Two Motivational Reflexivity Community groups have been created on LinkedIn and Facebook, where you can ask questions, share your experiences, provide feedback, and stay updated on developments. These groups are open to all who are interested in deepening their understanding of Motivational Reflexivity and connecting with others practicing this approach.
These resources and community spaces are free to access. Feel free to download, engage, and share the links with anyone who might benefit. Your participation and feedback are invaluable as we build a supportive community around this practice.
In the longer term, I am planning to produce guidelines for trainers, a dedicated website, and online training courses, all of which will be free to share and use. Their availability will be announced here and in the Facebook and LinkedIn groups.
I’m pleased to announce that two essential resources on the concept of Motivational Reflexivity are now available for free download. For those interested in understanding and practicing motivational reflexivity, both an Introduction to the Concept and Guidance for Practitioners are now accessible in PDF form.
What is Motivational Reflexivity?
Motivational Reflexivity is a process that enables individuals to reflect on and refine their beliefs, aligning them more closely with reality and pro-social values. By examining the motivations behind beliefs, practitioners can gain a deeper understanding of their influences and transform those that may not serve their well-being. This practice is designed to benefit not only individuals but also foster positive impacts on society and the environment.
Resources Available for Download
An Introduction to Motivational Reflexivity: This introductory guide provides an overview of the foundational principles, offering readers a strong starting point for understanding the motivations and needs driving their beliefs.
Motivational Reflexivity: Guidance for Practitioners: This comprehensive guide offers step-by-step guidance on the practice of motivational reflexivity, with exercises, prompts, and reflections designed to support practitioners in their journey.
These resources are free to download and provide a valuable starting point for anyone interested in exploring motivational reflexivity. Feel free to share these links with anyone who might benefit from this practice. Your engagement and feedback are always appreciated as we build a community around this important work.
In the longer term, I am planning to produce guidelines for trainers, a dedicated website, and online training courses, all of which will be free to share and use. Their availability will be announced here.
Motivational Reflexivity is a reflective practice aimed at understanding the motivations behind our personal beliefs, especially those driven by the satisfaction of needs. Drawing from diverse theoretical foundations in psychology, sociology, and philosophy, this concept offers individuals a means to critically evaluate their beliefs and decisions. In particular, Motivational Reflexivity helps distinguish between beliefs grounded in objective reality and those formed to satisfy emotional or psychological needs. This paper explores the foundations of Motivational Reflexivity through the lenses of human needs, automaticity, reflexivity, and the morphogenic cycle, ultimately offering strategies for integrating this practice into daily life.
Needs
Human needs are fundamental conditions necessary for well-being and personal development. Drawing from theories such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943) and Alderfer’s ERG model, these encompass both basic physiological needs (e.g., food and shelter) and higher-order psychological needs (e.g., self-esteem and belonging). Needs drive our behaviour and inform our beliefs.
Satisfiers
Satisfiers are the resources or elements that fulfil or enhance the satisfaction of these needs (Max-Neef, 1991). They can be external (e.g., food, shelter, social connections) or internal (e.g., beliefs, values [9], emotional states). Not all satisfiers are grounded in reality—some might provide temporary emotional comfort without addressing the true nature of the need.
Contra-satisfiers
Contra-satisfiers are elements that reduce or threaten the satisfaction of needs. These can trigger a defensive response or reflexivity when they undermine well-being. Reflexivity often emerges in response to contra-satisfiers as individuals seek ways to address unmet needs or eliminate threats.
Emotions
Emotions act as signals and motivators in relation to needs. Positive emotions (e.g., joy, satisfaction) arise when needs are met, while negative emotions (e.g., fear, anxiety, frustration) signal unmet needs or the presence of contra-satisfiers [1]. These emotional responses often lead individuals to engage in reflexive thought, where they reassess their beliefs and behaviours to better satisfy their needs.
