Situational Mode of Thinking

[Rival]

I am reading a book about the Middle Ages; it has been translated from German so it's already pretty wooden, but this has me thinking:

'Through them, the queen and queen mother could gain influence and political weight. It was through such signs, gestures, and personal constellations that a "language" with its own semantics developed, and like any other language, it underwent changes during the course of the Middle Ages. This idiom was rooted in a situational mode of thinking and rarely used abstracts; today we struggle to understand it. Aspects that are familiar to us, such as categories of clear cause and effect or the operations of formal logic, were largely absent. After all, "terror" was more effective than argument and blood relations more important than logic.'

(The Middle Ages, Johannes Fried, pg. 45).

What is 'situational thinking' exactly? Is this a recognised mode of thought lacking abstracts, or has the author invented this term? It seems to denote a more immediate kind of thought. If we struggle to understand it, could any example be provided of what we would struggle with today?

@Augustus @exchemist @Quagmire

Sorry I keep tagging you, but because the new threads feature isn't available these threads become lost quickly.

 

[exchemist]

I am reading a book about the Middle Ages; it has been translated from German so it's already pretty wooden, but this has me thinking:

'Through them, the queen and queen mother could gain influence and political weight. It was through such signs, gestures, and personal constellations that a "language" with its own semantics developed, and like any other language, it underwent changes during the course of the Middle Ages. This idiom was rooted in a situational mode of thinking and rarely used abstracts; today we struggle to understand it. Aspects that are familiar to us, such as categories of clear cause and effect or the operations of formal logic, were largely absent. After all, "terror" was more effective than argument and blood relations more important than logic.'

(The Middle Ages, Johannes Fried, pg. 45).

What is 'situational thinking' exactly? Is this a recognised mode of thought lacking abstracts, or has the author invented this term? It seems to denote a more immediate kind of thought. If we struggle to understand it, could any example be provided of what we would struggle with today?

@Augustus @exchemist @Quagmire

Sorry I keep tagging you, but because the new threads feature isn't available these threads become lost quickly.

I haven’t come across it. From a quick search, the adjective “situational” seems to mean situation-dependent, varying according to each situation. The passage you quote does not seem to offer many clues as to what is meant. Who are the “them” the author is talking about?

 

[Rival]

I haven’t come across it. From a quick search, the adjective “situational” seems to mean situation-dependent, varying according to each situation. The passage you quote does not seem to offer many clues as to what is meant. Who are the “them” the author is talking about?

The King's friends and relatives. It's talking about the royal court.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I haven’t come across it. From a quick search, the adjective “situational” seems to mean situation-dependent, varying according to each situation. The passage you quote does not seem to offer many clues as to what is meant. Who are the “them” the author is talking about?

It reminds me of different claims in psychology that there are distinct different cultural modes of cognition, which are in effect different ways to talk/think about the world and humans in it.
I can't remember the school in psychology, who cliams that, other than it was found in Soviet Union

 

[LuisDantas]

It reminds me of different claims in psychology that there are distinct different cultural modes of cognition, which are in effect different ways to talk/think about the world and humans in it.
I can't remember the school in psychology, who cliams that, other than it was found in Soviet Union

You may be thinking of Lev Vygotsky. Or perhaps of Gestalt psychology or even Gestalt therapy.

Those are three separate, largely unconnected things, though.

​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You may be thinking of Lev Vygotsky. Or perhaps of Gestalt psychology or even Gestalt therapy.

Those are three separate, largely unconnected things, though.

Bingo.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am reading a book about the Middle Ages; it has been translated from German so it's already pretty wooden, but this has me thinking:

'Through them, the queen and queen mother could gain influence and political weight. It was through such signs, gestures, and personal constellations that a "language" with its own semantics developed, and like any other language, it underwent changes during the course of the Middle Ages. This idiom was rooted in a situational mode of thinking and rarely used abstracts; today we struggle to understand it. Aspects that are familiar to us, such as categories of clear cause and effect or the operations of formal logic, were largely absent. After all, "terror" was more effective than argument and blood relations more important than logic.'

(The Middle Ages, Johannes Fried, pg. 45).

What is 'situational thinking' exactly? Is this a recognised mode of thought lacking abstracts, or has the author invented this term? It seems to denote a more immediate kind of thought. If we struggle to understand it, could any example be provided of what we would struggle with today?

@Augustus @exchemist @Quagmire

Sorry I keep tagging you, but because the new threads feature isn't available these threads become lost quickly.

It feels like it is mainly shorthand for acknowledgement that those specific people (Queen and Queen Mother) lived under very demanding circunstances that gave them little ability to make meaningful choices and put them into largely reactive roles with little volition of their own.

