THE EINSTEIN PROJECT
(original title: From Einstein's Relativity to Family's Dialectics)
September 2004. - Upd. Oct. 2005)
Antonio Rossin
Foreword
Dialectic Education know-how
From Family bottom - up to collective consciousness
Conclusion
Foreword
The necessity of developing the tools of
dialogue among different societies and cultures
to improve tolerance, acceptance and valuation
of differences, calls attention to the main
tool of human communication, language, and
the development of the individual’s thinking
that precedes and produces it.
A rational understanding
of the mind framework, whose expression is
predominantly language, can clarify the logical
variants that best develop mature self-consciousness
with respect for reciprocal diversities,
exposing a constructive comparison with the
precious and irreplaceable bases of different
cultures.
The original study by
Antonio Rossin (http://www.flexible-learning.org) threw light on the dialectic structure
of human thought and language paradigms within
human communication. This puts at any
one’s disposal the know-how to control awarely
and flexibly one’s own active and responsible
sharing in the dialogue between members of
different societies and cultures, towards
co-operation and peaceful co-existence.
In line with this study,
the Einstein Project foresees the delivery
of the pertinent know-how, by way of educational
institutions, to parents as those primarily
responsible for psychological development
in children.
Dialectic Education know-how
At the ominous beginning of this Third
Millennium there are lots and lots of occasions
that call attention to the necessity to expose
and develop the features of human communication
focusing on dialogue, specially among young
people, aiming to set up a common identity
that may favour feelings of peace and fraternal
co-operation between peoples. This goal has
vital relevance in facing current problems.
One instance widely evident is the urgency
of educative messages with aims of primary
prevention of drugs addiction. As Einstein
wrote: 'A new manner of thinking is essential if
humankind is to survive.' This to a humanity-integrating goal focuses
on communication, among single individuals
and among different collective realities.
This article seeks to identify the structure
of the inter-individual dialogue and the
individual thinking behind it, in order to
obtain a model to develop the values of constructive
comparison and peaceful, co-operative co-existence
within a global context of communication.
These values ought to go together with the
necessity of developing the dialogue between
members of different societies and cultures.
I analyze here the general field in which
any manner of communicable thinking, Einstein's
included, operates. We can conveniently call
this field "the Human Universe of Discourse"
and, more specifically, "thinking communicable
especially in language". This approach
seeks to interpret the thinking of humans
as it is expressed through Communication
for the subsequent impact it can have on
one's community and culture – especially
through the development of a flexible mind-network in people. Indeed, we
may conveniently assume that the network
we are looking for is characterized by one's
capacity for developing a New Manner of Thinking
(NMT), thus an alternative to the rigid mind-frame that, we may conveniently assume,
is the quite expectable outcome, as Einstein's
might have described it, of a Previous Manner
of Thinking (PMT). Obviously, in speaking
of such polarities, 'rigid' and 'flexible',
I am only making an outline for purposes
of exposition. I am not suggesting that they
must be found in a 'pure' form in any individual
or situation. Rather, these represent the
two end poles of a continuous spectrum, where
any person's manner of thinking – and of
behaving consistently – can only tend towards
one or the other. The purpose is to
make people’s current manner of thinking
tend preferably towards the flexible polarity
of thinking and behaving.
In a previous paper of mine (1) I proposed the overall formula of UH, encompassing
any Communication set from Family patterning
, as [(A±B)->C] where these terms refer to those of Hegel's
Dialectics (in its original meaning of a
logical process, made with Thesis, Antithesis
and Synthesis.)
Accordingly we will have, in our model of
Dialectic Communication (Education) context:
-- (A) stands for 'Thesis', the 'core' of
the discourse. In daily communication relationships
including family language patterning, (A)
is the person who speaks first, or a statement
that has been put first. We can conveniently
assume this first speaker's speech to be
'positive', (+), by definition: thus, from
now on, (+A).
-- (B) stands for 'Antithesis'. It
is the person who speaks 'second' to (+A).
Naturally, the presence of (B) is optional.
If present, (B) can be either 'positive'
(+) in agreement with (+A), thus (+B), or
'negative' (-) in opposition to or criticism,
amendment or qualification of (+A), thus
(-B).