Consciousness
Consciousness refers to self-awareness and the ability to reflect on one’s thoughts and actions. Consciousness is underpinned by internal feedback loops, where individuals evaluate their potential actions before executing them [2]. This ability to simulate actions internally is what enables reflexivity.
Figure 1. A simplified model of the feedback processes involved in human consciousness.
Reflexivity
Reflexivity involves engaging in internal dialogue to critically assess one’s beliefs and behaviours. It is especially important when individuals face unmet needs or threats to their well-being. Reflexivity allows for the interruption of automatic behaviour, prompting individuals to evaluate whether their beliefs align with objective reality or are motivated by personal needs.
Automaticity
Automaticity refers to habitual, unconscious behaviour that does not require reflective thought. While efficient, automaticity can prevent individuals from questioning the motivations behind their actions. Reflexivity interrupts automaticity, encouraging individuals to reexamine their decisions. For example, driving becomes an automatic task after sufficient practice, but when unexpected events occur (e.g., road hazards), reflexivity is triggered, requiring conscious engagement to adapt. [3]
The Modified Morphogenetic Cycle
The morphogenetic cycle, developed by Margaret Archer and Roy Bhaskar, describes the interaction between societal structures and individuals through a series of feedback loops (Archer, 2003)(Bhaskar, 1975). These loops shape individual beliefs and behaviours by assigning roles, norms, and expectations. When these societal roles serve as satisfiers, individuals tend to automatically affirm them. However, if societal roles act as contra-satisfiers, individuals engage in reflexivity to challenge or alter their roles and the demands made of them. [4] The modified morphogenetic cycle also includes the environment as a factor. Society’s actions impact the environment (e.g., through pollution or deforestation), which in turn affects individuals’ ability to satisfy their needs, prompting reflexivity in response to environmental degradation. [5]
Figure 2. Diagrammatic Representation of the Modified Morphogenetic Cycle.
Society (yellow circle) enculturates individuals with values [9], norms, and beliefs. Society also impacts on the natural environment (green circle) which in turn impacts on the individual. If these three impacts are satisfiers (happy person to the right) then the individual automatically affirms society. However, if one or more act as contra-satisfiers (unhappy person to the left), then the individual reflects on potential solutions and then attempts to alter society’s culture or structure accordingly. For example, he or she may alter society’s structure by leaving unsatisfactory employment.
Cultural Evolution
Cultural evolution occurs as societal norms and values [9] shift over time due to reflexivity and new ideas introduced by individuals. Reflexivity plays a central role in this evolution by allowing individuals to critically reflect on cultural elements and adopt practices that better serve their needs and goals.
Cultural Speciation
Cultural speciation refers to the emergence of distinct cultural practices from mainstream society. Reflexivity allows individuals to break away from dominant societal beliefs and form subcultures with unique values [9], norms, beliefs and structures. For example, the isolation of subcultures, such as during the Northern Ireland Troubles, led to the development of divergent cultural beliefs within a single society. [6]
Needs-Driven Beliefs
Needs-driven beliefs are those adopted primarily to satisfy personal needs, regardless of their alignment with reality. Such beliefs often arise when individuals face contra-satisfiers and adopt beliefs that provide emotional or psychological comfort (Kunda, 1990). For example, individuals might support political ideologies that align with their economic or social interests, even if the belief does not reflect broader realities. [7]
Psychological Defence Mechanisms
When needs-based beliefs are challenged, individuals may employ psychological defence mechanisms (e.g., denial, rationalisation) to protect themselves from emotional discomfort (Freud, S.,1920)(Freud, A., 1936). These defences prevent individuals from critically reflecting on the truth of their beliefs. Motivational Reflexivity challenges these mechanisms, helping individuals recognize when their beliefs are motivated by needs rather than objective truth. [8]
Motivational Reflexivity
Motivational Reflexivity involves regularly questioning the motivations behind one’s beliefs and actions. By asking questions like “Why do I hold this belief?” and “Is this belief serving a deeper emotional need?”, individuals become more conscious of the needs driving their decisions. Over time, this process allows individuals to align their beliefs more closely with reality.