The first quoted paragraph all but says outright that they existed to express contents not of their choice, and their very existence was aimed at expressing them pretty much all the time. Or so I understood it, anyway.

 

[Rival]

It feels like it is mainly shorthand for acknowledgement that those specific people (Queen and Queen Mother) lived under very demanding circunstances that gave them little ability to make meaningful choices and put them into largely reactive roles with little volition of their own.

The first quoted paragraph all but says outright that they existed to express contents not of their choice, and their very existence was aimed at expressing them pretty much all the time. Or so I understood it, anyway.

I don't think so. It's talking about Mediaevals as a whole. The paragraph much earlier in the book might help,

'Research conducted in the twentieth century into preliterate nations has given us a new insight into what these barbarians brought with them. One key factor to emerge was that they displayed an additive rather than a subordinative way of thinking, approached things in an aggregative rather than analytical manner, essentially took cognizance of surroundings on the spur of the moment, and were incapable of abstraction. In other words, this way of thinking did not organise its environment into categories, but instead preferred to cling tenaciously to familiar, traditional modes of thought and action.'

The passage in the OP is talking about the Carolingian Court, so Early Middle Ages.

Essentially I think it's like the rabbit, dog, carrot situation. When asked to find the odd one out of these three, most Westerners pick the carrot, but those not trained in Western forms of thinking may group the rabbit with the carrot and consider the dog the odd one, as rabbits eat carrots. I.e., relational thinking instead of categorisation by kind/species etc.

 

[exchemist]

The King's friends and relatives. It's talking about the royal court.

Hmm, seems very obscure to start talking of a language, and a way of thinking, in that context. Not sure I can help much. Though perhaps it might make more sense when you read the whole chapter.

Or, is he perhaps saying that an entire, self-referential, courtly language developed, detached from ordinary practical issues, modes of argument and even logic?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think so. It's talking about Mediaevals as a whole. The paragraph much earlier in the book might help,

'Research conducted in the twentieth century into preliterate nations has given us a new insight into what these barbarians brought with them. One key factor to emerge was that they displayed an additive rather than a subordinative way of thinking, approached things in an aggregative rather than analytical manner, essentially took cognizance of surroundings on the spur of the moment, and were incapable of abstraction. In other words, this way of thinking did not organise its environment into categories, but instead preferred to cling tenaciously to familiar, traditional modes of thought and action.'

The passage in the OP is talking about the Carolingian Court, so Early Middle Ages.

Essentially I think it's like the rabbit, dog, carrot situation. When asked to find the odd one out of these three, most Westerners pick the carrot, but those not trained in Western forms of thinking may group the rabbit with the carrot and consider the dog the odd one, as rabbits eat carrots. I.e., relational thinking instead of categorisation by kind/species etc.

The qoute reminds me of the entry level explanation I was taught about how different cultures can have a different way of thinking.
The example given was about time and planing.
The difference between how a pre-industirial understanding of time and how to organize to a day, versus a modern one with time meausred another way and a day organized in another way.
I.e. in the end how modern people live by the clock and different separate situations for free time, work and so on.
Or by a neuro-biologist with the claim that different cultures in the end structure brains slightly differently.

In a sense it is a claim of limited both cognitive and moral relativism.

 

[Rival]

Hmm, seems very obscure to start talking of a language, and a way of thinking, in that context. Not sure I can help much. Though perhaps it might make more sense when you read the whole chapter.

Or, is he perhaps saying that an entire, self-referential, courtly language developed, detached from ordinary practical issues, modes of argument and even logic?

It's not talking about that this broadly. It's talking about how the royal court was organised and the language in question is not a language like English, it's a way of communicating that developed to deal specifically with court issues (the same way we may refer to 'corporate speak'); but what the author is saying is that this 'language' did not use abstracts i.e., the court was unable to use abstract thinking and the courtly communications reflected this. It seems to be saying that these modes of thinking preferred, say, terror to reasoned argument because terror simply works better and is more immediate to the situation (i.e., situational thinking) whereas diplomacy would require abstraction and long-term planning.

I'm thinking more though about how all this would be communicated in what is obviously a civilised Francia at this point, though, under Charlemagne, Louis the Pious etc.

 

[Rival]

Hmm, seems very obscure to start talking of a language, and a way of thinking, in that context. Not sure I can help much. Though perhaps it might make more sense when you read the whole chapter.

Or, is he perhaps saying that an entire, self-referential, courtly language developed, detached from ordinary practical issues, modes of argument and even logic?

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1040787688627916871/1131904809545515048/20230721_120244.jpg

 

[LuisDantas]

It sure feels like "language" here is just shorthand for rituals, ceremony and expectations; pomp and circunstance.

It is a very sociological perspective, and a very sociological use of the word language.

 

[Quintessence]

It seems to me the writer is just talking about the difference between having prescribed rule that always apply versus... well... not.

Cause and effect -> This happens, then that results, the end.
Formal logic -> If this is granted true, therefore that follows, the end.

Situational -> If this, maybe this, that, and/or the other thing.

 

[exchemist]

I don't think so. It's talking about Mediaevals as a whole. The paragraph much earlier in the book might help,

'Research conducted in the twentieth century into preliterate nations has given us a new insight into what these barbarians brought with them. One key factor to emerge was that they displayed an additive rather than a subordinative way of thinking, approached things in an aggregative rather than analytical manner, essentially took cognizance of surroundings on the spur of the moment, and were incapable of abstraction. In other words, this way of thinking did not organise its environment into categories, but instead preferred to cling tenaciously to familiar, traditional modes of thought and action.'

The passage in the OP is talking about the Carolingian Court, so Early Middle Ages.

Essentially I think it's like the rabbit, dog, carrot situation. When asked to find the odd one out of these three, most Westerners pick the carrot, but those not trained in Western forms of thinking may group the rabbit with the carrot and consider the dog the odd one, as rabbits eat carrots. I.e., relational thinking instead of categorisation by kind/species etc.

Features of the Medieval way of thinking, for illiterate people: Tangible symbols and ritual, orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. Illiterate meaning secular, as writing was largely the preserve of the clergy.

These are notes from a discussion with my son - I’ll put them into English when I have a moment. But I think your author is a bit too dismissive of the intellectual powers of these people, isn’t he?

OK, in better English, now that I am at the keyboard:

My son's reaction to this was to explain to me that in the Medieval world, symbolic actions, ritual and personal connections were much more important, compared to abstract goals and plans, than in the modern world. For instance religion, for most people who could not read, was not so much about belief as about performing the required actions. This was also true in ancient Greece. Observing the ritual was the prime duty. The abstract idea of the importance of personal belief became important far later, at the Reformation. (Actually, I seem to recall @Vouthon making much the same point, in another context, a year or so ago.)

What is new to me is the association of illiteracy with a lack of abstract concepts. I can see how that might be true. When dealing with abstractions one needs to define them precisely, which means having written definitions, so that all can agree on what a term means. But this is a quite profound - and not entirely obvious - conclusion, if it is true. It would need some research to justify it. But perhaps this has been done and this is what the author is drawing upon.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Features of the Medieval way of thinking, for illiterate people: Tangible symbols and ritual, orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. Illiterate meaning secular, as writing was largely the preserve of the clergy.

These are notes from a discussion with my son - I’ll put them into English when I have a moment. But I think your author is a bit too dismissive of the intellectual powers of these people, isn’t he?

OK, in better English, now that I am at the keyboard:

My son's reaction to this was to explain to me that in the Medieval world, symbolic actions, ritual and personal connections were much more important, compared to abstract goals and plans, than in the modern world. For instance religion, for most people who could not read, was not so much about belief as about performing the required actions. This was also true in ancient Greece. Observing the ritual was the prime duty. The abstract idea of the importance of personal belief became important far later, at the Reformation. (Actually, I seem to recall @Vouthon making much the same point, in another context, a year or so ago.)

What is new to me is the association of illiteracy with a lack of abstract concepts. I can see how that might be true. When dealing with abstractions one needs to define them precisely, which means having written definitions, so that all can agree on what a term means. But this is a quite profound - and not entirely obvious - conclusion, if it is true. It would need some research to justify it. But perhaps this has been done and this is what the author is drawing upon.

Remember you need to find a more knowable poster than me, because it is in effect a kind of hearsay, but as I recall the book my wife read on culture and cognition in regards to her eduction, which I also read, is that Western abstract thinking is not just a natural as such, but has a cultural compoment to it.
Consider democracy versus a tribal social system or master-client system, where the interactions and results are more concrete in a sense.
Now then consider what I did as a civil servant. I serviced an abstract system of rights and duties and helped an abstract class of people, the citizens. In effect I in a sense didn't help a private person on a personal level. I helped on the level of the abstract according to laws, who ideally should be about the person, but not always as a private person.
Does it make sense?

 

[exchemist]

Remember you need to find a more knowable poster than me, because it is in effect a kind of hearsay, but as I recall the book my wife read on culture and cognition in regards to her eduction, which I also read, is that Western abstract thinking is not just a natural as such, but has a cultural compoment to it.
Consider democracy versus a tribal social system or master-client system, where the interactions and results are more concrete in a sense.
Now then consider what I did as a civil servant. I serviced an abstract system of rights and duties and helped an abstract class of people, the citizens. In effect I in a sense didn't help a private person on a personal level. I helped on the level of the abstract according to laws, who ideally should be about the person, but not always as a private person.
Does it make sense?

Yes, in way. I'm curious, now, about the evidence for the idea that pre-literate people think differently. I'm sure it could be the case, but I would like to see how it can be known, or why it is suspected.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, in way. I'm curious, now, about the evidence for the idea that pre-literate people think differently. I'm sure it could be the case, but I would like to see how it can be known, or why it is suspected.

Yeah, it is not known in the sense of the hard natural science as such, since it rests on the assumption that culture is in effect mental processes in brains.. But rather the classical version is by Alexander Luria. Look him up, if you have to. The broader field is culture psychology

 

[Rival]

Yes, in way. I'm curious, now, about the evidence for the idea that pre-literate people think differently. I'm sure it could be the case, but I would like to see how it can be known, or why it is suspected.

I have read more!

'Just a few gestures and rituals sufficed to reveal and manifest the rank and status of the lord. For instance, dukes were not only required to subject themselves to the king during his coronation, they also "served" the newly crowned monarch by waiting upon him at the coronation banquet. This initial ritual act of fulfilling their pledge of obedience helped set it firmly in place. The semantics of this kind of ritual, which only became established in the Ottonian empire, were easy to decipher. In a semiliterate society, this kind of literal enactment took the place of any "theoretical" demonstration of loyalty. Even so, a distinction must be made between ritual, ritualistic acts, and ceremonial. Only full ritual could implement the will of God and reaffirm the divine order of things. Everything else was merely the work of man.'

[...]

'However, it is inappropriate to talk in term of him engaging in "politics" - this intellectual concept of human activity deriving from, and for the benefit of, the common weal is an anachronism for the tenth century. Such notions, at least where the West is concerned, may be said the have arisen in the thirteenth century, as a consequence of the late reception of the works of Aristotle. The Ottonian period was still some centuries removed from that development. Accordingly, its lords did not think in "political" categories, indeed the habit of thinking in categories at all was still only in its infancy then; instead, they would explain their motivations by means of signs, gestures, and rituals. There were no conceptions of "domestic" or "foreign policy," or of "politics" and "the state"; nobody would have understood them as templates for interpreting the world of for acting in a particular way, nor could anyone have associated a particular attitude with them or have advocated such a mind-set.'

[...]

'God and Man, the Devil and sinners, the cosmos and the world of human endeavour all conversed with one another in this language of signs.'

[...]

'If anything could have been regarded as "politics," it would have been the fact that the king and his court played a full part in the Mass, prayers and the benedictions of the church. It was a ruler's duty to celebrate Mass.'

 

[exchemist]

I have read more!

'Just a few gestures and rituals sufficed to reveal and manifest the rank and status of the lord. For instance, dukes were not only required to subject themselves to the king during his coronation, they also "served" the newly crowned monarch by waiting upon him at the coronation banquet. This initial ritual act of fulfilling their pledge of obedience helped set it firmly in place. The semantics of this kind of ritual, which only became established in the Ottonian empire, were easy do decipher. In a semiliterate society, this kind of literal enactment took the place of any "theoretical" demonstration of loyalty. Even so, a distinction must be made between ritual, ritualistic acts, and ceremonial. Only full ritual could implement the will of God and reaffirm the divine order of things. Everything else was merely the work of man.'

[...]

'However, it is inappropriate to talk in term of him engaging in "politics" - this intellectual concept of human activity deriving from, and for the benefit of, the common weal is an anachronism for the tenth century. Such notions, at least where the West is concerned, may be said the have arisen in the thirteenth century , as a consequence of the late reception of the works of Aristotle. The Ottonian period was still some centuries removed from that development. Accordingly, its lords did not think in "political" categories, indeed the habit of thinking in categories at all was still only in its infancy then; instead, they would explain their motivations by means of signs , gestures, and rituals. There were no conceptions of "domestic" or "foreign policy," or of "politics" and "the state"; nobody would have understood them as templates for interpreting the world of for acting in a particular way, nor could anyone have associated a particular attitude with them or have advocated such a mind-set.'

[...]

'God and Man, the Devil and sinners, the cosmos and the world of human endeavour all conversed with one another in this language of signs.'

[...]

'If anything could have been regarded as "politics," it would have been the fact that the king and his court played a full part in the Mass, prayers and the benedictions of the church. It was a ruler's duty to celebrate Mass.'

That's very interesting.