-- The aggregate (+A±B) stands for
the dialectical discussion set. In the
simplest case of the Family set, it stands
for the two parents (+A) and (±B) speaking
together in front of, and for the sake of,
the child (C).
-- The arrow -> indicates the dialectical
process, from (A) and (B) speaking towards
(C) who is the final user of the discourse
-- (C) stands for 'synthesis', 'network'.
Just pragmatically, the mind network structure
of the Child, who is the target -final user-
of the 'Discourse' at issue.
From this basis, the formula of any communication
practice set admits three theoretic variants
of Dialectical Relationship, or Aggregate:
1. (+A noB). Here the Thesis only is
present and no Antithesis is admitted as
an essential part of the discussion set.
This way, the communication outcome is (+A)'s
Thesis only with no dialectical input from
(±B);
2. (+A+B), or positive/positive. Here,
a further speaker (B) is admitted if only
he or she consents, submitting to a hierarchical
communication pattern from (+A) Thesis.
Thus it will be also positive, (+B).
3. (+A-B), or positive/negative. Here,
the (relatively) negative language of the
Antithesis differs from the positive Thesis
(+A), thus it will be negative, (-B), giving
rise to the (+A-B) Aggregate dialectic interaction,
leading finally to add awareness to (C)'s
mind Network.
Let's remark in passing that the traditional
school Dialectics does not consider the (+A
noB) and the (+A+B) above variants, but the
(+A-B) thesis-antithesis relationship only.
The same should happen with NWT, assuming
the (A,B) relationship to be a 'positive-negative'
Aggregate, thus including the 'negative language'
of the (-B) Antithesis as a concept indispensable
for reciprocal respect and understanding
(2). Specifically, the adoption of
the (+B) variant in the (+A±B) Aggregate
should be viewed as producing a false or
deficient dialectical synthesis, for its
exclusive function of adding the power or
authority of consent to the fundamental authority
of the (+A) Thesis makes it become
dogma and leads to the conflictual repression
and isolation of the discussion partner when
the latter wants to express her/his own diversity.
The subsequent manner of Thinking-Behaving
tends to repeat and reinforce itself in time
as all 'memes' (cultural/ habitual elements,
thinking formulae or paradigms) do.
Obviously, the resulting Human Universe of
Discourse and the correspondent believing
and behaving procedures will suffer heavily
from the pervasive adoption of the Manner
of Thinking above symbolized as (+A noB),
also known as 'the Bandwagon effect', as
the covert source of too many, alas overt,
behaving procedures. At a collective level,
examples might include the absence (noB)
of any Antithesis, or dialectical criticism,
in the 'Discourse' of some German people
leading the horrors of World War II, or in
the 'Discourse' of some Islamic fundamentalist
people leading to to some of the horrors
of terrorism. At an individual level,
suffice it to think of the daily countless
dramatic conflicts due to the absence of
the 'flexible', i.e. able-to-reflect, mental
structure here designated as [(+A-B)->C].
Now that our Network has been theoretically
established, let's see what happens in any
real situation of communication practice,
made with statements-speakers and the public.
For such a situation to exist, there must
be unavoidably a speaker and a statement-thesis
coming first – that we can conveniently call
'positive', (+A) and there may be a second
speaker, or more, coming eventually into
dialectic debate as Antithesis, and all of
this in front of the audience (C).
Thus, (B) can speak:
- - either to accept or increase the affirmation
of (+A). In this case the speech of (B) will
be also 'positive' (in C's view); we can
formulate this Aggregate as (+A+B).
In reinforcing and empowering each
other, (+A) and (+B) speakers form a majority.
The audience (C), having no recourse, will
be compelled to join this majority or feel
rejected from the communication set
and collectivity;
- or to discuss the statements of (+A).
In this case the speech of (B) will
be 'negative' with reference to (+A) taken
as 'positive'; we can formulate this
Aggregate as (+A-B) dialectical relationship.
Notice that the (+A-B) aggregate will form
no forecast majority for the audience to
eventually share in. Vice versa, the presence
of (-B)'s 'negative language' in the same
context of communication together with the
'positive' one of (+A) provides the public
(C) with a choosing chance, thus fostering
the latter's self-consciousness, self-realization
and responsible autonomy. This is the situation
we may identify as the more suitable for
NMT.
