Showing papers on "Sociofact published in 1968"
TL;DR: Poetry, painting, the arts are in the same search, in Coleridge's phrase, for unity in variety, and each in its own way looks for likeness under the variety of human experience.
Abstract: Typological Thinking There is a habit ofthought perhaps as old as language itselfthat keeps getting in the way ofour understanding ofthe history and nature ofthe processes oflife. This is our tendency to think in terms ofstatic types. Of course, we must sort out into categories the overwhelming diversity of phenomenawe perceive and experience, andwe do so inwords like "man," "cat," or "dog." Such words do not refer to particular persons or animals but to abstract representatives ofmankind, cat-kind, and dog-kind. Also, such words emphasize differences between "kinds" as ifthere were rigid boundaries; they give no hint ofwhat the "kinds" may have in common. Nor do they take into account, or even suggest, the diversity within "kinds"—the diversity of persons, of cats, and of dogs. Nevertheless, man has long sought for ways to unify as well as classify this diversity—since long before Bronowski said, beautifully, that "science is nothing else than the search to discover unity in the wild variety of nature—or more exactly, in the variety ofour experience. Poetry, painting, the arts are in the same search, in Coleridge's phrase, for unity in variety. Each in its own way looks for likeness under the variety ofhuman experience."
15 citations
TL;DR: This paper interprets David Bakan's phrase “epistemological loneliness” in terms of Toennies' distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft.
Abstract: of two kinds of role-taking (empathy)-(a) an intuitional kind associated with Rorschachian inner creation (movement responsivity ) , with feeling, and with experience in its Eslebnis sense, and (b) an injere~ziial kind associated with Rorschachian rationality (form responsivity), with prediction, and with experience in its Erfahrung sense (Stark, 1968a), and (3) suggested that "drama" clusters with the former, i.e., with intuitional role-taking, inner creation, feeling, and Erlebnzs (Stark, 1968b). In this paper, I should like to begin to suggest the same about Ferdinand Toennies' concept of Gemeinschaft, i.e., that it too clusters with intuitional roletaking, inner creation, feeling, and Erlebnis (and Gesellschaft with inferential role-taking, rationality, prediction, and Erfahrung). I say "begin" because the suggestion will be presented in three parts, each a separate paper. The firsr (this one) deals with what David Bakan (1956, 1967) means by "a philosophy of epistemological loneliness." Specifically, it relates his interpretation of British Empiricism to Toennies' Gemeinschaft-Gerellrchaft distinction--or more precisely, it interprets his interpretation in terms of Toennies' distinction. The second part deals with Bakan's Dr~ality of Hz(man Existence (1966) treating it as a variation on Toennies' theme. The third and last part deals with Toennies' Community and Society (Gemeinschaft r~nd Gesellschaft), relating it to earlier macerials in the series. Although in these three papers I shall be referring only to Gemeinschaft, what I say about it is intended to apply as well to the concepts that John McKinney and Charles Loornis (Toennies, 1963) relate to Gemeinschaft-Emile Durkheim's "mechanical sol,darity," Charles Horton Cooley's "primary group," Robert Redfield's "folk society," Howard Becker's "sacred societies" ("folk" and "prescribed"), Pitirim Sorokin's "familistic relationship," Max Weber's "?uertsational," "affektz~ell," and "traditional" orientations, and Talcott Parsons' pattern
6 citations
[...]
TL;DR: In reporting scientific observations, writers use " very" in one of three ways: first, they combine this qualifier with words of quantity (time, distance, weight, and so on); second, they use "very" to intensify the meaning of a wide variety of nonquantitative words; and finally, theyUse "very” (incorrectly) with words which cannot be qualified.
Abstract: Science depends on precise measurement, and the reporting of scientific observations demands precise language. Authors often use the word "very" as if it contributed to precision. It does not. "Very" derives ultimately from the Latin verus , meaning "true," and today's meanings all relate to this ancestor. One direct descendant is the adjectival use of "very" to mean real, true, or genuine, a usage now archaic or limited to poetry (for example, "has shown himself a very knave"). Another meaning emphasizes identity, coincidence, or significance ("this is the very place," "drank his wine to the very dregs"). In reporting scientific observations, writers use "very" in one of three ways: First, they combine this qualifier with words of quantity (time, distance, weight, and so on); second, they use "very" to intensify the meaning of a wide variety of nonquantitative words; and finally, they use "very" (incorrectly) with words which cannot be qualified.