Understanding for Horizons Enterprises

INTEGRATION OF UNDERSTANDING

A PROGRAM
FOR
THE INTEGRATION OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING AND ACTION
HORIZONS ENTERPRISES™
AN EXPERIMENT IN INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

HOME | SITE-MAP | CONTACT THE AUTHOR

Document status: December 11, 2018

Outdated: maintained out of interest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

Introduction

A Dual Problem; Understanding and Action

Horizons Enterprises and Research Institute: the Concept

Completeness and Adequacy of the Program

Constitution and Development

A Call to Support

References

Introduction

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

A Dual Problem; Understanding and Action

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]

HorizonsEnterprises and Research Institute: the Concept

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

Completeness and Adequacy ofthe Program

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