Mechanistic (R+) vs Teleological (G+)

In the context of Model 2, Fe is called G+ (gravitic plus) and Te is called R+ (radial plus). I will be using these terms to describe the nature of these two mechanisms; how they differ in their registrations of reality, within the framework of the CTA. If the reader is unfamiliar with the concepts, please first see J+'s Procedural Processing and the definitions of abiotic and biotic touched upon in Redefining T and F.

Causality Registration

Both R+ (Te) and G+ (Fe) are causality-oriented processes. Both deal with explicit deductive reasoning and procedural organization - and are thus both highly represented in academia and in logical pursuits. The difference between them lies in how they register causality, with slightly different axiomatic sets. One has an abiotic axiom and the other a biotic axiom baked into their processing cycle.

But these axiomatic differences also lead to phenomenological differences which are more subtle. The 'experiences' of R+ and G+ are distinct from one another, even when examining the exact same content. In the former, causal events are registered as being due to the mechanics of antecedent vectors. In the latter, causal events are registered as being due to qualia-causalities, or the efforts of agents ('will'). Causality, to G+, is very similar to 'will', as opposed to just procedure. And this is because the animate component is embedded within the causal one.

This means that G+ deals specifically with anthropomorphic causalities, and their qualia-dynamics. Questions about the objective nature of purpose, meaning, will & effort are contended with in the most serious of ways. When taken to the extreme, this can easily lead to philosophical and metaphysical questions about the First Cause (the Absolute Causality) being willful, rather than mechanical, for example. But I actually want to back away from the philosophical and metaphysical realm for this writeup, since these processes are not identical with philosophical beliefs, and all types can believe anything the other does at face value, even though their cognitive experiences differ.

Therefore, the question of what makes up the difference needs to be addressed at a much more computational level. The smallest "unit" of G+ causality needs to be understood at the most granular level possible.

G+ Causality

For the past several centuries, the nature of mechanistic causality (R+) has seen wonderful quantification and success. It's permeated much of science and is the dominant mode of thought in the field. G+ has not attained as much understanding, clarity, or as much cultural reception. How then can we model G+'s form of causality registration? We look to vultologically Measured types and what they say, and how they explain reality.

Different G+ types explain the roots of their implicit beliefs of causality at different degrees of clarity. And when the threads are traced back to a single source, what lies behind all of them is negentropy. I learned about this term through Humberto Maturana's Autopoiesis ^[1], at the recommendation of Jelle.

"The term autopoiesis (from Greek αὐτo- (auto-), meaning 'self', and ποίησις (poiesis), meaning 'creation, production') refers to a system capable of reproducing and maintaining itself." - Source

This concept is important to answer the question of J+'s nature in relation to the biotic and abiotic, since the point at which autopoiesis happens is the point at which Matter starts to have Will. As such, autopoiesis is a good candidate for the smallest unit of G+ causality. It's important to note that this is simultaneously also the smallest unit of consciousness (will). To be biotic is to have qualia, and to G+, this fundamental definition of an object is simultaneously a vector. To live is to will, to strive. Dead matter doesn't strive, but life does; it moves with intent. And this is Schrödinger's concept of Negentropy. That which wills itself to strive, is negentropic. Thus, negentropy is will-driven causality, or J+ and Biotic together simultaneously. However, I've since come to prefer the word Teleology for G+, as the word Negentropic is ultimately mechanistic and dry in nature, and is moreso a way in which R+ would come to understand G+, than how G+ understands itself. Still, both terms hit close to the core of the matter, and I'll be using both in this article.

One way to think of G+ is as the science/causality (and organization) of qualia, which has been explored for centuries. The "study of human consciousness," and the attempt to model it is most typically the result of G+ merging together causality with the biotic, in the same processing loop. And this leads to an over-representation of high Fe types in cognitive sciences, for instance. But before there was cognitive science, the G+ types were doing this merging all along - in esoteric philosophical works and alchemical diagrams.

