Chapter 3 Historical Views of Inquiry

As noted in the previous chapters, this discussion is outside the realm of empirical science because it deals with knowledge that is outside the mainstream of scientific knowledge and applies method that is not empirical. The ideas expressed here admittedly go beyond many readers' direct physical experience. I will begin with a discussion of what the study of metaphor contributes to a theory of inquiry. I then describe human history as an evolution of metaphor, showing a conventional view of what may have been its phases. Finally, I describe the structural basis for a different view of this history as the evolution of the metaphorical system, and reinterpret a portion of the history, applying this structural basis.

I will adopt the Lakoff and Johnson definition of metaphor (page numbers are the source of the text that precedes them):

We base our actions, both physical and social, on what we take to be true. On the whole, truth matters to us because it has survival value and allows us to function in our world (p.160). We understand a statement as being true in a given situation when our understanding of the statement fits our understanding of the situation closely enough for our purposes (p.179). In order to acquire such truths and to make use of them, we need an understanding of our world sufficient for our needs (p.160). We perceive various things in the natural world as entities, often projecting boundaries and surfaces on them where no clear-cut boundaries or surfaces exist naturally (p.161-162). Human purposes typically require us to impose artificial boundaries that make physical phenomena discrete just as we are: entities bounded by a surface (p.25). Truth is relative to understanding, and the truth [we perceive] is relative to the normal way we understand the world by projecting orientation and entity structure onto it. In order to understand the world and function in it, we have to categorize, in ways that make sense to us, the things and experiences that we encounter (p.162). Since the natural dimensions of categories arise out of our interaction with the world, the properties given by those dimensions are not properties of objects in themselves but are, rather, interactional properties, based on the human perceptual apparatus, human conceptions of function, etc. [and] make sense only relative to human functioning (pp.163-164). Properties and similarities can be experienced only relative to a conceptual system (p.154). Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature (p.3). [Metaphorical necessities create] a coherent system of metaphorical concepts and a corresponding system of metaphorical expressions for those concepts (p.9). Metaphors are grounded by virtue of systematic correlates within our experience (p.58). The very systematicity that allows us to comprehend one aspect of a concept in terms of another will necessarily hide other aspects of the concept. In allowing us to focus on one aspect of a concept, a metaphorical concept can keep us from focusing on other aspects of the concept that are inconsistent with that metaphor (p.10). Metaphorical orientations are not arbitrary. They have a basis in our physical and cultural experience (p.14). Because concepts are metaphorically structured in a systematic way, it is possible for us to use expressions from one domain to talk about corresponding concepts in the metaphorically defined domain (p.52). Metaphor provides a way of partially communicating unshared experiences, and it is the natural [common] structure of our experiences that makes this possible (p.225). We understand experience metaphorically when we use a gestalt from one domain of experience to structure experience from another domain. [Mutual understanding is made] possible through the negotiation of meaning [enabling] communication of unshared experience or creating a shared vision (pp.230-232). Metaphor is imaginative rationality [and] new metaphors are capable of creating new understandings and, therefore, new realities (p.235).

The literal definition of metaphor is "that which is carried over," which may itself be seen as a metaphorical expression of a concept commonly applied to experience. Robert Frost saw metaphor as "the one permissible way of saying one thing and meaning another" (in Perrine, 1956, p.48). The separation of meaning from the literal interpretation of what we say provides an economical means of expression: two, or more, for the price of one. Understanding that when we do this intentionally it is a legitimate means of communication, we begin to recognize that much of what we communicate takes advantage of this economy. However, unintentional metaphor may result in miscommunication, in which case we call it ambiguity. Positivistic systems of inquiry attempt to eliminate all unintentional occurrences of metaphor. This is practically impossible. The alternative is precise negotiation of meaning where systems of meaning are developed from dogmatic expressions of logically related ideas tied to common interpretations of experience. Such systems have been called paradigms.

According to Lakoff and Johnson, experience has a both a conceptual and an expressive meaning, both of which comprise their own metaphorical systems. By their definition, use of metaphor is essential to conceptual systems of action on which our survival and identity depend. The circularity inherent to the influence of metaphor can result in arrested development where dogmatically applied systems of meaning are hypostatized, or perceived as absolute. Alternatively, new metaphors can result in new and improved understandings based on incorporation of progressive attempts to match expressive metaphor with ongoing experiences.