Benefits for the Individual
The practice of Motivational Reflexivity leads to greater self-awareness, helping individuals uncover the underlying motivations behind their beliefs. By aligning beliefs with objective truth, individuals experience personal growth and a deeper understanding of their true needs. Reflexivity also fosters empathy, enhancing the ability to understand others’ beliefs and motivations.
Benefits for Society & the Environment
On a societal level, Motivational Reflexivity promotes cultural evolution by helping individuals challenge false beliefs that may be perpetuated through advertising, propaganda, or social pressure. It also supports sustainable practices, as individuals become more aware of the environmental impact of their actions and adjust their behaviours accordingly.
Challenges and Mitigation
While Motivational Reflexivity offers significant benefits, it can also present challenges, such as emotional discomfort (Festinger, 1957) or social conflict. Individuals may find it difficult to confront long-held beliefs, and societal resistance may arise when dominant beliefs are questioned. To mitigate these challenges, Motivational Reflexivity must be practiced with empathy and within supportive frameworks that encourage open dialogue and respect for diverse perspectives.
Conclusion
Motivational Reflexivity empowers individuals to engage in a deep, reflective practice that aligns their beliefs with reality and enhances personal growth. By regularly reflecting on the emotional and psychological needs behind their beliefs, individuals can develop self-awareness, cultivate empathy, and make more informed decisions.
On a broader scale, Motivational Reflexivity offers the potential for societal and environmental progress. By challenging the enculturation of false needs-based beliefs and promoting sustainable practices, Motivational Reflexivity can drive positive change for both individuals and the larger social and environmental systems they inhabit.
Notes
We prioritize our needs based on the intensity of negative emotions that arise when a need goes unmet or is threatened.
These potential actions can also be ones of speech. That is we review what we intend to say before we say it in order to judge its likely effects. The feedback loops can also be external. That is, we observe the consequences of our actions and learn from them.
Automaticity may also arise from socialization—for example, learning cultural norms or professional routines through repeated exposure. Lastly, automaticity can be an instinctive reaction to immediate danger, such as the fight-or-flight response, which is activated without conscious deliberation to ensure survival.
The modified morphogenetic cycle is continuously ongoing. It distinguishes between society’s cultural elements, i.e., values, norms and beliefs, and society’s structure, i.e., individual roles. Either can act as a satisfier and be automatically accepted or as a contra-satisfier triggering reflexivity and attempts to alter the situation.
The natural environment can also produce satisfiers and contra-satisfiers independent of society, such as natural disasters (e.g., volcanoes, droughts), which impact individuals’ needs. In the early development of humanity, the natural environment played the leading role in cultural evolution but with population growth social forces now play the leading role.
When a subculture isolates itself (geographically or ideologically), a new culture may evolve that is distinct from the original. However, if the subculture cannot isolate itself, it may be reabsorbed, modifying the dominant culture. Alternatively, if there is conflict between the cultures, it may result in tensions, such as those seen in the Northern Ireland Troubles.
In the natural environment, needs-driven beliefs are rare, as natural phenomena (like climate) are not influenced by human beliefs. However, in social contexts, needs-driven beliefs are more common, as society can be influenced or shaped by these beliefs to satisfy personal needs.
Psychological defence mechanisms can also be triggered when we are unable to satisfy a need or are unable to avoid a contra-satisfier.
Values are a special type of belief, i.e., beliefs about what is good or bad. Good and bad are, in turn, defined by ethics. Values are shortcuts that avoid detailed ethical analysis. If followed in relevant circumstances they will normally lead to ethical behaviour. Furthermore, they can be propagated through society without the need for reference to the detailed ethics that underpin them. Finally, like any other belief, they can be needs-driven. So, not all people have pro-social or pro-environmental values. This of course implies that Motivational Reflexivity promotes two core beliefs. Firstly, that it is good for our beliefs to conform to reality and, secondly, that our values should be pro-social and pro-environmental.
