One of the aims of this website is to develop
Although integration is --as an intuitive methodology--
of all times, used by scientists, artists and all kinds of creative thinkers,
it was used pre-consciously by Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) and Alfred
North Whitehead (1861-1949), and could be used in the paper and print
era, the arrival of Internet definitely opened an easy and effective way to bring contrasting visions
together and to integrate them. Internet is not only a communication tool,
but thanks to the internet experience a new form of consciousness emerges
in even more people, who realize the paramount importance of integration,
and start using this attitude in their lives, not only intellectually,
but progressively also in their private and professional life.
Inductive of Integrative Logics is a set of rules
than can be used to enable and enhance the process of integration, which
necessitates one or more creative steps of induction. Apparently incongruous
hypotheses or descriptions of a system are considered rather complementary
than mutually exclusive. But the combination of these supposedly complementary
contributions proves often difficult, because their wording probably is
too excessive/concrete for their essential core. A new hypothesis or description
has to be formulated. This is a creative, nowadays still intuitive thought
process. If the previously incongruous contributions can be replaced by
one new formulation, and each previous contribution can be deducted from
it, this new formulation is considered as really integrative, and more
plausible than each contribution on itself.
Inductive logics doesn't yet describe this process
as an operational paradigm, but enhances the probability that such a process
will intuitively occur.
This is a new kind of logics, different from the
traditional Logic. Where the latter is deductive (from premisses to conclusions),
integrative logic is inductive, because it is a tool to develop, directly
and indirectly, new hypotheses. In the past each kind of induction (also
in experimental, exact science) was intuitive. In fact, the only thing
exact science added to human knowledge from Renaissance on, was a controlling
tool: hypothese were examined by comparing their predictions with real
experiments or measurements, and hence refuted or confirmed. But there
was no useful intellectual tool to develop a hypothesis: this creative
process remained up to now within the domain of the subconscious, although
many philosophers and scientists up to now searched during centuries for
an inductive logic.
Rules of Inductive Logics
Along with defining rules for pratical website
integration, it is likely that this experience leads to the discovery (or
the explicit formulation ) of the intuitively felt "laws" of creative,
integrative thinking. These rules or laws try to describe
the intellectual process of integration, and its intellectual attitudes
linked to it.
1. Each contribution, how ever divergent
or even paradoxal, has its value, and should inspire to a more elaborate
integration of the topic. Although there are some reasons for exceptionally
discarding some contributions (see below), the reason "that the other didn't
understand the least of it" is statistically so improbable, that it better
never should be used.
2. Divergent or conflicting contributions should
inspire to a reformulation, either of the former hypothesis or of
the new contribution, or --most likely-- of both.
3. The first, still partially unconscious, step
in the formulation of a new hypothesis (or in the reformulation of an existent)
is the elaboration of a more extended scheme: bringing things together
and ordering them along an intuitively perceived aspect.
4. If a list of loose elements contains more than 3 or 4 items, a schematizing structure is likely to emerge, and should
consciously be searched for. Longer lists should be avoided. This new elaborated
scheme probably will show some gaps, inspiring our creativity.
5. Most incongruencies between contributions
are provoked by improper formulation: concepts often are over-generalized
and proposals often are over-concretized.
6. Over-generalization occurs by a lack
of contrasting experience. As no "exception" for the observation is available,
the factor which is sensible for a possible variation is not observable,
and in this vacuum an over-generalization of the hypotyhesis easily occurs.
Should Newton --like Einstein-- have observed very little or very fast
moving objects, he should never have proposed his simple mechanical equations.
Differentiation of observation, and contrasting experience, is perhaps
the most valuable factor in creativity.
7. Likewise, over-concretization occurs
by lack of inspiration, or lack of contrasting experience. The person honestly
thinks his needs or intentions can only be realized by this precise activity.
8. An integration is not always within the same
level: not all contributions apply to the same levels of abstraction.
But rather than to discard them, they should inspire for adding new levels
to the scheme.
9. If an integration takes all presented elements
into account, more concrete statements could be deduced form the
integrative hypothesis by reduction, i.e. eliminating some elements that
are not applicable in a certain situation. In fact, the possibility to
infer all "partial" hypotheses from the integration is the best available
argument for its plausibility.
10. Although within a communicating group "democratic"
rules can't be used to confirm or to refute the plausibity of a potential
integration (on the contrary: new and creative ideas always start as a
feature of a minority), the feeling or rather the intuitionof
the group members, especially of the author of the contribution, is a good
unconscious indication for the plausibility of the integrative hypothesis. As long
as a hypothesis is not sustained by unconscious agreement, probably some
aspects are neglected. This explains why each integration probably will
be transcended one day, as, by new experience or contrasting inspiration,
more intuitions become conscious. The technique of integration doesn't
consider the temporary presence of more than one proposed integration as
an unacceptable fact.
11. It is a psychological/intellectual rule, stating
that every kind of thinking-in-depth not just reveals aspects of the problem
one tries to tackle, but also one or several underlying levels of human
and intellectual functioning, including psychological resistance, problem
solving methods, methods of creative thinking, etc.
12. One of the tasks of Integrative Logics is
to establish a list of all possible logical structures or frames (I presume that they are not so numerous) to be used in articles. Authors
(and integrating software) could then work along these structures.
13. There is the logical phenomenon of lateral
inspiration: by elaborating one aspect of the topic, e.g. practical
conclusions about waye to influence a process, one becomes aware of the
different aspects that are active within the studied process.
A tentative list of the fundamental logical structures
or frames which can logically organize an integrative site. The
frames probably can be discovered by observing how people unconsciously
and spontaneously organize their texts. When a certain number of frames
is recognized, one can try to integrate them. Most probably there are only
one or a few fundamental frames, whereof many concrete frames are reduced.
In these logical frames some topics are sometimes
so obvious, they can be skipped.
- The descriptive frame
After a definition and simple description of the
studied topic one wants to change of influence. Then a list is presented
of factors which influence the studied phenomenon. Finally a list is presented
of actions that can be undertaken to influence those factors.