Incidentally, the Human Universe of Discourse
includes the present writing too. Therefore,
it is very likely doomed to be falsified
and thus misunderstood by the public (C),
where the latter has adopted the (+A noB)
'false Aggregate' as a network thinking rule.
Clearly, this doesn't happen where (C) is
equipped in advance with the [(+A -B)->C]
mind network. Accordingly, this may
seem to be a minor analysis of the family
feed-back model leading to the arrangement
of a mature mind.
In accord with this analysis, the third variant
(+A-B) of thesis-antithesis dialectical relationship,
characterized by the presence and the valuation
of (-B)’s “negative language, presents as
the reference model towards a New Manner
of Thinking open and flexible, focusing on
respect and valuation of reciprocal diversities
to build up a collective synthesis with peaceful
and co-operative co-existence. As its
predictable outcome, the “network” or mind-frame
of (C) should be identified as the final
target of any communication relationship
practice. (C) is therefore the final
user of NMT, meant to be (consciously and
deliberately, or incidentally and ideally)
the communication set being aimed at installing-improving
the 'Flexible', suitable-to-perform-NMT,
personality in the latter. I assume
here that 'ideally', or assuming goodwill
on the part of the communicator(s), every
communication has the incidental, inevitable,
conscious or unconscious aim of improving
the accuracy, understanding and consensus
of the (+A±B) dialectical aggregate into
the (C) 'Network'. Thus, (C) can be
identified as the individual's mind framework
that is expected, again following Einstein's
concerns, to perform NMT as the starter and
the essential basis of any effective, efficient
and constructive communication practice.
From Family bottom - up to collective consciousness
It seems timely for us responsible adult
people, for us ordinary parents, to look
at how we may apply the same formula or communication
model – in any of its variants – to the practice
of the Family reality, as the original framework
in which occurs the learning of verbal language
together with the earliest patterns of inter-personal
and social communication. The understanding
of this model – of its repeatable formula
- can allow a better performance of
the same NMT on a field of daily practice
towards the development of the flexible mindframe,
made with tolerance and reciprocal respect,
starting from the earliest and more effective
educative formation of the young individual:
namely, (C).
Accordingly, the terms in the formula will
be:
- (A), the "Thesis", is the
parent who speaks first: usually, the Mother;
- (B), the "Antithesis" (optional)
is the other parent (or significant other)
who speaks second to (A): usually, the Father.
- (C), the Synthesis, is the Child
who is forming her mind framework, upon which
she will organize her own future behaving
and believing procedures, under (+A±B) parental
feedback.
In this real situation, any child has had
experience, from birth on, after having been
fed-back in one or more of three self-reinforcing
thought patterns:
the (+A noB) 'one speaker only speaks, no confrontation
is allowed', or
the (+A+B) 'speakers speak to build up bandwagon consent', or finally
the (+A-B) 'speakers speak in dialectical confrontation,
giving (C) a responsible and aware sharing-in chance'.
Thence the child -future adult person- is
expected to choose for her own social aggregation
the same communication set she was fed-back
with inside her family, and practice it as
her individual sharing into the collective
thinking and behaving procedures that form
UHD (the Universe of Human discourse.
Let's now see how the different network variants
can be self-fixed into the individual's mind-frame,
whether [(+A noB)->C] or [(+A+B)->C], or [(+A-B)->C].
To know which of these variants will prevail
in one's mind network, suffice it to look
at the same variants as they form the feed-back
in the real Family situation, at the time
when the young individual is self-fixing
her nervous connections network, so preparing
a preferential path to either the [(+A noB)->C], or the [(+A+B)->C], or, finally, the [(+A-B)->C] 'Manner of Thinking' and subsequent individual,
collective behaving.
In this last regard, to be choosy, the original
title of this paper should go vice versa:
"From Family's Dialectics (education)
to Einstein's Relativity (understanding NWT)":
indeed, just from Family grassroots bottom-up.
