation).

Each individual processes these stability layers during their life also. A human being becomes 3 times adult. First when the feeling has been stabilized in the natural system (when one has reached the age of around 18 years), then when the feeling has been stabilized in the social regulation system, being reward for ones skills in a job, an individual comes into balance with the knowledge of society (when one has reached the age of 36-40). But then one has to become adult another time, being able to steer one-self and being able to help people to steer themselves, one comes in a communicative phase. These transitions are not always easy to be made, as culture is not always supportive enough, and the latter transition is commonly known as the middle-life crisis.

So Cornelis philosophy is a "psychiatry of social systems for healthy human beings". Culture has to become more supportive for people to develop themselves, we now live in a culture, with a science which is not integrated, that isn't supportive at all. "When the new way of thinking is being founded at the basis of upbringing, education and study culture changes in it's entirety, in a turn over of the human spirit." 

Henk

PaulSC

Henk, Very interesting, thanks for an intoduction to these ideas.

May I suggest editing the thread title? I would have clicked sooner but when I spotted "Arnold Cornelis" in "unread posts" I assumed it was yet another thread on some deeply-and-more-or-less-deservedly-obscure composer.

Henk

#2
Paul, thanks for your reply. I edited the title of the thread.

In my article I want to use a lot more concepts and explain things more thoroughly.

Cornelis has published three books: "Logic of Feeling" (his main book), "The Retarded Time" and "Restpoints of the Spirit".

The Retarded Time is a "revenge of the spirit" as the philosophy of the future. Cornelis argues that the spirit exists as "an ethical ability to self-steering" and because everything is energy the spirit is also energy. We have to retard our internal clock to keep up with the rapidly changing world and to keep being self-steering. Because the computer can work faster and faster, we have time to think and retard our internal clock. Self-steering is actually the only way of steering, because it works with feedback (making use of our feeling).

Henk

MishaK

Not having read Cornelis, I can only comment on how you represent his ideas.

Quote from: Henk on January 20, 2011, 11:39:29 AM
Cornelis regards feeling as the unconscious steerer in ourselves. It's being made conscious in culture and science. Culture is being built in stability layers during history, each stability layer brings forth a different type of human being. It began with the stability layer of the natural system, which consist of the build up of intelligence (in language) against fear. This brought forth the "secured human being", but negatively spoken the "hided human being". From the 17th century with Descartes and Durkheim a new stability layer is developed, the stability layer of the social regulation system, there came rules for operating, society got organised in rules and the principle of justice is leading.

Descartes and Durkheim (who BTW lived a lot later than the 17th c.) didn't invent social regulation, nor was there an absence of the same before the 17th century. It is inherent in human nature as a social animal to form more or less formal systems of social regulation in any social context, this applies to criminal gangs, to condo boards, to modern nation states, to corporations, to orchestras, to classrooms, anywhere where several human beings come together and have to negotiate conflicting desires, needs, impulses, and finite resources. This isn't anything new.

Quote from: Henk on January 20, 2011, 11:39:29 AM
There is no one rationality but an infinite amounts of rationality.

This, sadly, is complete nonsense. See youtube videos of one Jared Lee Loughner. No, you cannot choose your own rules of logic and rationality. It simply doesn't work. At that point you leave rationality and enter the realm of faith, where only you and your acolytes agree in the truth of what you say on the basis of faith alone, not evidence. Yes, rational people can disagree on many things without there being any flaws in their logic, simply on the basis of different assumptions that they are unable to validate at a given time. But there aren't multiple alternative different ways of deductive reasoning. Anyone who has survived the mandatory introductory courses to logic in any decent philosophy department should know better before writing something like that in a book.

Quote from: Henk on January 20, 2011, 11:39:29 AM
we now live in a culture, with a science which is not integrated, that isn't supportive at all.

This is quite debatable. The problem with our society is that we have become so sophisticated in our various overspecializations that even a well educated individual from one profession has virtually no understanding of the work of someone in another profession. This makes it seem that science is not "integrated". But that isn't really the case. It's not like it ever was more "integrated" in the past either.

