Kris Kimel over at the Idea Festival blog wrote a posting titled “What are the physics of time?”
” summarizing an article he read on the ephilosopher site.
Related on Idea Festival
IdeaFestival blog (main page) >>
A new wrinkle for time
Related on Humane Systems Design blog
Distributed causality and time
Wikipedia: “Time”>>
Wikipedia: “Causality”>>
Warning: this is the long version that still needs editing for readability. It needs a lot of help.
From Wikipedia:
“Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one’s beliefs. More…”
Cultural dissonance is a phenomenon that may present itself when an individual that participates in multiple cultures (most of us) is faced with situations where s/he perceives conflicts between a set of rules from one culture and the rules of another. This phenomenon may even appear in the “same” culture (across time and across “sub-cultures”.)
A working definition of culture
I think of culture as a system that is defined by a framework of formal and informal rules of thought and behavior within a given physical or conceptual space.
For example a hotel has a lobby culture, a restaurant culture and a suite culture. Each environment has different rules of thought and behavior. In the same way, a relationship between two people has a culture, each group has a culture, each department in a company has a culture etc. In other words, culture may be not only that which is passed down through generations but it may also be a more temporal, and more abstract, emergent phenomenon.
Cultural space in our time
Through this cultural definition we may also acknowledge how a single individual traverses different cultural frameworks and different cultural dynamics every day. Sometimes we traverse these cultural “environments” physically, other times we interact with them remotely (over the phone) and today we interact with cultural spaces via environments like the web.
The concept of cultural space in our contemporary time is an often overlooked element. The concept of people balancing the continuously changing complexity between multiple cultural frameworks is an often overlooked. It is an underapreciated achievement in humanity.
As we move towards greater cultural complexity across time we may expect greater cultural dissonance. While some aspects of complexity are challenging but harmless; cognitive and cultural dissonance may be related to confusion, frustration, alienation and in more extreme cases aggression and/or conflict.
Multiple perspectives does not equal cognitive dissonance
I’d like to propose that studying cognitive dissonance and cultural dissonance is an emerging need in our societies. It is important as part of a conflict management / solution system.
Addressing dissonance-related issues may require us to understand both cultural and cognitive dissonance are complex issues built upon other, nested conflicts. (micro/macro)
Many types of thinking
One definition of cognitive dissonance includes the following:
“[cognitive dissonance]…describes the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time…”
Addressing dissonance-related issues may also require us to understand that being aware of two conflicting thoughts at the same time does not necessarily lead lead a person to cognitive dissonance. In my opinion you can hold a large amount of conflicting thoughts or perspectives and this may contribute to a wider understanding of the issues at hand.
I subscribe to the idea that there are a great number of types of thought. If we subscribe to this idea, then we may also understand that we have a tendency to lump together different types of thoughts under “thought”. Here is a list of possible generalizations:
- the types of thoughts
- the dynamics inherent in the architecture of each thought (assuming all thought processes are the same)
- the dynamics inherent in our personal approach to digesting each different type of thought
- the dynamics of personal (immediate) context while digesting each thought
- lumping together different complex thought networks, thought groups with simpler thought structures
- (other contextual factors…)
Temporary conclusion
Holding conflicting thoughts may add to our “thought library” and our “literacy” of perspectives. Holding conflicting thoughts does not necessarily lead to cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance may be related to larger, more complex types of dissonance such as cultural dissonance. (think macro and micro)
We may be moving towards greater cultural complexity
I believe that our wolrd continues to become (exponentially) more culturally complex through cultural sub-division, multicultural participation, the emerging of new cultures and the constant change in each one of our cultures.
Cultural complexity is related to greater cultural interaction (a good thing). To encourage the healthy development of culture we may need to better understand the emerging issues – cultural dissonance is one of these issues.
Studying cultural dissonance may help us ease issues on multiple levels – from your own self, to your family, your community and even on greater scale (e.g. international relations) and the related conflicts.
While it’s not a panacea, it may certainly be an improvement in our current world consciousness.
Related on the web
Cultural harmony vs. cultural dissonance. Philosophical approaches to conflict resolution. Robert N. St. Clair (University of Louisville, USA)
YuXin Jia (Harbin Institute of Technology, PR of China)
CULTURAL DISSONANCE AMONG GENERATIONS: A SOLUTION-FOCUSED APPROACH WITH EAST ASIAN ELDERS AND THEIR FAMILIESJournal of Marital and Family Therapy, Oct 2004 by Lee, Mo Yee, Mjelde-Mossey, LeeAnn.
Cultural Dissonance.Multiverse. Exploring divesity and achievement.