Conclusion
To summarize, there are three culturally
embedded network/feedback communication patterns
of thought and behavior. These models can
replicate themselves through subsequent generations
by family feedback mechanism, like cultural
“memetic” inheritance, to imprint the individual
“network” first, and the collective network
later on. These three variants are:
1. The [(+A noB)->C]: one only ineludible message is given
to the audience C. This model seems to prevail
in the western countries' civilization;
2. The [(+A+B)->C]: two messages are transmitted: the second
message, (+B), confirms the first, (+A),
which is the one given by the powerholder,
so reinforcing it; This model
seems to be typical of fundamentalist regimes,
with religious or other ideology claiming
to be infallible, invincible and immaculate;
3. The [(+A-B)->C]: two different, authentic messages are
transmitted, neither in compulsory agreement
nor in compulsory antithesis of each other.
This is perhaps the [formula of ] NMT Einstein
was looking for. Here (-B) may be any stimulus
from any source other than (+A).
Indeed, without B's input in the (A,B) communication
relationship there is no intuitive creativity
or understanding. Nor other practical form
of aware, active and responsible social participation
which we call Democracy.
When (B) merely submits to (+A) by speaking
the same positive (+) language, the hierarchical
(+A+B) outcome becomes an unquestionable
dogma. A consistent manner of thinking outcome
tends to be ingrained and further repeated,
forming a 'meme'. The over-docile model child
tends to becomes the rigid, fundamentalist
hierarchical bandwagoner, brainwashed holy
warrior or orthodox cannon fodder. As the
expectable result -Einstein foresaw it- the
so-called 'Human Universe of Discourse' seems
to have come to a deep crisis today, that
can reasonably stem from the pervasive exclusion
of the (-B) Referential from any thinking-speaking-behaving
situation in what is known as 'consent building'
or 'bandwagon', by either making the (+A)
Thesis coincide paradoxically with the Aggregate,
or making it become dogma by means of the
obliged consent of the communication partner,
and leading in both cases to a debased Network
in (C)'s awareness.
Taking therefore away any [(+A+B)->C] fundamentalist-religious Old Manner of
Thinking, overcoming the paradox of any [(+A
noB)->C] Bandwagon consent-building, and committing
conundrums such as 'Fuzzy Logics' to Occam,
greater attention should be paid to a New
Manner of Thinking, and subsequent behaving,
according to the [(+A-B)->C] formula as explained above. That
is, let's look for a new Universe 'Human
of Discourse' next to prevail, characterized
and fed-back by more and more (+A-B) flexible
thinking in an open and large network, by
less and less (+A+B) fundamentalist conservative
thinking and subsequent behaving.
Parents and Educators need a new discipline
to teach each other about this most critical
meme, nurtured as patiently and sensitively
as other memes - good manners, ethical standards,
physical and mental hygiene practices, up
to political sharing-in. I am convinced that
the vulnerable infant development of confident,
efficient, mature thinking and relationships
is ever harder to establish the longer we
delay involving and patiently encouraging
the infant in exploring and applying the
flexible NMT alongside her/his acquisition
of language. We recognize that literacy
and good grammar need coaching - we don't
absorb them from our surroundings by a sort
of social osmosis like speaking. We need
to recognize similarly that functioning efficiently
in other social interaction-communication
is crying out for a similar basic commitment
by guardians and guidance by pedagogues.
Let's conclude that in this difficult context,
Dialectic Education to flexibility – which
this “Einstein Project” is about – seems
to offer a contribution.
To get Parents and Educators properly informed,
a simple questionnaire could help, to be
distributed through educational institutions
and the media, asking whether they know about
the special formative relevance of dialectical
family feed-back, here discussed and exposed
as the [(+A–B)->C] communication formula.
Once fairly well acquainted with the parenting
feed-back options available to them, they
can decide which of its variants to choose,
in accord with a more aware and mature responsibility.
Children will follow their example.
Finally, let me thank my children Pietro
and Raffaella who helped me build materially
this Project, and all my friends who gave
me a valuable support: one for all, Doug
Everingham for his kind suggestions and the
English text editing.
(Antonio Rossin)
top page
Notes:
(1) The word and the health
(2) Truth, belief, and Negative Language
|
