The semiotic multistability of time: Literature as a window onto a classic challenge in psychology

Plontke

2022

Culture & Psychology

Self Cite

Art is a rich area in which to study psychological life through the lens of cultural psychology. While any kind of art can be studied within cultural psychology, in the current piece we argue that an art form known as the donor portrait, and more particularly a subcategory thereof known as the contact portrait, visually depicts core aspects of our psychological lives that constitute matters of fundamental interest within cultural psychology. After briefly discussing this particular art form, we focus on how these portraits visually depict four core aspects of cultural psychology. We first explore how the contact portrait navigates the “frontier problem” found at the intersection of individuality and commonality. We then examine how contact portraits catalyze, but do not cause, the viewer’s emotional engagement. The third aspect concerns the human struggle to make sense out of an unknown future. Finally, we discuss the search for meaningfulness beyond meaning-making depicted within these images and lying at the core of our psychological lives. These characteristics of the contact portrait attest to our human striving towards what lies beyond our current state, something that finds expression in the idea of Schaufrömmigkeit—a pious, humble need to see that which is ultimately unseeable.

Section: Writesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Writesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meaningfulness beyond Meaning-Making. Cultural Psychological Aspects of the Donor Portrait

Plontke

2022

Culture & Psychology

Self Cite

“…His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that” ( Chesterton, 1908/2015 , p.14). To stick with the metaphor of images, we can say that while positivism attempts to resolve the multistability of contradictions so that one truth wins out, and while postmodernism oscillates back and forth between the two ad nauseam , sapientia allows us to see both images at once (for a discussion of multistability see Mazur, 2019 ). With regard to power, perennial reflections on the nature of power lie at the heart of sapientia , and the questions that emerge are neither answered definitively away (as in positivism) nor deemed essentially subjective and unanswerable (as in postmodernism).…”

Section: Sapientia As An Early Objection To Positivismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Epistemic Imperialism of Science. Reinvigorating Early Critiques of Scientism

2021

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

Positivism has had a tremendous impact on the development of the social sciences over the past two centuries. It has deeply influenced method and theory, and has seeped deeply into our broader understandings of the nature of the social sciences. Postmodernism has attempted to loosen the grip of positivism on our thinking, and while it has not been without its successes, postmodernism has worked more to deconstruct positivism than to construct something new in its place. Psychologists today perennially wrestle to find and retain their intellectual balance within the methodological, theoretical, and epistemological struggles between positivism and postmodernism. In the process, pre-postmodern criticisms of positivism have been largely forgotten. Although they remain deeply buried at the core of psychology, these early alternatives to positivism are rarely given explicit hearing today. The current piece explores some of the early critiques of positivism, particularly of its scientism, as well as early suggestions to tip the scales (back) in favor of sapientia (“wisdom”). This third option, largely overlooked within mainstream psychology, is of tremendous value today as it is both deconstructive and constructive relative to the shortcomings of positivism. It avoids the overly reductionistic “trivial order” of positivism, as well as the deeply unsatisfying and disorienting “barbaric vagueness” of postmodernism, while simultaneously embracing important core elements of both currents of thought.

“…One does not engage in dialogue with a symbol, but with an other. What is more, for Buber, it is in such I-Thou relationships that we become truly ourselves (Kramer & Gawlick, 2003), just as Bakhtin thought of the self as being fundamentally relational and the distinction between self and other to constitute not binary oppositions but simultaneous asymmetric dualisms (Holquist, 2002; Mazur, 2019). In this respect, both thinkers were at their core anti-Cartesian to the extent that they asserted the value of the other as having an existence apart from our own minds.…”

Section: The Other In Dialogismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What is more, both voices are necessary elements of true dialogue. Rather than being in conflict, this particular combination of inward and outward voices appears to be colored by a degree of multistability , whereby we are generally unable to conceptually entertain both at the same time, as our thoughts flip back and forth between them (Mazur, 2019).…”

Section: The Extrinsic Centripetal Voice and The Intrinsic Centrifumentioning

confidence: 99%

In dialogue with nature: The centrifugal and centripetal voices of historic trees

2020

Culture & Psychology

Self Cite

Dialogism posits that at the core of life lies honest, open, mutual relationships between otherwise independent beings. This position differs from the psychologism that lies at the core of many dialectical philosophies in psychology. The current article examines the two core elements of such dialogue—that which pulls us apart and recognizes the uniqueness of the individual (the intrinsic, centrifugal voice), and that which expands us beyond ourselves and that builds bridges across our divisions (the extrinsic, centripetal voice). The text explores these two elements within the framework of communion with historically significant elements of nature. More specifically, it examines how two particular trees—one in Warsaw, Poland and one in Basking Ridge, New Jersey—inspire deep I-Thou dialogue (in the language of Martin Buber) in ways that differently highlight the importance of the centripetal and centrifugal elements of genuine dialogue. The text explores how we can meaningfully engage with individual non-human voices from nature. It also highlights the importance of materiality within dialogism, and it shows how historically important objects can speak to history in ways that show variation in degrees of intrinsic and extrinsic focus.