Reality, a Closed or Open System in the Social Imagination...

 

I was recently was having a 'coffee table' discussion about entropy and the concept of the universe being an open or closed system came up. Most people think that a closed system is a system in the state of being self contained... with no way in and no way to exist it. 

But, that's not entirely true especially since we can imagine that there is a way in and even a way out and that there is something outside of it. In such imagination, one could, in fact, imagine that just by doing so (imagining) is another aspect of a closed system in which the social imagination exists. And, thus, an open system is just imaginary as a closed system.  Or maybe its just the other way around.

 

Let's liken it to that of the Russian doll with one doll inside another doll and so on. You can also make the argument that since no one tell if the universe is being affected from an outside source or other universe or dimension, then it can be concluded a closed system.

Effectively, there exists no space or time outside of the universe that we could know since the way we understand the universe is based on how we experience it as a system and in saying that... we can only experience a closed system because it has limitations that are visible and experienced in time and space that we understand though we may never know it in its entirety.  

The universe is open if it is affected by something outside of it. But again, how could you or I tell if it were being affected by something outside of it unless you could go outside of it. Sure, we can say that we have found some kind of particle or wave or graviton or unusual occurrence in what we assume to be our stable closed system, but rather it is part of the very same system.

I think most people define the universe as a closed system, though a few people don't. As a sociologist, I am more curious as to why there is even a discussion as to whether or not the universe is a closed or open system.

An open system is only imagined as something that could be. Interestingly, the very instance that we care to contemplate it... it becomes closed. That's because we do live in a closed system. But, some suggest its enough to consider it. Its open because we have to mind or ability to recognize it as a possibility; wherein, an external force has access to it via a closed system...  in order that we might engage the open system.. which simultaneously suggests that the closed system though not actually ‘closed off’ and hence this open system. Therefore, an open system is only accessible via a closed system in the social imagination if that makes any sense.   

We could then suppose that an open system is actually a closed system with doors and when they open we notice something has changed but we are not sure what or why or by what forces other than supposing someone opened a door. Perhaps, that means there is an external force, another aspect of our closed system but of a higher dimensional nature, or perhaps a Creator.  

Fundamentally, we must acknowledge that a closed system simply means a recognizable thing that has for its own good a set of laws/rules and or principles. If we lived in a closed system whether or not it has a time limit doesn't mean we live in an open system. A closed system means that a thing is framed out by certain features/attributes/rules/principles etc. 

 

Those features/attributes etc. can be maintained by set principles or equations built in or along with time and space so that interactions use up and also produce energy in the using up mode. For most people, time and space appear to us in a linear fashion and that certainly doesn't mean we live in an open system at all... but that we may, in fact, live in a strange 'closed' looping system.

At least we have the Second Law of Thermodynamics to keep us sane as it states that in a closed system exists entropy so that any loop may sooner or later come to an end. What is entropy? Many say it is the state of order to disorder. But, can we find that truth here and now? Sure, its visible in many aspects of the universe and in nature. One can consider that the human body is in perfect ‘order’ when born or even before it is born and upon entering this so called space of reality, it begins immediately to move toward disorder. For me, a closed system contains entropy for a purpose because a closed system has 'natural' laws/boundaries... including both a startup and rebooting. 

In an open system, is there a real beginning or end to it in the social imagination? I don't think we could ever know that since we are obviously embedded in a closed system or maybe we could say we are embedded in an open system making it appear closed. In any case, would entropy stop or cease to exist in taking that position? We really cannot know that unless we give up the idea of a start up and reboot. In an open system by definition, we would be so loosely associated and blended that one thing would not know another thing as a thing in itself. Its all open to interpretation. As far as I know, we don't live in such a system.

Procrastination vs Decisiveness in the Social Imagination...

 

    Psychology Today says that everyone puts things off sometimes, but procrastinators chronically avoid difficult tasks and may deliberately look for distractions. Procrastination tends to reflect a person’s struggles with self-control. For habitual procrastinators, who represent approximately 20 percent of the population, "I don't feel like it" comes to take precedence over their goals or responsibilities, and can set them on a downward spiral of negative emotions that further deter future effort.

    Procrastination also involves a degree of self-deception: At some level, procrastinators are aware of their actions and the consequences, but changing their habits requires even greater effort than completing the task in front of them... [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/procrastination]. 

What do I say? Well, I know as you do that there are four main types of avoidance archetypes, or procrastinators: the performer, the self-deprecator, the overbooker, and the novelty seeker. Interesting is that all four types are intertwined. The performer is an actor, the self-deprecator is one who disapproves of their acting abilities and the overbooker misjudges the crowd/audience and the novelty seeker is one who makes it look like a new act. 

One has to ask is this a problem for the social imagination and why? Yes, it is but it could be strategically useful as it can appear to give way for the decisive personality type in the social imagination. Someone has to be the scale tipper.  Who is the decisiveness type? 

That should be obvious... the decisiveness type is the first responder. The one who goes in headfirst but not headlong... Decisiveness means coming to a firm conclusion quickly and effectively. As simple as that definition is, there is immense power in good decisions. The social imagination needs both and of course there are times when one or the other seems to be outnumbered and out of this come social pitfalls... when things go awry for all people/society... for all of the social imagination.

What's funny about that even when things either appear to or actually go wrong is that those people who are procrastinators feel left out of the decision making. Whether or not they really are does not matter. What matters is that they feel left out. 

Moreover, they are more likely to declare so and so is moving too fast, cheating and or creating a hustle in order to take advantage of them or the situation. Also, they all too often demand that what happened wasn't fair, that there should be more time, or a recount of time and for sure... someone is to blame.  

Politically speaking, I have seen these types on either side of the party fences. What I observe more often is that they, looking at the characteristics of the procrastinator, like to virtual signal... simply because at the end of the day they never had anything to do or say  with the decision (s) made but want to appear as though they did. They like to glam onto others, decision makers, thereby making themselves look good... look like a decision maker when they are anything but. 

The decision maker needs no one to prod or push them but they do need to access information to make decisive decisions. That doesn't mean that all their decisions are good or right. That depends on the information sources they use. We can suppose the same about a procrastinator who eventually makes a decision... it may not be good or right. In fact, they may have missed the chance to make a really good or right choice/ decision because they PROCRASTINATED. 

Procrastinators and decisive decision makers can live together in the social imagination... after all, its about social interaction, agreement reality and its agreed upon outcomes that either sustain a group or cause it to free fall. Me personally, I am decisive. And, I am willing to accept the consequences and even act on those decisively. 

This makes me conservative. Which in principal means that I prefer to have the freedom to make choices to be decisive whereas the other kinds of people, procrastinators like to have all the time in the world and they more easily will hand over their power to someone else if they are led to believe its going to be a good decision for them in the end. Ironically, they never wonder what 'end' that means.

Now, the procrastinator does have a defense... they say it turned out in the end. How would they know? If anything, they just accept the end for what it is. As, for the decisive decision maker they think they are the ones who made it all happen and likely they did. The procrastinator's best defense is that waiting was for the best... but again, how would they know as they weren't motivated from the get go.

 

 

Conservative vs Liberal Mindset in the Social Imagination...

Not so far back, I posted about the conservative mindset being more stable and able to accept and appreciate a more stable, balanced society... a more secure social reality in the social imagination. Over the years, conservatives tend to favor institutions and practices that guarantee stability.  

In 1959, the chairman of the British Conservative Party, Quintin Hogg said, "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself". That's still true.

What is it that makes one a conservative or a liberal? Is it a personality type, a predisposed mindset or socially acquired as in 'learned'? I want to delve into the personality type of the conservative vs. the liberal mindset in the social imagination. You may not have even given it any thought but there is a significant difference. 

Conservatives, are more cautious whether their caution is a predisposition or learned, such behavior leans to or leads to pause and consideration... caution causes one to have or come to a greater situational awareness; whereas, liberals are constantly seeking novelty because of their strangely self-serving interests - a democratic radicalism which equals an - "am I being served?" attitude. 

Indeed, each of those mindsets "the conservative or liberal" is keenly different... that being one from the other. I plan on going into more detail and you will be surprised. Before I do that, let's look at what Scientific American has to say about such differences. 

    On the whole, research shows, conservatives desire security, predictability and authority more than liberals do, and liberals are more comfortable with novelty...SA

Largely, that is because liberals are self-serving. This stems from their comfort with novelty... for the liberal, the world is a place to explore not to organize. Unless, they can organize it in a way that suits their comfort level which is loose association and democratic radicalism. Now, to some that sounds lovely to some... but in a world such as we live in, loose organization isn't necessarily effective for a majority. Reliable, stable organization that stems from conservatism allows a majority of diverse people to live in security... hence, the conservative mindset is wisely motivated.  

The liberal mindset sees individuals at the center of all social activity; hence, for them, their self-interest is not the same as “selfishness”. Their self-interest is premised on the idea that all individuals have specific (“reasonable”) goals and that they behave in ways that best enables them to achieve those self-interests. How is that bad or wrong? The irony here is that individuals having such a mindset can't be expected to actually care about others in a way that provides security and stability because they are solely concerned with their own individuality and their being served in regards to their 'own' goals.

Liberals want state power to do a lot of things as in take control. Its because of their radical individualism and strange comfort with novelty that they prefer state control. Ironically, at the same time, one might think that they also agree with traditional aspects (as do conservatives) that the state should protect the competitive market, protect property rights, protect the right to be free. Liberals want security in state control not in the hands of the people.... lest their individual interests might not be served. So, liberals aren’t opposed to authority, only to certain kinds of authority. 

They just want to be left out of the picture... so it appears that they virtue signal equal opportunity and justice and conflict resolution. But, they are cowards. They prefer having no reliability in personal and in national matters...hence the state at the helm rather than their own participation. They are in fact, negligent citizens in this respect.

Again, its their preference for and comfort with novelty that  make them self seeking or self interested which is not 'selfishness' really. Its that they prefer to live a life based on feelings and they feel that they are always in the right to be their 'own' person as is everyone else.

Having such a liberal mindset leads to disassociation, disorganization and in the worst case scenario - chaos. Hence, we see today's democratic party is falling apart. The problem is that liberals never want 'personally' to take action or take 'personal' responsibility for their actions. The state is their scapegoat admittedly so or not.

They are the kind of person that won't do anything unless asked. They think its being democratic. Also, being a good democrat means liking to be asked and that you always ask them first. They like to be asked, and they want you to ask them. They treat everything in their life as a 'vote' rather than the duty of a knowledgeable and experienced citizen. They are insulted if you don't ask and heaven forbid that you make a move without asking them first. 

They are unteachable and shout things like, "Please don't lecture me"! Sure, they have the appearance of being teachable as they are drawn to new things (novelty); but, they don't learn and they don't learn from their mistakes because they don't like being told that what they are doing is useless and self serving. They retaliate by telling you that you are a hater, an intolerant person who enjoys conflict, a person who is stuck in the past and cannot move forward. 

One might think, especially if you are a liberal, that I am talking about conservatives. That's the real problem for liberals... they don't see their fault or part in the problems of the wider framework. Because, its  not them that's the problem but the state in control. Their answer to problems is to re-orchestrate the state rather than reflect on their own personal responsibility and their role in society. The answer thus is to change the state... but that also contributes to the problem because changing the state never solves the problem.

Of course, to be fair, conservatives might also like to be asked but NOT in the sense of being a democratic radical about it. They seek to retain stability; and thus, if the well being of stable society is at risk and asking what to do because you don't have a clue what to do... Yes, its better ask someone who does (Not the STATE). 

We, conservatives, don't seek to change the state. We, conservatives, seek to improve and or build on what already exists because we know it has served and continues to serve the greater good and masses in context of stable/secure society; and we know that starts with each and every person - you!

Do you know a liberal? I think everyone does. You know them by their 'radically novel' liberal mindset. They are like mold. They spread and or cling as a parasite to healthy structures until they kill it and then they move on to new novelties. 

 

ONLINE SOURCES ~ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-liberal-brains-might-have-some-real-differences/

complexity.http://bev.berkeley.edu/ipe/IPE%202010/3%20Lecture%20Rational%20Choice.pdf

Social Constructs in the Social Imagination...

 

For years, I have been discussing on this platform the social imagination as the construct for social reality. Largely, that construct (created in the social imagination ) is built on agreement and even through disagreement; because, in that, we agree to disagree... hence, agreement. I always like to find other thinkers/authors who agree with me and here are a couple.

1-    Social realities are all around us. Think of cocktail parties, football games, bar mitzvahs, political rallies, and even nations.  These are all social realities. And in connection with this sort of thing both parts of that phrase “social reality” are worth focusing on. All the things I just mentioned are things that really and truly exist.  

    They aren’t figments of anyone’s imagination; they’re real.  Really real.  Objectively real.   But at the same time, they're all made up entities, at least in a sense. Cocktail parties exist only because a group of people get together and say “we're having a party now.”  People just sort of decide that these things are going to exist.  And so they do exist.  Seems kind of like magic.

    It isn’t really magic, but it is puzzling.  At bottom, social realities are just creations of the human mind.  Not individual human minds, but collections of human minds.   You can’t all by your little lonesome create a social reality.  Try it and you really will end up with something that’s just a figment of your own imagination.  But put a bunch of people together, let them exercise their imaginations together; let them agree; and presto, you’ve got a new social reality. 

    What could, I suppose, make that sound a little like magic still is the fact that it takes at least two minds to make a social reality. If one mind can’t do it, why are two or more minds any better, you might ask.  Well the answer is that social realities are, by their very natures, founded on agreement.   If a bunch of humans agree to create a club, then there is a club.  

    If a bunch of humans agree to form a nation, then there exists a nation.  And although clubs and nations are nothing but products of human agreement, they're not figments of our imagination.  To be sure they are products of our imaginations, but they’re real products, not mere figments.  Once we agree that they exist, they are as objectively real as rocks and mountains.

    Not only are things like clubs and nations real, they are  really important.  They have a huge impact on our lives.   We’re immersed in a universe of ever changing social realities.  And they play an immense role both in determining how we live and how well we live.   Our earliest forbears foraged on the savannah and huddled in caves. 

    Civilizations have risen and fallen and with them, ways of life have come and gone.  Throughout these massive changes in the social world, the biological and physical worlds have changed too -- but not as radically, and mostly in ways that are more or less direct consequences of changes in the human social world. 

    So the social world affects not only the way humans relate to one another, but also how we interact with the rest of the biological and physical world.   Science, for example, is really a complex social undertaking by which humans collectively seek to understand the physical, biological, and even the social world itself... [https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/social-reality].

_______________________________________________________________

2-    Just as socialization is mostly determined by the world and culture around us, our perception of the world is also influenced by external forces. Consider your own society, for example. A society describes a group of people who live in a defined geographical area, interact with one another, and share a common culture. 

    How do you think your society was "constructed"? Who decided upon the appropriate social norms and behaviors that shape your reality and experience? Sociologists understand that reality is socially constructed, meaning that people shape their experiences through social interaction.

    In 1966 sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann wrote a book called The Social Construction of Reality. In it, they argued that society is created by humans and human interaction, which they call habitualization. 

    Habitualization describes how “any action that is repeated frequently becomes cast into a pattern, which can then be … performed again in the future in the same manner and with the same economical effort” (Berger and Luckmann 1966). Not only do we construct our own society but we also accept it as it is because others have created it before us. Society is, in fact, a matter of “habit.”...[https://www.coursehero.com/study-guides/wmopen-introtosociology/reality-as-a-social-construct/].

 

Commentary ~ I agree! Sadly, the rest of the world, especially those who have power, control and the money, including universities, will never admit that above truth about social reality. Why? They don't want to lose their grip on the wider social imagination and the social reality at hand because if they do... it and they with all they control in it will disintegrate. 

You might be wondering why the Salvador Dali painting as my choice of photo (see above). It represents what I just explained. When those who have power, control and the money to retain that power lose their grip on the social imagination, and they lose their grip on social reality and their power/control and money... 

The clocks are representative of time. You see time is only 'real' because it is necessary in the social imagination as a means of ordering the social reality. The social imagination 'agreement reality' needs time. It needs time for agreement and once agreement is established, it sets a course (what appears as a way forward) for the agreed upon person/thing/place/event to become real in the social imagination's social reality construct. The more who agree the stronger the construct... at least while it lasts.

Now, how long the agreement (including disagreement) lasts is determined by and determines everything else in the social imagination's construct of social reality.

Keep in mind, in the social imagination, a vicious cycle exists, a strange loop which perpetuates those things which we keep agreeing on and disagreeing on ...because, its a fallen world, a world in a state of decay and which at some point... we should all want to see come to an end. It may look like things have changed, but in the social imagination's social reality they don't and won't or simply can't... Its a fallen world folks! 

 

 

 

....until the Creator Returns!