References
Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge University Press.
Bhaskar, R. (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds: Leeds Books.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Freud, A. (1936). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence. London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis.
Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the Pleasure Principle. London: International Psycho-Analytical Press.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
Max-Neef, M. A. (1991). Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections. New York: Apex Press.
The paper presents a comprehensive hypothesis that seeks to explain the nature of reality and how humans understand it, integrating foundational concepts from critical realism, systems theory, and causality. The hypothesis holds that reality can be viewed as a fractal-like structure, generated by underlying organising principles that operate at various ranks in a hierarchy. Starting from acausal foundational principles, the paper explores how systems interact, transfer matter, energy, and information, and contribute to the complexity observed at different levels of organisation. The hypothesis extends to the idea that human understanding is structured by organising principles that differ from reality’s, leading to distinct layers of comprehension reflected in scientific disciplines. The paper suggests that integrating these principles may help bridge gaps between disciplines, such as the disconnect between social sciences and the biological sciences. This unification has the potential to deepen our understanding of both the natural world and human social behaviour, while identifying new pathways for societal change.
Part 1 discussed the structure of society, i.e., the relationships between human holons, such as individuals, organisations or nations, the various forms these relationships can take, and how they alter with time. It notes that, with a very few exceptions, human interactions are much the same as those encountered elsewhere in the animal world. Conventionally, the structure of society is taken to mean its network of cooperative relationships. However, in this series of papers, a much broader definition is used that includes non-cooperative ones. Thus, for example, ongoing wars are also considered a part of this structure. It is also acknowledged that it is not only human needs that dictate relationships and the way that they change but also the values, norms and beliefs held by the related parties. Thus, the subsequent Parts of this series discuss the latter in more detail.
Part 2 described the work of the English philosopher of science, Roy Bhaskar (1944 – 2014), and the English sociologist, Margaret Archer (1943 – 2023). Roy Bhaskar is regarded as the founder of Critical Realism, a philosophy that holds reality to exist and to be the source of truth. It also holds that our beliefs about reality are not necessarily true. Both Roy Bhaskar and Margaret Archer described how culture affects individual agency and how individual agency alters culture. Bhaskar referred to his model as the Transformational Model of Social Activity (TMSA), and Archer to her model as the Morphogenetic Cycle. Archer also described how reflexivity, i.e., an agent’s internal conversations, can lead to cultural and structural change.
Part 3 built on the work of Margaret Archer to describe the outcomes of those internal conversations in more detail. It explains that to satisfy our needs or to avoid contra-satisfiers, we can adopt, form and propagate beliefs that are not necessarily true, but ones thought likely to satisfy our needs. Furthermore, to avoid anxiety caused by circumstances beyond our control we can adopt beliefs that act as psychological defence mechanisms. These beliefs when propagated do, of course, influence culture and structure.
Part 4 now draws on the preceding three parts to discuss the nature of culture in more detail, together with the processes of cultural evolution, stagnation, regression and speciation.
I do worry about some of the opinions that have been coming out of the academic establishment recently. Unfortunately, they appear to be caused by cultural manipulation. That is, the fostering of cultural beliefs by minority vested interests, which can influence academia in the same way as everyone else. Some of these opinions can be extremely harmful to society. Consider for example, the popular view that we lack free will, and that everything is preordained. The justification for this view appears to come from a simplistic assumption about space-time and causality which, although commonly held, lacks empirical evidence. If we were to accept this opinion, then it would completely undermine our sense of agency, i.e., our ability to make decisions and act accordingly. This, in turn, would have an adverse impact on both our psychological wellbeing and our ability to deal with social and environmental problems.
Recently, I had a conversation with an influential academic who expressed the following opinion. “My issue with the concept of truth is that its temporariness tends to get lost as we speak of beliefs, reality and objectivity. … It is not a question of being agnostic (or not) about the knowability of an external, objective world; the question is irrelevant. … I worry that acceptance of an external, objective reality privileges those [who] can claim, based on their authority, to know that reality and dismiss those who do not. This then leads to a justification of oppression and violence.”
Personally, I do think that there is a reality, that we are a part of it, and that it defines what is true and what is not. I have also come to the conclusion that we interact differently with our natural and social environments. The former has no agency and hits us randomly with threats and opportunities that we have evolved to navigate. We do so quite well, in my view, and our success as a species is largely down to this. So, objective truth is important when dealing with the natural environment and this is reflected in our approach to the natural sciences.
On the other hand, our social environment does have agency, and we regard objective truth as being less important. So, we often engage in psychological defence mechanisms such as denial. We also often accept, form, and propagate beliefs that are not necessarily true, but rather ones that we feel are likely to satisfy our needs. So, interaction with our social environment can be very complex indeed. Nevertheless, we are a part of reality, governed by its rules, and there are techniques for identifying those rules, or something close to them, even though the endeavour is far more difficult than in the natural sciences.
However, the endeavour is worth pursuing. We now have a population of 8 billion and this, along with some of our behaviour, is unsustainable. So, if we are to have any hope of altering that situation, then we need to know the objective truth about human nature and our behaviour.
In view of the chaos of conflicting beliefs that we are currently presented with, we do need to find ways of coping. The strategy adopted by the academic referred to above is a good one, so long as it remains entirely personal. However, he is influential, and suggesting to others that there is no objective truth or that it is irrelevant is not a good idea. If there is no objective truth, then all ideas, views, opinions, morals, ethics, etc. are equally valid, or should I say invalid? Because culture relies on shared values, norms, and beliefs, this can undermine the cultural consensus, leading to cultural disintegration.
Approximately 13% of the population are estimated to have dark personality traits such as narcissism, psychopathy or Machiavellianism. I should emphasise that these are personality traits rather than pathologies, and that the behaviour of people with these traits is otherwise normal. However, by virtue of reduced moral and ethical standards, those with such traits are more likely to ascend to positions of power than others. Unfortunately therefore, many of our leaders have these traits. We rarely oppose those with greater power for fear of reprisal. So, our response can be to support them in our personal interest, flight to other organisations or nations, but, in most cases, it is denial. That is, we do not consciously acknowledge the existence of dark leaders until, for example, such time as war breaks out. Such leaders do often falsely claim the truth and it is sensible to point this out. Personally, I would never knowingly follow one, but unfortunately, many do.
However, as well as engaging in other forms of cultural manipulation, it is possible for dark leaders to undermine a belief in objective truth and, for the reasons given above, this is dangerous too. The argument that a belief in the existence of truth empowers dark leaders is incorrect. Rather, a disbelief in objective truth makes their lies much easier to follow.
In summary, people do have a problem with discovering and expressing the truth, particularly in the context of society, and it’s fair for academia to say that. However, academia should also point out that reality defines the truth, and that some human beliefs are closer to it than others.
These are difficult concepts to accept, can undermine our self-image, and this in itself can lead to denial. However, once we are aware of the problem there are techniques that we can use to bring our beliefs closer to the truth than they might otherwise have been. The Buddha even taught this 2500 years ago. Ones worth mentioning are the sociologist Margaret Archer’s meta-reflexivity. This involves reflecting on decisions that we have previously made and beliefs that we already hold to ascertain whether they are associated with our needs. If so, we can make a conscious effort to disassociate and revise them. Then there is the consistency of reality. If two ideas contradict one another, one must be false. Another important technique is empirical evidence gained from observation. Academic, political or other authority is no guarantee of the truth. Psychological defence mechanisms, satisfying beliefs, and vested interests operate in those arenas too. All opinions should be questioned no matter what the source.