(a thesis on cultural dissonance)
Mapping the Future
Rich (nations) get richer … gaps widen, cultural dissonance looms, environmental threats grow Virginia Tech University. Department of Architecture and Urban Studies
Gordon, E., & Yowell, C. (1999). Cultural dissonance as a risk factor in the development of students. In E. Gordon (Ed.), Education and justice: A view from the back of the bus (pp. 34-51). New York: Teachers College Press.
Tierney, W. (1993). Building communities of difference: Higher education in the twenty
first century. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey
For thousands of years we have been thinking in binary either/or thinking. The idea of determinism vs. free will may be one of the emergent false dilemmas.
Can human life be both deterministic and at the same time seen as having free will?
I think this is possible to various degrees of relativity.
In a web of co-causality there may be an interdependence. Also, there may be a web of co-adaptive interaction between between all agents.
As we talk about agents I should clarify that I subscribe to the belief that everything in the world is an “active agent”. This includes our environment and even what we consider innanimate objects.
Let me clarify. A rock is continuously changing at levels that we cannot see with our naked eye. The rock is changing at speeds that we may consider to be “very slow”, a small change in it make take an entire human life time. But the rock is changing, thus it is an active agent.
A change in a rock over time may force a human agent to adapt or interact with this change.
So, we are constantly co-adapting, interacting and changing. We are doing this partially because we have to. We have to interact with a giant boulder that is on our way. Whether we walk around it, on top of it, dig a tunnel under it or blow it away – we are interacting with it.
In the interdependent natural system, interaction is a requirement to life. We don’t have much of a choice about it if we choose to live. We must interact with the air around us by breathing to live. We must drink the water to live. We must eat the fruits of nature to live.
There are degrees of interactive determinism across systems. This example is for the natural system. Each system will require an examination of its framework, rules, laws and requirements. Each system we participate in further erodes human “free will”.
Related in Wikipedia
Wikipedia: “Compatibilism” >>
Wikipedia: “Free will” >>
Wikipedia: Causality >>
Summary: Distributed causality factors in time and (space) distance. What you do today may affect someone in another country years from now. It’s hard to draw the line of causality in simple terms but to some relative degree, your action ‘A’ causes effect ‘Z’ over time and distance.
Beyond real-time cause and effect
In a completely interconnected system operating with multiple layers and cycles of causality event ‘A’ may be “caused” by event ‘Z’ to one relative degree or another (the end of one cycle may propel the beginning of another cycle.)
Causality then, has the opportunity to operate at different, (relative) and perceived “speeds”.
Conceptual relativity
In other words, our concept of time (and causality), gains new levels of conceptual relativity. Causality relationships may then be perceived as happening slower and some others as happening faster. Some of these relationships are happening simultaneously in real-time, some others take longer to show the cause-effect relationship.
Distributed Causality and Sustainability
This is complex causality. It broadens our way of understanding relationships between things and variables.
Free will may be relative. I think we would like to believe in free will as the ability to do anything and everything we would like. But free will may also be somewhat relative.
The need for adaptation or change is one of the points that puts some degrees of free will into question. As with most concepts we must ask adaptation to what? what type of adaptation? There are many. Each one deserves some degree of attention and consideration. The one I am thinking about is adaptation to large scale environmental changes.
When a large scale environmental change happens we usually have to change or adapt in order to increase our chances of survival within the new dynamics. The change and adaptation we make may be temporary but it may happen.
This type of action/reaction, situation/adaptation has the opportunity of placing us in a reactive role rather than a proactive role. In other words, free will is relatively eroded.
Most systems we operate under tend to set limitations on free will. These limitations are usually exposed as rules, laws, regulations and limitations.
Participation in any system is part of our concept of free will. When we are talking about nature we do have the option of not participating but not participating may lead to several types of consequences including death.
In man designed systems participation is encouraged and sometimes demanded. Not participating often leads to punishments of several degrees of severity. Some of the punishments leading to death in direct or indirect (distributed causality) ways.
So, the question stands. Is will relative to the participation decisions we make? Is there such as a “pure” concept of truly “free will”. I really don’t think there is. I think we would like to think there is but in reality we are subjects to nature and to the systems we decide to participate in to relative degrees.
The degree of our free will may be directly correlated to the number of systems we participate in. The more systems we participate in the more limited our free will is and vice versa.
Related
“From causality to distributed causality” >>
Related in Wikipedia
“Free will” >>
Hypertext may be a good model to explain the way that words have a
fractal meaning.
Every word in this sentence when linked through hypertext reveals many possible meanings. Since the links lead to pages that can be edited and changed this means that the word will likely change in meaning independent of intentional use.