A lot of what you describe sounds like quasi-mystic guru-ish self-help, self-realization stuff, without much foundation, sorry to say. Parts of this stuff about self-steering read like sanitized versions of the nonsensical mysticism of Gurdjieff. But maybe that is unfair, since I'm not looking at the guy's writings directly.

Henk

#4
You obviously represent the critical, nagging, negative reader. I feel not invited to reply on the content. But thanks for your reaction anyway, some things may be vague in my summary, you point those things that's a good thing, I need more text to put things clearer.

Henk

MishaK

Quote from: Henk on January 20, 2011, 01:34:11 PM
You obviously represent the critical, nagging, negative reader.

Critical, yes. Nagging and negative, no.  ;)

drogulus

#6
     I don't think natural, social and communicative systems are separate stages. The transition from nature to communication and culture begins right away. Social and communicative structures evolved from our natural ones in a seamless manner. See bees, ants, termites for examples. Like them our very existence is social and communicative. Our logical and scientific projects are just abstract layers over the kind of building living things have always done. That applies to legal, philosophical and ethical structures, too.

Quote from: Mensch on January 20, 2011, 01:20:20 PM


Descartes and Durkheim (who BTW lived a lot later than the 17th c.) didn't invent social regulation, nor was there an absence of the same before the 17th century. It is inherent in human nature as a social animal to form more or less formal systems of social regulation in any social context, this applies to criminal gangs, to condo boards, to modern nation states, to corporations, to orchestras, to classrooms, anywhere where several human beings come together and have to negotiate conflicting desires, needs, impulses, and finite resources. This isn't anything new.

     I agree. One change that has happened is the increasing self-consciousness of social systems. I suppose Descartes might have something to do with that.

Quote from: Henk on January 20, 2011, 01:34:11 PM
You obviously represent the critical, nagging, negative reader. I feel not invited to reply on the content. But thanks for your reaction anyway, some things may be vague in my summary, you point those things that's a good thing, I need more text to put things clearer.

Henk

     For what it's worth, from the only example of Arnold Cornelis I could find in English, you summarize his views well.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Henk

#7
Quote from: drogulus on January 20, 2011, 01:43:18 PM
     I don't think natural, social and communicative systems are separate stages. The transition from nature to communication and culture begins right away. Social and communicative structures evolved from our natural ones in a seamless manner. See bees, ants, termites for examples. Like them our very existence is social and communicative. Our logical and scientific projects are just abstract layers over the kind of building living things have always done. That applies to legal, philosophical and ethical structures, too.

Well, this is very biological, even chemical way of looking to things. Bees don't communicate with words, aren't intelligent in that sense, don't have very much emotions. I expect you possibly aren´t very satisfied with this answer, but I will find better ways to convince you.

Let´s try yet however:

Behaviourism isn´t approriate for studying behaviour of human beings, because human beings produce their own stimuli. Now you.

Quote from: drogulus on January 20, 2011, 01:43:18 PM
     I agree. One change that has happened is the increasing self-consciousness of social systems. I suppose Descartes might have something to do with that.

When there were political system as power as arbitrariness (not a really good translation I think) people were afraid from the rulers. The people didn't function in a large social system (as states), because there was no justice, and felt back on the natural system. There was anarchy, the word however didn´t exist yet, because it´s a concept of social theory and social theory didn´t exist yet.

Quote from: drogulus on January 20, 2011, 01:43:18 PM
     For what it's worth, from the only example of Arnold Cornelis I could find in English, you summarize his views well.

Which example? Well, that's why I think there's a need to write and publish an article.

Henk

MishaK

Quote from: Henk on January 20, 2011, 02:11:56 PM
Well, this is very biological way of looking to things. Bees don't communicate with words, aren't intelligent in that sense, don't have very much emotions. I expect you possibly aren´t very satisfied with this answer, but I will find better ways to convince you.