Finally, you may also find this entertaining “Beginners Guide to Critical Realism” by Tom Fryer helpful. https://tfryer.com/ontology-guide/
In every nation or organisation, leaders with dark personality traits, i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, or Machiavellianism, are more likely to rise to power than others. The primary interest of leaders with these traits is self-interest, rather than the interest of members of the nation or organisation that they lead. This frees them from ethical constraints when competing for leadership positions. It also frees them from the same constraints when determining the actions of their nation or organisation.
The reactions of members of the nation or organisation to dark leadership are as follows (Challoner, 2024).
They can support the leader. This involves entering into an informal contract with him or her to provide support and assistance in return for the benefits of delegated power.
They can practice a psychological defence mechanism such as denial. That is a failure to acknowledge that the leader has dark personality traits, despite evidence to the contrary.
They can avoid the leader by, for example, emigrating to another nation or joining another organisation. This is also, a psychological defence mechanism.
They can oppose the leader. However, this brings with it the risk of contra-satisfiers such as coercion, threats, or punishments.
The relative proportions of people who react in these ways depends on the culture of the nation or organisation. So, for example, if a culture regards the leader’s behaviour as normal or acceptable, the proportion that support him or her will be greater than in a culture that does not.
However, the greater the proportion of the population that support a dark leader, the lower the proportion that opposes him or her, and the more overt and extreme his or her behaviour will be. Furthermore, if they die or are deposed, it is more likely that another dark leader will take their place. On the other hand, the greater the opposition to a dark leader, the less overt and extreme his or her behaviour. However, the greater the tendency for denial and avoidance. So, dark leadership can still exist in nations and organisations that generally oppose it.
The English philosopher of science, Roy Bhaskar’s Transformational Model of Social Activity (TMSA) recognises that society has two main strands: (a) the network of relationships and interactions between individuals and groups that forms the structure of society and is the subject of sociology; and (b) the individual human volition or agency that is the subject of psychology (Collier, 1994). A similar model, proposed by the English Sociologist, Margaret Archer, comprises three strands: Structure, Culture and Agency (Archer, 1995). In both models there is a feedback process in which society enculturates individuals and individuals enculture society. That is, society forms the individual’s role, values, norms, and beliefs through the processes of socialisation, social learning, cultural manipulation, etc. After a time delay and, sometimes, after alteration, individuals then propagate social structure along with their values, norms, and beliefs, into society. This process is continuously ongoing. Although it can result in social change, it is also possible for society to become trapped in a positive feedback loop in which, for example, a population’s reaction to dark leadership becomes ever more biassed towards support or opposition.
Examples are given in Daren Acemoglu and James A Robinson’s excellent and well researched book, “Why Nations Fail”. This book focuses on extractive, as opposed to inclusive institutions. That is, those institutions that extract wealth from a society for the benefit of a minority or external agents, as opposed to those that share it more equitably within the society. Institutions are groups or organisations that have values, norms, and beliefs. They also have a specific function in society, e.g., water supply or policing. So, an institution comprises both culture and structure. In much the same way as Bhaskar and Archer, Acemoglu and Robinson argue that there is a feedback loop between institutions and individuals that can trap a society in an extractive or an inclusive mode. They refer to the former as a vicious circle and the latter as a virtuous one.
However, extraction vs. inclusive institutions are just one example of vicious vs. virtuous circles. Other examples include: imperialism vs. respect for other nations; war vs. peaceful co-existence; corruption vs. integrity; elitism vs. egalitarianism; and extreme economic inequality vs. its alternative. Many nations and organisations currently behave in the former ways, and I will leave the reader to decide which. However, this behaviour is ultimately a result of support for dark leadership and the vicious circle that it creates. Pre-existing social structures, values, norms, and beliefs that allow these behaviours to flourish are learnt by individuals who, in turn, propagate them unaltered.
So, to avoid extraction, imperialism, war, corruption, extreme economic inequality, etc., it is necessary to alter the culture from one that supports it to one that opposes it. That change can be accomplished by demonstrating to those who support dark leadership that there is a better way to satisfy their needs. This, of course, means the provision of real opportunities for them to do so. In this way, the social structures, values, norms, and beliefs that prevent extraction, etc. from flourishing will be learnt and propagated, and a virtuous circle will be established. There will, of course, be resistance by established vested interests. So, the process will be a slow one requiring much care, patience, and persistence.
References
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A., 2012, “Why Nations Fail. The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty”. London, Profile Books.
Archer, M., 1995. “Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Challoner, J.A., 2024. “A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems, Psychology Ecology and Evolution (Parts 1, 2 & 3) ”. https://rationalunderstanding.com/my-books/
Collier, A. 1994. “Critical Realism. An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy.” Verso, London, UK. ISBN 0-86091-437-2.
Part 1 of this series of papers focussed largely on the principles of systems, ecology, and evolution to describe the ways in which individuals and organisations of all types interact, and so, create the structure of society. That is, how they exchange satisfiers and contra-satisfiers; satisfiers being those things that increase the level of satisfaction of our needs, and contra-satisfiers those things that decrease their level of satisfaction. However, Part 1 did not account for the choices that we make in the ways that we interact.
Human needs motivate our behaviour, but beliefs determine what form that behaviour takes. Although needs are fundamental to everything that has a function, beliefs are an emergent property of humanity, and a consequence of our ability to manipulate information and our highly social nature. However, beliefs can be true, or they can be false. In observing reality, we make mistakes and frequently distort it to satisfy our needs or avoid our contra-needs.
Part 3 will, therefore, discuss the psychological and social psychological aspects of our nature, particularly the beliefs, psychological defence mechanisms, and their socio-cultural reinforcement, that lead to our choices.
In this part, the work of the English philosopher of science, Roy Bhaskar (1944 – 2014), and the English sociologist, Margaret Archer (1943 – 2023), is described and commented upon. Bhaskar’s contribution to the theory of society was twofold. Firstly, his “transcendental realism” dealt with the nature of science in general, and secondly, his “critical naturalism” with the social sciences in particular. The two terms were later conflated by his followers into “critical realism”, the philosophy of science of which he is now regarded as the founder. His transcendental realism is consistent with the author’s “Systems Theory from a Cognitive and Physicalist Perspective”. The latter was derived independently, largely from work on symbolic logic. However, Bhaskar also provides further insights that will be described in the paper. His work can be regarded as falling within the discipline of systems science, although Bhaskar makes little reference to systems. Regarding Bhaskar’s critical naturalism, I generally agree with this. However, there are details on which we diverge that will also be described. Archer’s main contributions to the theory of society were her explanations of social morphogenesis and reflexivity, both of which are also described and commented upon.
It was originally published in January, 2023, has been updated to include observations from:
“A Conceptual Framework for General System Theory”, John A. Challoner, March, 2024.
“Different Interpretations of Systems Terms” sent to the Research towards a General Systems Theory SIG of the International Society for the Systems Sciences’ in April, 2024.
“The Mathematics of Language and Thought”, John A. Challoner, 2021.
The paper discusses systems theory from a cognitive and physicalist perspective. The cognitive perspective holds that we are our minds and cannot escape the constraints imposed by their biology and evolutionary history. Nevertheless, human cognition is a reasonably accurate representation of reality. Physicalism holds that space-time comprises the whole of reality and that everything, including abstract concepts and information, exists within it.
From this perspective, conceptual and theoretical frameworks for systems theory are proposed and described. Concepts include: the importance of structure; the nature of relationships, causality, and physical laws; and the significance of recursion, hierarchy, holism, and emergence. Human cognitive factors are also discussed, including: their limitations; the nature of information and language; and the search for knowledge in a world of complexity and apparent disorder.
The paper includes the implications of this perspective for General System Theory and Social Systems Theory, suggesting further work to advance those disciplines.
Rational-Understanding.com 