Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

February 16, 2019

Next we examine (oh so superficially!) Howard Gardner’s Theory of Eight(-ish) Multiple Intelligences. To wit (ha-ha):

  • Intra-personal
  • Interpersonal
  • Bodily-kinesthetic
  • Nature-existential
  • Visual-spatial
  • Verbal-linguistic
  • Musical-rhythmic
  • Logical-mathematical

Further Reading:

Howard Gardner / Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983)

Howard Gardner / Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice (1993)

Howard Gardner / Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice (2006)



Erik Erikson’s Eight Stages of Psychosocial Development

February 12, 2019

Erik Erikson developed an eight stage developmental model of the psyche for the full life of the human individual. Each stage has a key conflict (with both positive and negative sides), its resolution into a “virtue,” and the typical age range for that conflict.

  • Trust vs. Mistrust, “Hope”, Infancy (0-1 years)
  • Autonomy vs. Shame, “Will”, Early Childhood (1-3 years)
  • Initiative vs. Guilt, “Purpose”, Play Age (3-5 years)
  • Industry vs. Inferiority, “Competency” (or “Ability” or “Skill”), Schooling (5-12 years)
  • Ego identity vs. Role confusion, “Fidelity”, Adolescence (12-18 years)
  • Intimacy vs. Isolation, “Love”, Young Adult (18-40 years)
  • Generativity vs. Stagnation, “Care”, Adulthood (40-65 years)
  • Ego integrity vs. Despair, “Wisdom”, Old Age (65-? years)

I would think that these ages would depend significantly on cultural norms.

Further Reading:



The Eight Circuit Model of Consciousness

February 7, 2019
Timothy Leary’s dead…
No, no-no, he’s outside, looking in…

— The Moody Blues

Timothy Leary came up with this scheme of eight circuits of consciousness and Robert Anton Wilson expanded and renamed most of them. It’s basically a “great-chain” of evolutionary brain circuitry, leading from lower to higher states of consciousness.

I’ve labeled my diagram with RAW’s names, but below I also list Leary’s names in parentheses.

  • Oral Bio-survival (Vegetative-invertebrate)
  • Anal Territorial (Emotional-locomotion)
  • Semantic Time-binding (Laryngeal-manual Symbolic)
  • Socio-sexual (Socio-sexual Domestication)
  • Neurosomatic (Neurosomatic)
  • Metaprogramming (Neuro-electric)
  • Morphogenetic (Neurogenetic)
  • Non-local Quantum (Neuro-atomic Metaphysiological)

Pretty wild stuff!

Further Reading:



John Beebe’s Eight Function Model

February 5, 2019

After my last post about an ad-hoc eightfold metaphysics, I spent a few minutes trying to create an eightfold psychology. Feeling insufficient to the task, I quickly put this aside and instead wondered if there was any prior work for this, and lo and behold, I found a wealth of such things. Eight seems to be a popular number for the enumeration of the psyche and related subjects.

I’ve already mentioned Robert Plutchik’s Emotions and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow, which are both sort of psychological dissections. If you’re into Jung and related psychologies, Jungian analyst John Beebe developed his eight-function model of personality types that blends Jungian concepts together into an interesting system. The eight types are split into two sets of four: for every type in the first “positive” set (ego-syntonic) there is a corresponding type in a “shadow” set (ego-dystonic). Each set of four has a superior, an auxiliary, a tertiary, and an inferior function.

  • Hero/Heroine (superior function)
  • Father/Mother (auxiliary function) (or good parent)
  • Puer/Puella (tertiary function) (or eternal child)
  • Anima/Animus (inferior function)
  • Opposing persona (shadow of superior) (villain?)
  • Senex/Witch (shadow of auxiliary) (or critical parent)
  • Trickster (shadow of tertiary) (added deceiver for balance)
  • Demon/Daimon (shadow of inferior) (daemon?)

In my diagram, I’ve shown each function paired with its shadow function. And of course being Jungian, the terminology is full of gender distinctions, which could fairly easily be eliminated. There are also lots of arcane associations to MBTI and such, so this will take more than a quick look. Please just wait here, and I’ll be back with an update soon (or not)!

Further Reading:

Also see my posts:

[*11.41, *11.43]


An Eightfold Metaphysics

February 1, 2019

If one juxtaposes the fourfold Space-Time-Matter-Energy with the fourfold Structure-Function-Part-Action, one sees that there are several relations between them. These are simple common-sense relations, not modern-physics types of relations. Below they are listed by Space-type relations and Time-type relations.