The 'cabalist' diagrams of esoterics and alchemists are initial attempts at this same consciousness-causality-formulation. I believe it has been mostly Fe/Ti users that, throughout history, have been immersed with modeling consciousness. And this is no surprise since modeling and systematizing is J+'s domain, and consciousness (the biotic) would not be systematized by R- (Fi), which is non-procedural. Generally speaking, the systematizing we find in R types is done to the abiotic realm (R+), while the systematizing done by G types is done in the biotic realm (G+). But it's not just about building theories of the mind, as R+ types can also build such theories, but such models will often lack the same sort of "soul-focus" that G+ theories hold, in the sense that they are algorithms and logical theories, and not qualia-systems. The difference may seem subtle, but it becomes quite distinct after enough exposure to how the two types model things in general.

For the R+ type, even when speaking of the mind and its process, there will be a tacit mechanization present; a focus on the algebra of how the conceptual cogs/gears add up, multiply, divide and so on. A prime example is Socionics, which was built by Te users like TeNi Ausra Augusta using mathematics and logic.

The cognitive theorizing of G+ types instead attempts to elucidate what different phenomenologies emerge from the different evolutions of consciousness a mind may go through in different situations -- something learned via lived experience, more than by mathematics. The investigations done by G+ in the topic of consciousness always contain something implicitly understood by the model-builder (like Carl Jung), as a living being interacting via many I-Thou relationships, about how I-Thou relationships work. And given the manner in which biotic principles still escapes scientific quantification, when G+ types attempt to talk about them and how they work, they can start to sound a bit unscientific - due to them speaking beyond where science is currently at.

Case Study: Jeremy Sherman

Related to this, I wish to share a video of an G+ type, Jeremy Sherman, attempting to explain what I feel are the principles of G+ in a way that's refreshingly clear. He advocates for Terrence Deacon's concept of the autogen, which is the same root idea as negentropy or teleology.

I can't explain it any better than Sherman or Maturana do, so I would defer the reader to their works. But I'll try to give an overview of what he's describing, in terms of CT.

Striving/Trying

Sherman's concept of "trying" and "striving" are seen as the basic qualia properties that are part of cognitive agents and not part of inanimate objects. The moon doesn't "try" to pull the tide. But animals do "try" to stay alive. This "trying" (i.e. biotic + vector) is intuited as being the root/essential difference between living and non-living things, because G+ is a vector process and also a biotic process. Thus, to Sherman the most fundamental quality of living things is trying (biotic-vectoring/forward-striving). Of course this is debatable and it's still early-days for work on consciousness. Sherman is aspiring to be neutral and, together with Deacon, pushing the envelope on the Hard Problem. But, he is, like all of us, partly driven to give scientific language to a deeper implicit intuition -- specifically about biotic reality as he intuits in his own cognition.

It is not only the science that's leading Sherman to say what he is saying, but it's his phenomenological experience of G+ within him, and which he is trying to unveil to the world using axioms and deductive arguments. This isn't' to say he's incorrect, I happen to think he's right, but nevertheless his investigation is driven by fundamental intuitions that match his implicit axioms. This is necessary and valiant work, since there is truth to every aspect of experience we all have, and the types who experience that side of reality most poignantly are often the ones to give it a formulation.

As a G+ type, Sherman's attempting to get to the axiomatic root of G+, providing a foothold from which other more prototypical Fe focuses on causalities of 'mind' can be explained -- such as meaning/mattering, morality, social ethics, will, consciousness. And these are the more native grounds of his attention, as seen on his channel.

In Summary

We can see here that G+ types aim to explain the causality they register as one of vector interactions, but these vectors are 'living'. The rigorous investigation of their own G+ function's assumptions leads down to the basic unit being 'striving' (will), the initial biotic vector, which is autopoeisis; negentropy. This, I believe, is the correct view of G+ at the fundamental level.

However, in practice this negentropic causal awareness leads to intuitions about qualia dynamics; the universal causalities of agents. And this leads to building theories of the mind and consciousness -- the same way R+ more commonly leads to the building of theories of computer science and mathematics. G+'s focus on modeling consciousness is to sociology what theories of physics are to engineering. Both are micro and macro effects of their respective causality orientations. But of course, I must add the disclaimer that no specific content, career-path or philosophical position is tied 1:1 with a function. There are G+ physicists and R+ theorists of the mind (as there should be, since our philosophies are not deterministically tied to type). What I'm describing here is a general statistical trend that reflects these differences in causal processing between the two.

Original thread: https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/model-2-mechanistic-d-vs-negentropic-l/

1. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-009-8947-4[↩]