Kant's Symbolic Knowledge vs Knowledge by Quantifiable Data! w/ Nietzsche, Gasset, Heschel, Heidegger: Symbols condense and encode information, D. Balaganapath, Butz and Bargh (menmtal categories) + McGilchrist, Maimone-Mannheim on Materialist Mindset Fixated on Quantification & laboratory ex[eriments = researcher bias w/ flawed models
Creators: name: Peck Jr, Charles E.
Publisher: name: Knowledge Commons
Year: 2024
Subjects: subject: Signs and symbols--Methodology
subject: Signs and symbols--Religious aspects--Christianity
subject: Signs and symbols--Social aspects
subject: Signs and symbols--Religious aspects
subject: Signs and symbols--Religious aspects--Revivalism (Afro-Caribbean religion)
subject: Bowling Green State University. Dept. of Sociology
subject: Ohio State University. Dept. of Sociology
subject: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dept. of Sociology
subject: University of Arizona. Dept. of Sociology
subject: Harvard University. Dept. of Sociology
subject: Center for World Indigenous Studies
subject: Philosophy of Science Association

description: There is an inherent conflict between the "rigid adherence to quantification and Kant's symbolic knowledge which has been largely bypassed by much of mainstream psychology. There is a consensus that symbols condense and encode information -= which makes them unsuitable subjects of the materialist quantification methodology A major characteristic of symbols is that symbols condense and encode information. D. Balaganapath emphasizes that "A symbol reduces the enormous complexity of communication by using a concrete sign as a kind of shorthand for a complex of interrelated concepts, ideas, and values systems..,. Because of this, symbols make the easy transmission of culture possible." "The meanings that these symbolic forms transmit are complex. Instead of standing for a single referent, they evoke a variety of meanings, some of which may be ambiguous. At times they evoke powerful emotions and can often both unite and disrupt social groups." David A. Butz observes, "National symbols often do not only represent the general concept "nation," but also condense the knowledge, values, history, and memories associated with one's nation." – which mirrors D. Balaganapath statements about National symbols. This dovetails with unconscious research by John Bargh on mental categories and social perception: "Mental categories are absolutely essential for simplifying and understanding the information-rich environment, the express link between perception [of the environment] and action probably exists for a good adaptive reason." Symbolism and Kant's Symbolic Knowledge: D. Balaganapath provides an excellent synopsis of the role of symbols" "Our contact with the world outside is based on symbols. Our language is nothing but symbols. The scripts are still more so. Our art, our poetry, in fact, every aspect of life is based on symbols: We think in symbols, we act in symbols We think in symbols, we act in symbols We live in symbols, we learn in symbols Not surprisingly, Kant, Nietzsche, Ortega Gasset, Heschel, Heidegger state categorically that symbols and in particular Kant's Symbolic Knowledge are vital for human understanding as well as knowledge. Immanuel Kant, an Enlightenment German philosopher (1724–1804), created the theory of "symbolic knowledge." John Glenn stresses that Kant's assessment of symbolism focused on "basic concepts (the categories and the ideas of reason) which the human mind employs can only come to be conceived because they are capable of being first presented in concrete symbolic form!" National Symbols, Patriotism and Emotions that Energize National Symbols Relative to political symbols, David A. Butz states "National symbols pervade most contemporary societies, and public policies encourage the displays of these symbols, yet little research has considered the psychological and social effects of exposure to national symbols. Butz goes on to emphasize that "As Firth and others (e.g., Hartung, 1960) have emphasized in their theorizing on the function of general symbols, national symbols often do not only represent the general concept "nation," but also condense the knowledge, values, history, and memories associated with one's nation. Further, it is clear that national symbols also hold the potential to represent the strong emotional attachments felt for one's nation (Billig, 1995; Firth, 1973)." Jung, Frankl, and William James make the same point – except in regard to spiritual symbolism – that unconscious spiritual symbolism energizes beliefs - and behavior (National Symbols as Agents of Psychological and Social Changepops_725 779..804, David A. Butz) I should add briefly – that idea is consistent with Bargh's theory of automated social perception linked to actions = social consciousness. Jeremiah Lasquety-Reyes, author & widely quoted expert on Filipino ethics - in an email reply to me, "Hi Charles, I completely agree with you that this extreme adherence to materialism is too restrictive and limiting, and frankly fails to capture so many richer aspects of human experience and psychology. It leaves the field of psychology all the poorer. I am myself looking for a framework that helps me confront it. Partly, I think an alternative metaphysics is needed, one that respects the reality and meaning of things like love, relationships, and the profound reality of other people as people and not just as a compound of atoms, chemicals, and neurons firing. Glad that we're on the same page!" Iain McGilChrist also emphasizes that "The scope of inquiry and understanding of the Materialist Ideology with its rigid adherence to the actually arbitrary principle of quantification and over-emphasis on physiological characteristics severely "restricts and limits" data available and the analyses that can be performed." Half of human conscious is not strictly quantifiable: hope, art, dreams, music, poetry, true love, awe-wonder, freedom, ideals, justice, - not to mention death. I would briefly question how a methodology – described by McGilChrist in terms of a "rigid adherence to quantification" – which is appropriate to physics or chemistry - got applied to human consciousness is mindboggling. I believe a historical perspective is necessary to grasp the situation. The focus of this essay is an inherent conflict between Kant's Symbolic Knowledge - which philosophers now accept as a pivotal theory for human consciousness – and the materialist fixation with quantification. That being said, all the philosophers also agree that symbolism is outside rational analysis and in particular outside the materialist methodology and its "rigid adherence to strict quantification! II. Symbolic Knowledge vs Knowledge by Quantifiable Data! The most important and exceedingly difficult task of our time is to work on the construction of a new idea of reality. Wolfgang Pauli How did Western Academia transmute from the "Symbolic Knowledge" of Immanuel Kant, Nietzsche, Gasset, Heschel, and Heidegger to "knowledge-as-quantifiable-data"?!! The Irony is that Kant, Nietzsche, Ortega Gasset, Heschel, Heidegger, Ernst Cassirer, and the bulk of western philosophy state categorically that symbols - as well as metaphors - are vital for both understanding and knowledge. Abraham Heschel, a prominent leader in the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s who walked with MLK on the Selma march, observed: "Kant has demonstrated that it is utterly impossible to attain knowledge of the world as it is because knowledge is always in the form of categories and these, in the last analysis, are only representational constructions. Yet, most philosophers also state that symbolism is - to a very large extent - outside the realm of cognitive processes, strict quantification and rational analysis. In effect, symbolism and materialist quantification are mutually exclusive principles. On top of that there are some schools of thought in psychology that embrace symbolism. Both Viktor Frankl and Muzafer Sherif emphasize that schools of thought in psychology as well as scientific disciplines in general are largely separate and disconnected entities in today's world. Symbols and archetypes are central to Jungian psychology. Mental categories-stereotypes are pivotal in Bargh's theory of the unconscious. Child development is strong in symbolism.