It's not a "biological" way, but rather a scientific way. Cornelis is a bit behind the science if your description is accurate. The more we study animal behavior, the more we find that we are really not all that special, except in that we have more mental capacities and more acute ones in some ways. But it is no longer scientifically tenable to say that only humans are "intelligent" or possess "emotion", let alone "communication", not even verbal communication.

Quote from: Henk on January 20, 2011, 02:11:56 PM
When there were political system as power as arbitrariness (not a really good translation I think) people were afraid from the rulers. The people didn't function in a large social system (as states), because there was no justice, and felt back on the natural system.

These distinctions are arbitrary. Not all pre-democratic rulers of the past were autocratic despots. And, again, like I described above, all human assemblies live by social rules, whether formal or informal. And given that we have had formal rules at least since Hammurabi you can't really sustain the claim that "people didn't function in a large social system", even if you limit that distinction to states, which is again arbitrary, because states are not the only makers of laws or social rules. And you'll have to explain what you mean by "natural system".

Henk

#9
Well, I notice and am glad that what Cornelis writes about isn´t considered to be trivial. So you can learn something.

It´s also a philosophical thing. The philosophy of the natural system is empiricism, the observation of the external world. The philosophy of the social regulation system is rationalism, which is focused on making things, operating by standards.

Also read my comments about behaviorism in my answer to Drogulus. "Human beings produce an internal logic, as a learning process, and because of that produce their own stimuli or differently saying external stimuli are immediately processed into tokens, for which the external obeservations are being used as token holder." (Arnold Cornelis)

Henk

drogulus

Quote from: Henk on January 20, 2011, 02:11:56 PM
Well, this is very biological, even chemical way of looking to things.

     "Looking at things" is a very biological thing to do.

Quote from: Henk on January 20, 2011, 02:11:56 PM


Which example? Well, that's why I think there's a need to write and publish an article.

Henk

     I don't think you'll find it useful. It's some kind of management consultant group that uses his ideas. It's a .pdf.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Henk

Quote from: drogulus on January 20, 2011, 02:44:08 PM
     "Looking at things" is a very biological thing to do.

Well I think I rejected this argument already appropriately.

Quote from: drogulus on January 20, 2011, 02:44:08 PM
     I don't think you'll find it useful. It's some kind of management consultant group that uses his ideas. It's a .pdf.


Thanks, I already was familiar with it.

drogulus

Quote from: Henk on January 20, 2011, 02:43:18 PM


It´s also a philosophical thing. The philosophy of the natural system is empiricism, the observation of the external world. The philosophy of the social regulation system is rationalism, which is focused on making things, operating by standards.


      If a subject requires a philosophy then there's something wrong somewhere. Philosophy is concerned with knowledge of everything, what's common to all knowledge of the natural and social worlds. It would be strange to have a theory of the material world that had no connection to a theory of mind. At least it's strange now. A philosopher and the world s/he thinks about are not in different worlds, they're part of the same thing, and that must be reflected in the understanding. A philosopher is a natural system, too.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Henk

#13
Quote from: drogulus on January 20, 2011, 04:50:25 PM
      If a subject requires a philosophy then there's something wrong somewhere. Philosophy is concerned with knowledge of everything, what's common to all knowledge of the natural and social worlds. It would be strange to have a theory of the material world that had no connection to a theory of mind. At least it's strange now. A philosopher and the world s/he thinks about are not in different worlds, they're part of the same thing, and that must be reflected in the understanding. A philosopher is a natural system, too.

Of course the empiricists and rationalists thought they were talking about the same thing on which they disagree. But empiricism as well as rationalism in our time aren't valid anymore, Cornelis afterwards sees them in the process of the development of what he calls "stability layers in culture as nestling for emotions". Kant tried to join the two philosophies but didn't succeed.

Cornelis also proposes ideas for a more appropriate philosophy of science, reasoning from the idea that science isn't value independent.

Henk

MishaK

Quote from: Henk on January 21, 2011, 01:21:57 AM
Of course the empiricists and rationalists thought they were talking about the same thing on which they disagree. But empiricism as well as rationalism in our time aren't valid anymore, Cornelis afterwards sees them in the process of the development of what he calls "stability layers in culture as nestling for emotions". Kant tried to join the two philosophies but didn't succeed.

Cornelis also proposes ideas for a more appropriate philosophy of science, reasoning from the idea that science isn't value independent.

You are now firmly in deep Sean territory.

8)

Someone please pass the popcorn.

Henk

#15
Quote from: Mensch on January 21, 2011, 06:55:00 AM
You are now firmly in deep Sean territory.

8)

Someone please pass the popcorn.

Ok, I stated that incorrectly. Cornelis yet doesn't write about it in this way. He says that the empirical observation as knowledge source is insufficient. He refers to the example of being in Amsterdam and observe a street board that says "Koestraat" (name of a street). If you don't know that street by memory, because you never was there before, you still don't know where you are. You can falsify by looking another time if it's really "Koestraat" what the board displays. But er just stays "Koestraat" and you don't know where you are.

Cornelis distinguishes uncertainty and learning processen not in just one system (the observation system which is individual), but in three systems.

Henk

MishaK

Quote from: Henk on January 21, 2011, 07:21:58 AM
Ok, I stated that incorrectly. Cornelis yet doesn't write about it in this way. He says that the empirical observation as knowledge source is insufficient. He refers to the example of being in Amsterdam and observe a street board that says "Koestraat" (name of a street). If you don't know that street by memory, because you never was there before, you still don't know where you are. You can falsify by looking another time if it's really "Koestraat" what the board displays. But er just stays "Koestraat" and you don't know where you are.

Cornelis distinguishes uncertainty and learning processen not in just one system (the observation system which is individual), but in three systems.

This is just deliberate obfuscation. Empirical observation still is the only method of acquiring *reliable* knowledge. But it is only as good as your methods and only as good as your ability to recognize and admit the tentativeness of your unproven assumptions. There simply is no other way of acquiring knowledge that is as reliable, let alone more reliable, than empiricism. No flawed science or logic was ever disproven by anything other than better science and more stringent logic. Sorry, but anyone who claims otherwise is a snake-oil peddler out to make a name for himself by confusing people with quasi-intellectual banter.

Henk

#17
Nonsense. Read the example, no need for further explanation, which I could give you of course, but I don´t want to convince you.

You only talk about the traditional way of research in the natural sciences. Ever heard of social science? Also natural sciences is a lot about calculation, which has nothing to do with telescopes, microscopes etc.

Henk

MishaK

Quote from: Henk on January 21, 2011, 08:22:55 AM
You only talk about the traditional way of research in the natural sciences. Ever heard of social science?

I actually have a degree in the social sciences. It's empirical research, at least the ones who know what they're doing.

Quote from: Henk on January 21, 2011, 08:22:55 AM
Also natural sciences is a lot about calculation, which has nothing to do with telescopes, microscopes etc.

Mathematical calculation is logical deduction, nothing else. You're still in the realm of empiricism and logic. There is no other *reliable* means of knowledge acquisition. Anyone who claims otherwise just wants to be a guru to the feebleminded.

DavidRoss

Quote from: Mensch on January 21, 2011, 08:32:30 AM
I actually have a degree in the social sciences. It's empirical research, at least the ones who know what they're doing.

Mathematical calculation is logical deduction, nothing else. You're still in the realm of empiricism and logic. There is no other *reliable* means of knowledge acquisition. Anyone who claims otherwise just wants to be a guru to the feebleminded.
Though I agree with you about many things, in this you are referring only to synthetic knowledge.  Even intellectuals know that ice cream tastes good, that they love their children, that great beauty moves them to tears, and so on, via direct intuitive knowledge--and it is far more reliable than synthetic knowledge, which is only as good as its premises.
"Maybe the problem most of you have ... is that you're not listening to Barbirolli." ~Sarge

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher