2 A Theoretical Framework

The framework I shall propose consists of two models of society. Each model has two aspects: one depicts the way people think; the other, the way things really are. The two aspects interact in a reflexive fashion; that is to say, the mode of thinking influences the way things are and vice versa, without ever bringing about an actual correspondence between the two.

The models revolve around the twin concepts of uncertainty and change. The connection between the two concepts is established by defining change so as to exclude everything that is predictable. This means that only events that could not be expected in accordance with the prevailing state of knowledge qualify as change.

Change is an abstraction. It does not exist by itself but is always combined with a substance that is changing or is subject to change. Of course, the substance in question is also an abstraction, without independent existence. The only thing that really exists is substance-cum-change, which is separated into substance and change by the human mind in its quest to introduce some sense into a confusing universe. Here we are not concerned with changes as they occur in reality, but with change as a concept.

The important point about change as a concept is that it requires abstract thinking. Awareness of change is associated with a mode of thinking which is characterized by the use of abstractions; lack of awareness involves the lack of abstractions. We can construct two distinct modes of thinking along these lines.

In the absence of change the mind has to deal only with one set of circumstances: that which exists at the present time. What has gone before and what will come in the future is identical with what exists now. Past, present and future form a unity, and the whole range of possibilities is reduced to one concrete case: things are as they are because they could not be any other way. This principle simplifies the task of thinking tremendously; the mind needs to operate only with concrete information, and all the complications arising out of the use of abstractions can be avoided. I shall call this the traditional mode of thinking.

Now let us consider a changing world. Man must learn to think not only of things as they are but also as they have been and as they could be. There is then not only the present to consider but an infinite range of possibilities. How can they be reduced to manageable proportions? Only by introducing generalizations, dichotomies, and other abstractions. Once it comes to generalizations, the more general they are, the more they simplify matters. The world is best conceived as a general equation in which the present is represented by one particular set of constants. Change the constants and the same equation will apply to all past and future situations. Working with general equations of this kind, one must be prepared to accept any set of constants which conforms to them. In other words, everything is to be considered possible, unless it has proven to be impossible. I shall call this the critical mode of thinking.

The traditional and the critical modes of thinking are based on two diametrically opposed principles. Yet they each present an internally consistent view of reality. How is that possible? Only by presenting a distorted view. But the distortion need not be as great as it would be if it applied to the same set of circumstances because, in accordance with the theory of reflexivity, the circumstances are bound to be influenced by the prevailing mode of thinking. The traditional mode of thinking is associated with what I shall call organic society, the critical mode with `open' society. This provides the starting point for the theoretical models I seek to establish.

How closely a prevailing form of society needs to conform to the prevailing mode of thinking will be one of the questions we must ask in building the models. Even if social conditions are susceptible to the participants' thinking, there are other aspects of reality which are not so easily influenced. Nature is particularly obdurate in this respect: it fails to obey people's wishes as people have discovered in the course of history. Each mode of thinking must therefore have a mechanism for dealing with phenomena that do not conform to its concept of change. That will be another issue to consider. Most importantly, each model must have a flaw which is apparent to us even if it is not apparent to the participants. [See Appendix.]

I shall now proceed to construct the models. Actually, that is something I have already done some thirty years ago, in the unpublished manuscript entitled The Burden of Consciousness that I have already mentioned. For the sake of producing an instant book, I am cribbing here from my earlier work. When I first started to develop the framework, in the late 1950s, there was greater likelihood of the open societies of the West succumbing to totalitarian pressure than the closed societies of the Soviet empire springing open. I did not make any attempt to change the perspective - after all, the framework is supposed to be timelessly valid. Its relevance to the present situation will be explored later.