The study of metaphor reveals the arbitrary nature of discursive descriptions of reality. In other words, a specific way in which we describe reality in language and other forms of expression has no absolute or physical connection to some existence independent of language. There are an infinite number of ways to describe in literal form something that appears to us as real. The evidence revealed in the study of metaphor nonetheless points to a sub-literal meaning associated with language that remains the same even when used with many different literal forms. Sub-literal meanings can carry subtle differences in ideas that cannot be found in the literal translations. When we use metaphor, it is not the literal meanings we hope to express, but the sub-literal meanings that are evoked.

Thus, the study of metaphor provides clues to a visceral connection between discourse and an unconsciously present universe that structures human reality. Such ideas, and the examination of them, are specifically excluded from natural science, which focuses on the apparently absolute nature of human reality. Broader perspectives and more inclusive universal models require us to go beyond the limitations of natural science to find rational explanations for these un-real phenomena. The expansion of science into these realms has been called by some "human science," a pioneering effort that depends significantly on the study of metaphor.

Lakoff and Johnson express the integrative power of metaphor by describing it as the link between the individual, the society, and reality (which I will not attempt to define here). Study of metaphor becomes important in this three-way relationship because of the promise it holds for improving it.

The capacity for Self-understanding presupposes the capacity for mutual understanding. Common sense tells us it's easier to understand ourselves than to understand other people. After all, we tend to think that we have direct access to our own feelings and ideas and not to anybody else's. Self-understanding seems prior to mutual understanding, and in some ways it is. But any really deep understanding of why we do what we do, feel what we feel, change as we change, and even believe what we believe, takes us beyond ourselves. Understanding of ourselves is not unlike other forms of understanding-it comes out of our constant interaction with our physical, cultural, and interpersonal environment. At a minimum, the skills required for mutual understanding are necessary even to approach Self-understanding. Just as in mutual understanding we constantly search out commonalities of experience when we speak with other people, so in Self-understanding we are always searching for what unifies our own diverse experiences in order to give coherence to our lives. Just as we seek out metaphors to highlight and make coherent what we have in common with someone else, so we seek out personal metaphors to highlight and make coherent our own pasts, our present activities, and our dreams, hopes, and goals as well. A large part of Self-understanding is the search for appropriate personal metaphors that make sense of our lives. Self-understanding requires unending negotiation and renegotiation of the meaning of your experiences to yourself. In therapy, for example, much of Self-understanding involves consciously recognizing previously unconscious metaphors and how we live by them. It involves the constant construction of new coherences in your life, coherences that give new meaning to old experiences. The process of Self-understanding is the continual development of new life stories for yourself. (pp. 232-233)

As worldview changed from milestone to milestone in history, its content retained certain essential dimensions as shown in Figure 4.

Schumacher (1989) describes the relationship between evolution of metaphorical structure and the process of inquiry. His description is particularly relevant because he explicitly addresses the dimensions mentioned above of epistemology, ontology, authority, and innovation. An analysis of Schumacher provides the foundation for the systemic structure to be described here.

Schumacher's structure prescribes that the purpose for consciousness is experiencing the world as a fully liberated individual acting at ultimate capability and avoiding alienation from oneself or others in the world. The individual needs to engage confidently in the physical inquiry necessary to explore all options to resolving problems in thinking and living. This includes joining with others and the world in a common sense co-making of the world.

Co-making is a process within which, as individuals, we interact with others and with objects in the world to construct reality, discourse, and culture (systems of meaning). Meanings of Self and not-Self are distinct but coevolve. The meaning assigned respectively by an individual and the surrounding society to a specific Self consists of structure and action. Living is a balance between yielding and seizing for Self. Systems of meaning are cultivated individually and collectively, beginning with questions, which imply possible answers, and the determinations of answers to those questions that are necessary to action. Meaning is metaphorically related to the Self/other archetype, fitting systems together into a single coherent structure. Every Self has a resulting shape, or posture, that is produced interactively with the world, and that connects the being of the Self to the world. The Posture of the Self determines a specific potential and role in the structure, and different postures change the relationship between Self and other. The Self resolves the detail perceived in the world into wholes. Parts are realized together as definite objects in fixed places in time and space. This structure is the end product of inquiry.

Possibilities for error in the process occur in the way meaning is attached to objects and in the effort to absolutize systems of meaning. Self is seen as radically distinct from world and absolutized systems of meaning can come to exclude other, more efficacious, systems. Fixed systems of meaning can dominate and exclude by force all other systems, in other words, mechanical systems can exclude organic systems. Specifically, objective and analytic processes can come to dominate and exclude subjective and synthetic processes. Seeing Self/Other as composed of pieces can exclude seeing Self/Other as composed of wholes. Action can come to be seen as more important to achieving purpose than inquiry because definition of Self is virtually ignored in action. Having power and efficacy can unduly focus attention on Other, resulting in the meaning of Other being determined exclusively by Self, and eliminating the co-making of reality.

Wholeness is essential to constructive systems of meaning. Without wholeness, systems become Self-serving, exploitative, predatory, and adversarial, in other words, destructive. This error is avoided by giving equal attention to all options, especially regarding the Self/Other definition, and by intentional joint movement between Self and Other. Questions of structure are left open regardless of the need for provisional closure during action. The value of alternatives and different perspectives coexists as a matter of faith with the alternative closure needed for action. Inclusion of options and perspectives is a matter of joint movement for mutual well being. Addressing structure that has become fixed in archetypes or paradigms is just as important as action because the efficacy of future action will depend on the ability of structure to evolve. To share being is to share meaning, accomplished by speaking together, making inquiry a collective, social process. Allowing individuals to act for themselves, trusting their ability to agree on structure through consensus and dispersed decision making, retains alternatives and perspectives. Each is realized through the others acting for themselves with the intention to construct jointly. Inquiry, the process of joint construction of reality, is achieved in circles of consensus that inspect alternatives and merge results into a single coherent structure used provisionally for action. Wholeness comprises both the production of the provisional fixed structure and the ongoing inquiry into the nature of the structure.

Specific content is associated with this process. Living entities use the products of perception to construct a World of separate and distinct objects in time and space relative to themselves. They perceive the World as the observed and their consciousness as the observer. The World comprises a ground, developed during inquiry, which is accepted automatically and to which consciousness applies meaning. Construction of World, inquiry, is distinct from action, which is a logical application of energy depending on a preexisting structure of the World. The construction process removes randomness and incoherence from perception and discourse, leaving a logical World conceived naturally as objective, concrete, and permanent. Once accepted, the structure is taken for granted and becomes transparent: a ground against which action is played out in figure.

The structure specifies a relationship between Self and World in which all perceptions are ordered into wholes composed of parts: objectification. A living whole is the incarnation of its parts: body. Body is the exterior surface of Self, forming a boundary from not-Self in the World. Posture is the attributes of this body manifest in arrangement and movement, structure and action. Posture forms an integrated whole relative to World in time and space. A specific Self is read by the World in terms of its posture. Self configures itself and World through its physical connection to World: Face. Portions of the World the Self is able to grasp and hold become part of Self. The rest becomes not-Self. The configuration of a specific Self that achieves a necessary balance with a specific World is posture. Self is oriented in World with respect to Face. The completed structure as formed within unbounded consciousness is bounded reality.

Self is bound to the World by the answers it forms to questions it poses about its logical relationship to World. Binding at the subconscious level forms archetypes in consciousness. Binding at the conscious level forms paradigms of reality. Questions address areas in which Self and World are not yet bound together. Questions are posed in Voice, metaphors representing abstractions of the Self/World relationship. Answers are received in Voice or seeing, the at-a-distance effect of World on Self. The boundary between Self and World also forms the separation between the subjective and objective realms, respectively. The subjective realm is transparent to objective perception. Consciousness resolves objects and groups of objects into a determined hierarchy of wholes contained in wholes. In action, the subjective realm is intentionally obscured to remove its indeterminacy from reality. In the objective realm, objects are united by causal relationships, mechanically functioning wholes moving in space and time. These wholes constitute the Self's understanding of the objective realm. The Self, or subjective realm, is constituted by what can be obscured, or taken for granted, in action. Elements of the subjective realm can be obscured because they act cooperatively for the whole Self.

Reality is a product of collective trust in the united, singular products of inquiry: answers to questions. Willingness of components of Self to trust in this singularity confers authority on a reality: the coordinated power over the Self of the encompassing singularity.

Inquiry is the process of constructing a singular reality of the determinate answers to questions. Understanding the objective realm is a matter of chance and probability based on summation of individual and collective readings. Meanings are synchronized with perception, attached to those perceptions, and combined into permanent structures. During inquiry, configuration of the objective realm must be constantly balanced with the configuration of Self, posture. Inquiry acts on the conscious level of the objective realm where meanings are still indeterminate. Through inquiry, Self and World cooperate to determine boundary and binding relationships. Both Self and World can be transformed and fixed producing a locally determined reality in the form of a paradigm. However, since the universe is globally undeterminable, local determinations are provisional and temporary. Thus, the process of inquiry is continuous and the Self/World relationship must always be preparing for transformation. Outside of its particular time and space, a paradigm becomes irrational. Irrational paradigms can be maintained only by coercion, becoming oppressive and dangerous to survival.

We individually experience reality as an absolute and independent ground from which we abstract and construct rational descriptions of the World. Our rational descriptions are then negotiated within our collective to form a discursive aggregate that then forms the ground, again absolute and independent, for collective inquiry. Having an absolute and independent ground is a prerequisite to rational inquiry. However, since the system of meaning that forms this ground is a matter of chance and probability, absolutization of a specific ground is arbitrary. These are the characteristics of a paradigm.

Achieving collective goals requires an objective ground that can be reconstructed to make alternative realities possible. The end of inquiry must extend beyond any paradigmatically secured reality. An individual recognizes an authority when that authority recognizes the individual as a full and equal participant in the process of creating reality. All other realities are power based and coercive. Individuals must experience their actions as being efficacious both individually and collectively. Coercion is not consensus and intentionally restricts the options of a society. An understanding of posture and its role in creating reality generates the most options. Collective trust and universal faith in the efficacy of equality is the only alternative to oppression by irrational paradigms.

Control of the fundamental structure to achieve its purpose has both individual and collective components. Individually it is necessary to avoid fixing on individual or collective conceptions, especially those enforced by authorities. Originality plays an essential role in transformation. Self plays an essential role in creating reality. Continuous development is essential to original and innovative alternatives for the structure of life. Individuals must develop Voice to contribute to inquiry. Individuals in a collective must have equal power in determining reality and acting. Individuals are responsible for balancing their own power between inquiry and action. Individuals must recognize the right and responsibility to contribute to inquiry. Individuals' actions must be directly efficacious in acting on agreed-upon collective goals. The value of an individual's perspective is limited.

Collectively, all realities are social constructions. Perspectives gain strength when combined, making truth of common sense. One must throw oneself into joint movement toward collective goals and work for mutual well being with the World. Equal co-making with the World yields the greatest individual and collective efficacy. The collective as a whole exercises collective power. The collective is responsible only for developing circles of consensus and codifying the results of inquiry.

Where inquiry is involved we should adopt the terms of Posture and conduct all inquiry within expanding circles of consensus. Since inquiry goes beyond the images of any archetype or paradigm, valid inquiry is conducted in circles of consensus. The objects of inquiry begin with the basis of life. Valid inquiry resolves questions leading to objective knowledge without coercion.

Consciousness is the ultimate whole, yet it is also a part of Self, which is a part of the universe, which is a part of consciousness. Subjective consciousness is not theoretical. It is the source of all empirical data and is the only "thing" we experience which has unambiguous meaning. All other meaning must be constructed, in other words, the Self, which is constructed in interaction with the rest of the universe. An intuitive understanding of consciousness is a prerequisite to all other understanding.

The ontological model (Figure 6) reflects the effects of the priority of consciousness on the relationship between the subjective and objective realms.

That my experience substantiates Schumacher's warrants the prediction that independent observers of the process of consciousness will come to similar conceptual conclusions whatever their particular articulations of theory. This for me is also a matter of faith that, since we are all ultimately observing the same universe, theories must converge. I have tried to advance the project of defining the universal, and irreducible, essentials of the substance and process of consciousness. My results are virtually isomorphic with Schumacher and other observers, to the point where differences are extremely interesting and theoretically stimulating.

In a world where the criteria for success seem increasingly to be fame and fortune, the search for efficacious theoretical models is generally believed to be at worst quixotic, and at best, altruistic. I need to disillusion anyone who might consider my work to be altruistic. I am driven by cognitive dissonance, in other words, a discontinuity between necessary action in the real world and an imposed belief system. I am determined, for my own sanity, to integrate these inconsistent systems. I have been relieved to find that the integrative revisions in either action or belief that I have discovered not only have been discovered by others, but also are considered useful by those who are themselves suffering from cognitive dissonance. The all-encompassing project has been to understand why such beliefs are not already incorporated into belief systems.

Discursive models are an important means by which the part of our consciousness of which we are aware communicates with that part of which we are not aware. When a discursive model fulfills this function, it is what may be called a mandala. The mandala produces a complete connection between an outer and an inner image, which is gradually built up through active imagination, motivated by an intentional search for psychic equilibrium. In my opinion, a good discursive model is not understandable at a glance. Good discursive models should seek to be mandalas, initially mysterious and inscrutable, that motivate one to work to understand them. When one achieves understanding of a mandala, the pattern of one's consciousness is permanently altered. To mix metaphors, a mandala is a picture of a paradigm, where intense study of the picture reorganizes one's mind to conform to the paradigm. The concepts I have been using can be integrated into the discursive model shown in Figure 9.

The narrative that follows is both demonstrative and experimental. It is demonstrative in showing an interpretation of the evolution of Western notions of reality in the terms of consciousness that I have proposed above. It is experimental in asserting that the theoretical structure I propose explains and predicts more of human experience than previous structures. This assertion needs to be tested.

The logical separation of mind from body during the Christian Reformation can be seen as a specific phase in the evolution of rational thought in Western culture. This was not the origin of these ideas, and an outline of these ideas as they may have emerged over recorded history will be my basis here for identifying certain synchronic elements fundamental to that evolution as it continues in contemporary thought. The following narration is intended to express the sense of this evolution in the later phases of its development in terms of the complete and integrated systemic metaphorical structure described above.

During the Reformation, the Christian perspective came to emphasize the role of the individual mind in relation to universal truths. In this perspective, temporal (mundane) law was distinct from eternal (divine) law and subordinate to it. While the individual might be forced to submit to temporal law by secular authorities, submitting to divine law was a matter of personal choice. Ultimate judgments of the correctness of an individual's action were made according to divine law, not temporal law.

The distinction of the divine versus temporal law that emerged during the Reformation, and correspondingly scholastic versus secular authority, is evidence of a newly defined relationship between an individual and the collective during that period. While powerful secular figures might dominate the mundane experience of the individual, that same individual had a privileged and personal relationship with the ultimate powers in the universe. This newly defined relationship was a particularized extension of the logic that originally gave Christianity political leverage against secular authority. Secular figures were impressed with the collective power that could be generated by common belief in a privileged relationship a group had with the ultimate powers of the universe. Such a relationship increased the mundane power of the group. In a similar way, extension of that relationship to the individual again increased the power of groups of those individuals. Scholastic authority had, once again, triumphed over secular authority.

The effect of this triumph was to institutionalize a boundary between conscience, or consciousness, and nature, between mind and body, each of which was subject to its own set of laws, dominated by the universal law as defined by individuals in their own relationships with the universe.

The metaphysical separation of mind from body had previously been extended from the individual, where the organic opportunistic mind was supposed to rule the mechanical deterministic body, to the collective, where the mass of individuals constituted a mechanical body that was ruled by an organic group that constituted its mind. The Reformation revised this view, giving the individual considerably more influence over the collective. This rationalization has evolved into the worldview we have today, with its attendant social and economic consequences.

In this evolving worldview, mind achieves its control over body by power, the ability to coerce the body's behavior. Thus we have both Self and social controls as necessary means to disciplined, coordinated behavior. Power centered exclusively in the mind is a prerequisite to achieving any rational purpose. Division of the mind from body, which is necessary in the individual, is therefore also necessary in the collective, and the means to control of individual bodies in the collective is obtained by achieving some minimal control of their individual minds. The alternative is social and functional chaos, the inability to achieve any collective purpose. Achieving purpose requires that the opportunistic mind be separated from the deterministic body, and for the mind to control the body by superiority of power. Individuals submit to collective controls when they understand this is their only means to personal security.

What constitutes a rational means to achieving a purpose depends on two descriptions of the world: 1) a factual description of the world, as it is, in terms of what can and cannot be controlled, and 2) a prospective description of the world in the same terms, but where the desired purpose has been achieved. These are respectively the descriptive and normative worldviews. Terms of control are essential to both of these views because only by manipulation of the controllable aspects can the descriptive view ever be changed into the normative view. Two aspects that must be controlled are purposes and rationality, the two fundamental aspects of functionality. Divergent purposes must be normalized to produce collective effort. Once purposes are aligned, the functional conditions must be understood by all in the same way to produce cooperative effort.

Collective effort is superior to individual effort in two respects: 1) it produces results significantly greater than the sum of the individuals' uncoordinated efforts, and 2) it produces understanding of the conditions for action that significantly transcends that of single individuals. That these advantages accrue to collective effort is the proximate purpose for collective effort. But the proximate purpose does not determine the means by which ultimate purposes will come to be shared and thereby achieved. This raises the problem of use of power.

To the extent that diversity of purpose is directly related to distribution of power, singularity of purpose depends on centralization of power, and distinct centers of power will diverge in purpose. This mechanical rationalization will conclude that the primary use of power must be to unify purpose, and that the primary function of purpose must be to consolidate power. This rationale can be contrasted with the organic view that unity of purpose is unrelated to power, which must be distributed functionally to purposes that transcend the proximate use of power. In this view, the distribution of power is irrelevant.

These alternate rationales correspond with two polarized views of the relationship between a conscious individual, the "Self," and other entities that inhabit the Self's world. When the relationship between Self and another entity is as between two conscious entities with a shared purpose, that relationship is organic. When the relationship has a shared purpose but the other entity is not conscious, the relationship is mechanical. Thus, whether power is irrelevant or is the most relevant aspect of a relationship is whether the other entity is or is not conscious.

A rational relationship is mechanical when purposes diverge, whether the other is conscious or not. Where the purposes of consciousnesses converge, the relationship is organic, with a priori or primordial bases. A convergence of purpose between consciousnesses is possible but not necessary, leaving open the means by which such a convergence is obtained. Without a rationalized system for obtaining convergence of purpose, a Self has to choose, for every other, whether to treat it mechanically or organically. In the experience of Self, opportunity becomes a proximate surrogate for purpose. Where a non-conscious other dominates opportunities, Self must treat that other mechanically. Where opportunity is shared, shared purpose is assumed, that other is also assumed to be conscious, and is treated organically.

A Self with complete and absolute power, being unconcerned with either availability of opportunity or sharing of purpose, will come to treat all others mechanically. If Self assumes complete control over some other entity, that entity does not enter into an organic relationship with Self, even though their purpose may be shared, when another consciousness is not recognized. Definition of another as conscious is directly related to the difference in power between Self and other.

The powerless Self will attempt to join the purposes of a powerful other, and will treat this other organically even when such treatment is not reciprocated. In a situation of shared purpose, distribution of power is irrelevant, but, if opportunity is denied or withheld, the powerless Self will continue to seek to join with a powerful other that will provide opportunity. This position can itself be the basis for shared purpose among selves.

These dynamics predict that groups with shared purposes go into and out of existence like any opportunity seeking organism. The phenomenon of competition is a nonfunctional mechanical relationship between organisms that have divergent purposes. When organisms seek exclusive domination of opportunity and monopoly of power, their focus on proximate purposes as ends in themselves precludes their ability to create shared purpose. Obsession with competition is a preoccupation with fear of proximate failure that makes transcendent purposes impossible by definition. The existence of organic relationships and evidence of their possibility is the only alternative to competition. In effect, organic selves can always achieve more than mechanical selves because of the efficacies associated with independent action based on transcendent purpose. The proximate success of local mechanical competition is ultimately succeeded by global organic cooperation.

In an organic collective Self, the transcendent purpose provides opportunity for each constituent Self, and assumes convergent purposes among the constituents. Power is distributed functionally to provide the controls needed to fulfill purpose. The transcendent purpose provides for both affectual and instrumental needs of the constituents making distribution of power irrelevant. The only value to power is functional control.

Recurring global recessions of opportunity effect a disintegration or contraction of Self, leaving much of the former organic constituency in a mechanical relationship with the surviving Self. When Self has disintegrated due to waning opportunity, it may remain disintegrated when global opportunity again becomes available, with mechanically related constituents joining into competition with the former Self. The Self can prevent these competitive coalitions from forming by ensuring potentially competing constituents do not reach a functionally dominant mass. When conscious selves are treated mechanically, they tend to form joint purposes independently. Selves with divergent purposes devolve into destructive competition.

The forming and dissolving of purposive conscious selves takes on the characteristics of a competitive dialectic between those organisms that are power oriented and those that are purpose oriented. They both struggle for control of the marginal increases in opportunity that the organisms generate. The organism with the greater power and control monopolizes these increases. A power oriented Self tends to define any other conscious entity in power-oriented terms and to enforce its definition using superior force. This perspective is Self-perpetuating, and power orientation comes to be understood as absolute and deterministic. The organism with more power and control is understood as naturally superior and intended by transcendent purposes to dominate. Superior power is given by the transcendental purpose for the proximate purpose of the superior Self succeeding over all inferior organisms and others. This relationship is established by natural law.

The natural law explanation denies the involvement of the Self in mutually defining a functional relationship with other entities. Natural law says that preexisting and transcendent conditions define Self, the assignment of power to Self, and the relationship of Self to other. The transcendent purpose is the only material purpose in this relationship, and it is predetermined. The Self, and any proximate purposes it may intend, becomes redundant in this relationship. It is inferior to and under the influence of universal forces that only a few superior others are able to control.

These superior others can be construed, as a group, as together constituting a Self that is rationalizing its parochial purpose to dominate collective power and mechanically manipulate other conscious organisms. This cannot be an effect of transcendent purpose because it eliminates the possibility of transcendent purpose. This perspective denies transcendent purpose because of the difficulty in collectively creating a shared purpose. The fundamental development problem for a conscious Self is to rationalize a means to create a transcendent purpose and thereby to organize a more inclusive conscious collective Self. A purpose must be imagined that not only serves the needs of all constituent selves but also extends through achieving individual purpose to achieving the purpose of the universe as a whole.

The needs of an individual Self can be described as affectual, or being ends in themselves, or as instrumental to fulfilling affectual needs. Fulfilling the affectual needs of the individual Self can be described as instrumental to fulfilling the needs of the collective Self. Fulfilling the needs of the collective Self can be described as instrumental to fulfilling universal purpose. Evolution of this process consists in development of the collective Self into more and more extensive collectives that ultimately connect the entire universe in a single functional system.

We see here the recursive development of a system of metaphor that has functional value in human experience. From this process emerges a theory of the progressive change in a dynamic worldview. We can see this change occurring from an effort we can call inquiry and resulting in a state we call conscious existence. The factors of ignorance and error limit the rationality of the evolving worldview through failure to obtain either completeness or consistency.

This wholistic theory of inquiry is starkly contrasted with polarized realistic theory. Rigidly deterministic natural law, fundamental to realistic theory, cannot provide the dynamic elements that arise from the evolution of worldview. These elements are provided, however, by theory describing recursive development of a functional system of metaphor. When realism departs completely from functional idealism, it inevitably becomes materialistic and deterministic to the point of becoming irrational. Idealistic theory that completely departs from materialism and determinism also becomes irrational. Ultimately, any view that completely departs from recognizing the functional contributions of either the object or the subject becomes irrational.

Progressive change in worldview, what we might call knowledge, is sometimes described as a linear approach to an asymptotic limit, produced by inquiry. Description of inquiry as recursive development eliminates this limited view and gives us a considerably different understanding of knowledge. Worldview can go anywhere we allow our interpretations of experience to take us, for better or for worse. Although there is the possibility of making our interpretation better, we have the problem of defining "better," and then of making our interpretation conform to our standard, all the time trying to insure our interpretation is not making anything materially "worse."

The evolving metaphor, as described in this chapter, predicts, in my opinion, the arguments of subsequent voices like Popper, Heidegger, Kuhn, Feyerabend, and many others, as active participants in a specific dialectic. If I have correctly identified the essential structural elements of this dialectic, it should be possible to extrapolate the future structure of the metaphor from its current state. In the following chapters I will present my research on a series of contemporary authors as evidence of where our collective interpretations currently seem to be leading.