Volition
(a) One-sentence version
Volition begins with the choice to focus, which enables thinking by the objective method (concepts, definitions, logic, and validation), which yields conclusions, which ground values and goals, which then guide action—followed by continual re-focusing to integrate new facts.
(b) Short bullet chain
- Focus (primary choice): focus vs. drift/evasion
- Think: active identification of facts
- Objective method: form concepts → define them → use logic → validate/reduce to reality
- Conclusions: accept/reject/provisionally hold
- Values: evaluate what’s good/bad for your life
- Goals & policies: set priorities and plans
- Actions: implement
- Feedback: re-check, correct, integrate, re-focus
(c) Diagram-style outline
PRIMARY (root)
- Choice to focus
↓ (makes possible)
COGNITIVE (method)
2. Thinking (identify facts)
↓
3. Objective conceptualization (form concepts from perceptual data)
↓
4. Objective definitions & context-keeping (keep concepts tied to essentials)
↓
5. Logic (non-contradictory identification)
↓
6. Validation / reduction (tie conclusions back to evidence and prior knowledge)
↓
COGNITIVE RESULTS
7. Conclusions (true / false / uncertain; integrate into hierarchy)
↓
EVALUATIVE (ethics)
8. Values (what is good/bad for your life)
↓
PRACTICAL (execution)
9. Goals & policies (plans, priorities, trade-offs)
↓
10. Actions (choices in the world)
↓
MAINTENANCE (loop)
11. Feedback → re-focus (update context, correct errors, refine concepts)
In addition:
Here is more information about this volition chain, mainly in the form of (1) what each link means operationally, (2) common failure modes (where people break the chain), and (3) how the links relate hierarchically, so you can actually use it in real time.
1) Operational clarifications (what each link is in action)
- Focus = the deliberate act of full awareness: directing attention outward to reality and inward to the task, instead of letting the mind float on impressions. It’s not “trying hard”; it’s turning on cognitive responsibility.
- Think = the process of identifying: asking what is it? why? how do I know? what follows? Thinking is not mere association; it’s guided by the goal of knowledge.
- Objective conceptualization = integrating percepts into concepts by essentials (measurement-omission, etc.). Practically: “What kind of thing is this? What distinguishes it? What units belong together?”
- Definitions/context-keeping = keeping your concepts tied to reality as your knowledge grows. Practically: “What do I mean by this word here? In what context is it true? What’s the essential?”
- Logic = non-contradictory identification. Practically: checking consistency: “Does this conflict with what I know? If so, which premise is wrong or missing?”
- Validation/reduction = tracing an idea back to evidence and earlier concepts. Practically: “What observable facts support this? What would count as disconfirming it? What steps connect this abstraction to reality?”
- Conclusions = not just “beliefs,” but integrated judgments placed properly in a hierarchy: certain, probable, possible, or arbitrary.
- Values = chosen goals/ends based on facts about life and reality. Practically: “Given what’s true, what is worth pursuing for my life?”
- Goals/policies = implementation in time: priorities, plans, and trade-offs.
- Actions = execution in reality, with consequences you can observe.
- Feedback/re-focus = the chain is not linear once; it’s a loop. New facts can force you to revisit conclusions, definitions, even your earlier integrations.
2) The biggest missing piece people need: “degrees” and “context”
To make the chain more accurate, add this principle explicitly:
Every step is contextual and can exist in degrees.
You can focus more or less. You can validate well or poorly. Your conclusion can be certain, probable, or merely plausible. Objectivity is not omniscience; it’s methodical loyalty to reality within context.
That matters because people otherwise treat the chain as: “Either I’m perfectly rational or I’m irrational.” That’s a false alternative. The real issue is: Are you adhering to reality by method—or evading?
3) Typical breakpoints (where irrationality enters)
A chain is most useful when you know where it tends to fail:
- Drop focus → you run on automatic emotion and social cues.
- Think without concepts → you get foggy generalities and floating abstractions.
- Concepts without definitions → you get package-deals (“fairness,” “privilege,” “greed”) that substitute for thought.
- Logic without validation → you get rationalization: internally consistent stories detached from facts.
- Conclusions without hierarchy → you treat guesses as certainties (or certainties as mere “opinions”).
- Values detached from facts → you get “wish ethics”: wanting makes it “good.”
- Goals without policies → you get daydreams instead of plans.
- Action without feedback → you repeat failure and call it “fate.”
4) Two crucial “subchains” inside the big chain
To make it more usable, you can recognize two internal mini-chains:
A. The cognition mini-chain
Focus → Identify → Conceptualize → Define → Integrate logically → Validate → Conclude
This is the “truth-production line.” If you’re stuck, locate which stage you’re skipping.
B. The action mini-chain
Facts/Conclusions → Values → Goals → Plan → Act → Observe results → Update
This is the “life-management line.” It’s where rationality becomes practical.
5) A simple diagnostic you can run in real life
When you notice confusion, anxiety, or conflict, ask in order:
- Am I focused right now?
- What are the facts? (list them)
- What concept am I using—what does it mean? (define it)
- What’s my evidence? (reduce/validate)
- What conclusion actually follows?
- Given that, what value/goal is rational?
- What action follows—and what feedback will I check?
That diagnostic is basically the chain turned into a practical tool.
6) One refinement you may want to add explicitly: “choice to check premises”
Between “logic” and “validation,” there’s a specific choice that matters a lot:
- Choice to examine premises (including hidden premises).
Many errors persist because a person “reasons” flawlessly from an unexamined premise absorbed from culture, parents, or emotion. Objectivity requires the willingness to ask: “Why do I believe this premise?” and to trace it back.
No comments:
Post a Comment