Distinguishing Analytic, Dialectic and Crealectic Thinking in The Context of Philosophical Care

In the context of my philosophical counseling practice at the Philosophical Parlour (Stockholm, Sweden), I have introduced the practical notion of “crealectic intelligence”, a meta-analytic and meta-dialectic understanding of our being in the world. 

Analytic forms of intelligence were certainly a major step in human evolution. Some eighteen centuries ago, in his account of Aristotle’s Analytics, Alexander of Aphrodisias wrote that the one who “uses analysis […] reduces composite bodies into simple bodies” (c.200 CE, 49, §2.4), thus separating an unknown into parts that are known (Arnauld & Nicole, 1996, p. 200).  Analysis is a moment of distinctive literacy facilitating communication and the effectual manipulation of the Real. If an intentional consciousness is not able to distinguish discrete parts in the world by reading them as potential text or protocol, it might remain dreamy or confused (Craig, 1984, p. 41). Shared intelligence needs an analytic moment in order for agents to communicate their rational reading of a given situation.

Once we start disagreeing with a given analysis or simply debating aspects of it, we are adding a dialectic dimension, which I argue functions as a bridge between analytics and crealectics (or “hyper-dialectics”, Merleau-Ponty, 1968). Since Plato, dialectic intelligence designates an interpretative conversation in which there is a more or less rational tension between different or agonistic perspectives (from dialegesthai: to talk through). Dialectics is “the progression of thought through the appearance of oppositions within one and the same unity” (Bloch, 1983, p. 288). This form of thinking can be performed between different subjects or within the same personal mind, as in Socrates’s inner dialoguewith his guardian divinity, his daimonion (McMahon, 2013, p. 40), or as in Descartes’ cogito, which can be defined as the human capacity for an internal individual dialectics, a form of consciousness that is capable of self-contradiction or self-examination. In Hegel’s grandiose variant, dialectic intelligence described the ubiquitous and necessary unfolding of a time-dependent yet absolute process of negations and performative contradictions towards the realisation of Spirit or Mind.

The dialectic stage of understanding is necessary to transform a reading of signs into a deliberative interpretation that encompasses real or apparent contradictions. However, this moment of intelligence is not sufficient to act healthfully and sustainably upon the world because the synthesis it proposes can be contested and, by definition, negated anew, endlessly. Moreover, dialectics tends to fall into binary dichotomies, which are themselves cognitive reductions, even if they seem to introduce more complexity than analytic intelligence (Elbow, 1993). For example, the two categories of disease and normal health are oblivious of possible alternative mental or physical states that are neither normal nor unhealthy (Canguilhem, 1991, p. 97). The human phenomenon of psychological resilience is neither pathological nor normal: it is a “novelty”, a manifestation of crealectic intelligence (de Miranda, 2019).

Analytic and dialectic intelligences cannot exhaust our experience of meaningful social agency. Social reality is polysemantic and implies a multiplicity of decisions, beliefs and acts in which the very factualization of data, the attribution of a syntax to a given reality, is itself already filtered by creative and active imagination and an embodied perspective. I call “crealectic” cosmologically- and socially engaged form of consciousness that is aware of acting upon a world of multiplicity and possibility, with the ideal of co-creation in mind. Crealectics deals with processing realities and imaginaries of novelty, plurality and ambiguity, rather than mere contradiction of binary polarities or operations of known bits; its ontological core is the idea of co-creation and compossibility based on a dynamic principle of infinite possibility (Bergson, 1922; Whitehead, 1929; Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, de Miranda, 2017).

The aim of my philosophical counseling practice is to curate a balanced analytical-dialectical-crealectical subject, a cosmopolitical, ambitious and joyfully creative citizen-thinker who cares to take holistic decisions towards a philosophically- and collectively healthier way of life.

References

Alexander of Aphrodisias (c.200 CE /1991). On Aristotle’s prior analytics (J. Barnes, Trans.). London: Duckworth.

Arendt, H. (1958).  The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Arnauld, A., & Nicole, P. (1996). Logic or the art of thinking. (J.V. Buroker, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Assemblée Nationale Française (2019). Compte-rendu 28 [Account of debate 28], Commission des Affaires Économiques, 11 Décembre2019.

Bergson, H. (1922). Creative evolution (A. Mitchell, Trans.). London: MacMillan.

Bloch, E. (1983). The dialectical method (J. Lamb, Trans.). Man and World, 16(4), 281–313.

Canguilhem, G. (1991). The normal and the pathological (C. R. Fawcett, Trans.). New York: Zone Books.

Clewis, R. R. (2019). The sublime reader. London: Bloomsbury.

Craig, R. P. (1984). Developing a philosophy of reading: Piaget and Chomsky. Reading Horizons, 25(1), 38–42.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? (H. Tomlinson & G. Burchell, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.

De Miranda, L. (2008). Paridaiza. Paris: Plon.

De Miranda, L. (2009). Peut-on jouir du capitalisme? Lacan avec Heidegger et Marx [Can we enjoy capitalism? Lacan with Heidegger and Marx]. Paris: Max Milo.

De Miranda, L., Ramamoorthy R., & Rovatsos, M. (2016). We, anthrobot: Learning from human forms of interaction and esprit de corps todevelop more diverse social robotics. In What Social Robots Can and Should do (pp. 48–56). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

De Miranda (2017). On the concept of Creal: The politico-ethical horizon of a creative absolute. In The Dark Precursor: Deleuze and Artistic Research (pp. 510–16). Louvain: Leuven University Press. 

De Miranda, L. (2019). Being and neonness. Cambridge, MIT Press.

De Miranda, L. (2020). Ensemblance: The transnational genealogy of esprit de corps. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Elbow, P. (1993). The uses of binary thinking. Journal of Advanced Composition 13(1), 51–78.

Foucault (2005). The hermeneutics of the subject. (G. Burchell, Trans.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hegel, G.W.F (1806/1984). Letter to Friedrich Niethammer, 13 October 1806. In C. Butler & C. Seiler (Trans.), The Letters. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Holton, G. (1978). The scientific imagination: Case studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jousse, M. (2016). In search of coherence (E. Sienaert, Trans.). Eugene: Pickwick Publications.

Kaan, E. (1999). Syntax and semantics? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(9), 322.

Koistinen, O. (2014). Desire and good in Spinoza.  In M.J. Kisner & A. Joupa (Eds.), Essays on Spinoza’s Ethical Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge(G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1994). Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime (E. Rottenberg, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible. (A. Lingis, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: W. W. Norton.

Quine, W. V., & Ullian, J. S. (1978). The web of belief. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Sinclair, M. (2017). The actual and the possible: Modality and metaphysics in modern philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Slife, B. D. (1994). The possibility of possibility. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 14 (1), 96–101.

Thompson, H. E. (1997). The fallacy of misplaced concreteness: Its importance for critical and creative inquiry. Interchange, 28(2 & 3), pp. 219–30.

Virág, C. (2017). The Emotions in Early Chinese Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Whitehead, A.N. (1926). Science and the modern world. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality. New York: MacMillan.

Wiitala, M. O. (2013). Desire and the Good in Plotinus. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 21(4), 649–666.

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (G.E.M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Author: Luis de Miranda

Crealectician, PhD, author, philosophical counselor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s