Monthly Archives: June 2014

What is “Ultimate Satisfaction”?

This is the third in a planned series of posts on Worlds, as understood by Descriptive Psychologists. This series requires a more careful reading than most other posts on this blog; I believe the work you put into it will be well-rewarded.

In the second post of this series I observed that, prior to the discovery of his eponymous Paradox, Bertrand Russell’s world was held together by the “delicious experience of knowing something with total certainly”. I used the term “ultimate satisfaction” to characterize that experience. As one of the readers of that post commented, the idea that “ultimate satisfaction” holds one’s world together is not intuitively obvious. Indeed it is not – until it is. I believe that in fact this conception is genuinely original; it’s not just a restatement of a well-known way of thinking, and thus requires some work to see. Once seen, however, it seems obvious, intuitively and otherwise. This post is meant to make the concept of ultimate satisfaction clear. Continue reading What is “Ultimate Satisfaction”?

The “On-Behalf-of” Organization

This is the first in a planned series of posts exploring the logic and inherent order of organizations. Very little of this material has been previously published.

The incomparable Peter Drucker in 1974 wrote: “Our children will have to learn organizations in the same way our fathers had to learn farming.” If anything, he understated the matter; we are still, 40 years later, learning about organizations.

Farming may look like a simple matter: Prepare ground, plant crops, harvest, sell, repeat. But as any real farmer can tell you, if that’s all you know about farming you are guaranteed to fail. Likewise organizations can look to be a simple matter: Create a needed product or service, offer it on the market, sell at a profit, repeat. Some legislators are very fond of this view and suggest it as the model for all organizations. But again, if that simple market-based model is all you know about organizations, you are guaranteed to fail. Organizations come in many different forms, and what works for one form – the market-based for-profit organization, for example – can be devastating for another.

Every organization is a unique and distinctive configuration of people in relation to their world. Depending on the organization’s specific purpose for existence, the value it sets out to create, for whom, by whom, in what working relationships and by which specific means, an inherent order emerges. This inherent order establishes a kind of logic for the organization, defining specific bounds on what actions are appropriate or inappropriate, required or optional, allowed or forbidden, expected or surprising, relevant or irrelevant. Continue reading The “On-Behalf-of” Organization

Belief in Science

Neil de Grasse Tyson is the new public face of science. He is smart, charming, has a great back-story of achievement in the face of societal obstacles along with, let’s be honest here, one of the coolest names of all time. His popular television series Cosmos has introduced millions of viewers to the wonders of the scientific world, from the smallest to the unfathomably large and spanning billions of years. When he speaks about science, people listen.

So people are listening to a recent Facebook post that quotes him saying: “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”

There’s something very comforting about that statement, isn’t there? It feels a bit like someone telling you: “I promise you everything will turn out fine.” In fact it is exactly like that. Tyson’s quote is not a statement of scientific fact (nor could it be – what experiment could you do to determine whether or not it is true?). It is a promise, a statement of belief about science and truth that he shares with the community of scientists.

Public discourse about truth and belief has been largely centered on the dispute between science and religion – science knows, religion believes – which has led us to a muddled view that does justice to neither concept. Science has no room for belief, only evidence – or so they say. Descriptive Psychology has the conceptual power to sort this out, and has. Here’s how: Continue reading Belief in Science