Space is required for the extension of Structures.
Matter constitutes Structures.
Parts in an arrangement make up Structures.

Structures extend and are organized in Space.
Matter is located in Space.
Parts occupy Space.

Time allows the expression of Functions.
Energy is required for the operation of Functions.
Actions in a sequence constitute Functions.

Functions have duration and reoccur in Time.
Energy requires and is dependent on Time.
Actions take place within Time.

Several analogies are also evident in this diagram.

  1. Space : Structures :: Time : Functions
  2. Space : Parts :: Time : Actions
  3. Space : Matter :: Time : Energy
  4. Structures : Parts :: Functions : Actions
  5. Structures : Matter :: Functions : Energy
  6. Parts : Matter :: Actions : Energy

Notice that analogies 1.-3. are “contains” relations, and 4.-6. are “part of” relations. One obtains the nesting of entities:

Structures > Parts > Matter
Functions > Actions > Energy

I suppose that any analogy could be shown in a figure like the one on the right (or even written as A / B // C / D) or with the two squares side by side, and that sets of four or six analogies that overlap could be nicely shown as above. If so, I wonder what can be gained by such representations? Probably individually not so much but with overlaps I think it would be interesting.

Further Reading:

The study of parts and wholes relations is called Mereology.

[*11.26, *11.34]


The Rosetta Stone of Arthur M. Young

January 27, 2019

In his book “The Geometry of Meaning”, Arthur M. Young developed a system which he called his “Rosetta Stone” because he claimed that it associated mental attributes to some physical measurements, giving a kind of map to mind-body dualism. In the above diagram the expressions and names of these twelve objective values or physical units are shown. Examine the list below to see the twelve subjective values or mental attributes (shown in parentheses) that Young ascribed to them.

I’ve rearranged the sequence of these somewhat because I don’t quite understand the reasons for the organization Young gave them. I’ve also relabeled the units using the more standard derivative notation L’ = dL/dT, L” = d^2 L/ dT^2, etc. His notation is given at the end of each line below in parentheses for comparison (essentially he removes the d’s from the derivatives, writing dL/dT as L/T, which seems confusing to me when then multiplied by L).

Given the measurement Position or Length (L), Moment is Mass (M) times Position giving ML, and Moment of Inertia is Moment (ML) times Position giving ML^2. Velocity (L’), Acceleration (L”), and Control (L”’) have similarly related pairs of values by multiplying each by M and by ML. This gives four sets of similar expressions differing by their common derivative. I should have probably named the 1st set to be 0th, 2nd set to be 1st, 3rd set to be 2nd, and 4th set to be 3rd after the order of the common derivative.

  • Position (Observation): L
  • Moment (Significance): ML
  • Moment of Inertia (Faith): ML^2
  • Velocity (Change): L′ (L/T)
  • Momentum (Transformation): ML′ (ML/T)
  • Action (Impulse): MLL′ (ML^2/T)
  • Acceleration (Spontaneous act): L” (L/T^2)
  • Force (Being): ML” (ML/T^2)
  • Work (Fact): MLL” (ML^2/T^2)
  • Control (Control): L′′′ (L/T^3)
  • Mass Control (Establishment): ML′′′ (ML/T^3)
  • Power (Knowledge): MLL′′′ (ML^2/T^3)

How does Young justify associating, for example, the mental attribute “Faith” with the physical unit “Moment of Inertia”? It seems to have something to do with his original cyclic order of these twelve measurements and the associations he gives them to the Astrological Signs of the Zodiac. This mapping is not shown but can easily be found in the links below.

Further Reading:

Arthur M. Young / The Geometry of Meaning

The only early entry in my blog without a leading figure (and poor tables as well):



The Rigor-Relevance Framework

January 18, 2019

The Rigor-Relevance Framework is a fourfold developed by the International Center for Leadership in Education ( It is an instrument to aid in planning and evaluation for teachers and their students. It is composed of

  • Acquisition: Low rigor and low relevance
  • Application: Low rigor and high relevance
  • Assimilation: High rigor and low relevance
  • Adaptation: High rigor and high relevance

Rigor (from low to high) is said to be based on the six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Thinking (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation; or revised as remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create).

Relevance (from low to high) is said to be based on Daggett’s Application Model (knowledge in one discipline, apply in discipline, apply across disciplines, apply to real-world predictable situations, apply to real-world predictable situations).

There seems to be quite a bit of information associated with this center so I’ll need to look at it some more!

Further Reading:

Compare to other learning cycles (I thought I had more than one…)

Also I’d like to compare this with Whitehead’s Criteria of Metaphysical Theories





Capitalistic Values

December 22, 2018

Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!

― Ebenezer Scrooge (post ghosts) in “A Christmas Carol”, by Charles Dickens

I’ve been thinking about the fourfold shown above off and on for the past two years because the US federal government (consisting of the 115th Congress and the 45th President) are by majority members of the conservative “grand old” party. This government hasn’t done much except cater to the wealthy and powerful, undo environmental protections, estrange our world allies, and destroy our institutions.

Since socialism in any form is anathema to this administration, capitalism is king, and not capitalism with a conscious either. So I present to you four causes as means or four values as ends of capitalism. These values are principles that only a Scrooge could love!

For the efficient cause (left quadrant), instead of intentional actions I have chosen the value of Money. Finances, wealth, and currency are other synonyms. Money grants the bearer supreme choice in what they can obtain or choose to do. Laws try to restrict the choices that money can be used for or the circumstances where it can be used.

For the material cause (bottom quadrant), instead of substantive parts I have chosen the value of Property. Ownership and capital are related concepts. You really can’t use something to make something else unless you own it, so owning as much as possible is paramount!

For the final cause (right quadrant), instead of normative performance or function I have chosen the value of Power. Influence, capability, potential, authority, capacity are all related. To find out if power is an end in itself, ask the capitalist!

For the formal cause (upper quadrant), instead of necessary structure I have chosen the value of Mastery. Information, understanding, knowledge, or purview are options, but not as nicely nuanced as mastery. Power is nice but without mastery it’s aimless. Mastery is great but without power it’s useless.

As more and more wealth is acquired by fewer and fewer individuals, it may be time to rethink what our actions as a nation have given us on these last dark days of 2018. But a nice incremental change is coming next year and it is none too soon. Put that in your Christmas pipe and “smock” it!

Further Reading:

Some might think that since I promote a fundamental physicalism (informed by fourfolds) that I endorse economic materialism or even a predatory capitalism “red in tooth and claw”. Physicalism is a metaphysical stance towards the natural world whereas economic materialism is usually thought to be one of the bad aspects of consumer culture.

A tip of the hat to Richard Neil Abbott for the Scrooge quote! Please check out his blog at



Conscious Capitalism

December 20, 2018

Conscious Capitalism is a philosophy of business and also a corporation that tries to promote better social practices than ordinary (predatory) capitalism. Or perhaps it is mainly intended to make you (either as consumer or producer) think that capitalism can be kinder and gentler.

Conscious Capitalism consists of four principles:

  • Conscious Leadership
  • Higher Purpose
  • Conscious Culture
  • Stakeholder integration

John Mackey one of the authors for a book about Conscious Capitalism, and is well-known as being a co-founder of Whole Foods, the grocery store chain that Amazon bought in 2017. Mackey has been in the news over the years as being against the Affordable Care Act, anti-union, and even skeptical about human-caused climate change. I’m not sure how he stands on these issues now.

From the Conscious Capitalist Credo on their web site:

“We believe that business is good because it creates value, it is ethical because it is based on voluntary exchange, it is noble because it can elevate our existence and it is heroic because it lifts people out of poverty and creates prosperity. Free enterprise capitalism is the most powerful system for social cooperation and human progress ever conceived. It is one of the most compelling ideas we humans have ever had. But we can aspire to even more.”

So it is basically capitalism with a conscious. Don’t get me wrong, if their corporation can make a difference in the way that capitalism is usually practiced then I’m all for it. But it is likely too little, too late.

Further Reading:

John Mackey and Rajendra Sisodia / Conscious Capitalism: liberating the heroic spirit of business (2013)





December 17, 2018

Speaking of flow, I see that the psychological concept of flow is based around a distinction of low-to-high challenge vs. low-to-high skill. When both challenge and skill are high, an efficient mental state can be engaged. From Wikipedia:

“In positive psychology, flow, also known colloquially as being in the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one’s sense of space and time.”

  • Flow: high challenge and high skill
  • Control: medium challenge and high skill
  • Relaxation: low challenge and high skill
  • Boredom: low challenge and medium skill
  • Apathy: low challenge and low skill
  • Worry: medium challenge and low skill
  • Anxiety: high challenge and low skill
  • Arousal: high challenge and medium skill

Missing is medium challenge and medium skill. I wonder what that is?

Further Reading:

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi / Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience





%d bloggers like this: