Practice in Dialectical Thinking: Introduction

References to Measuring Hidden Dimensions Volume 2, Figures and Tables (Laske, 2009; MHD V2) 

• Fig. 2.5 Four Eras of Adult Cognitive Development (MHD V2; p. 70)
• Fig. 5.3 Dimensions of Cognitive Development (MHD V2; p. 150)
• Fig. 6.1 The Four Quadrants of Dialectic (MHD V2; p. 172) 
• Table 6.1 Characteristics of the Four Classes of Thought Forms (MHD V2; p. 200) 
• Table 11.5 Thought Form Selection Sheet for Donald’s Cognitive Interview (MHD V2; p. 338-348) 
• Fig. 11.3 Donald’s Cognitive Behavior Graph (CBG) (MHD V2; p. 349)

Manual of Dialectical Thought Forms Section B (p. 589-624) 

• Table B1 Table of Thought Forms with Contrasts (p. 590) 
• Table B2 Detailed Table of Thought Forms (p. 591-594) 
• Table B3 Table of Questions about Thought Forms (p. 595-609) 
• Table B4 Thought Forms as Mind Openers (p. 610-617) 
• Figure B5 Thought Form Selection Sheet (p. 618-619) 
• Figure B6 Thought Form Coding Sheet (p. 620-621) 
• Figure B7 Cognitive Behavior Graph (p. 622) 
• Figure B8 Interview Agreement (p. 623-624)

Dialectical Thinking Has To Do With A Stance And The Tools 

Dialectical thinking has to do with a stance and the tools: a stance towards the world and one’s own thinking and the tools. The thought forms are tools. So dialectical thinking is not identical to using thought forms; it also includes a certain stance and positioning towards oneself and the world based on questioning and critical thinking. 

Distinguishing Between What Is Actual And What Is Real 

Dialectical thinking has a different stance toward what is real. And maybe it would be useful to distinguish between what is actual and what is real. What we see on TV or read in the papers we could call actual. It is factual, actual, but that is not real. Something becomes real for us only when we begin thinking about it. In downloading, there is actually nothing real. We stay on the level of information, the factual, the actual, which will be very different tomorrow. That is why there is a new newspaper saying new things, but in a way, saying always the same. 

So we need to break through this vicious circle of always seeing the same. 

For example, Manager C who was a dialectical thinker has his eye on what can be transformed, what needs to be transformed, and what asks to be transformed. 

Thinking Precedes Acting 

Going back to the illustration of Manager C for a moment, some people might say, Oh, Manager C is so full of thoughts about his own thinking that he can’t be a good decision-maker. He is a thinker, not an actor. Now, outwardly, it seems that he is more thinking than acting, but since thinking precedes acting, the more you think, the better, more informed and more profoundly grounded you can act. 

Table Of Thought Forms B1, B2 

For the moment then, let us go a little further. Volume 2, Dialectical Thought Form Manual (DTFM) Section B starts with Table B1: Compact Table of Thought Forms (B1; p. 590), a two-dimensional representation of thought forms. Michael Basseches has called these Schemata. 

Then, at B2, we come to a very useful Detailed Table of Thought Forms (B2; p. 591-594), where you will find each thought form defined. You can see the four moments of dialectic listed: process, context, relationship, and transformational system. 

Table Of Questions About Thought Forms B3 

Then, at B3, you come to a Table of Questions about Thought Forms (B3; p. 595-609). And that’s even more useful, because after each thought form in this table, there is a set of bullets. It’s a work in progress, where questions are being asked. So, what questions can we say are being asked here? 

For instance, if we go to unceasing motion, which is the first thought form, you have several bullets. And the first bullet says, 

• Does the speaker imply, without being conscious of it, or maybe being conscious also, that unceasing change is basic to human existence? 

This sounds like a philosophical question, but that’s not what’s meant here. What’s meant here is, if you look through a text, which could be a transcription of a cognitive interview, as we teach here, or you look through a book, and you say, Oh, this sounds like there is a thought form being used, having to do with unceasing motion, here in the table, you can ask yourself, is this thought form 1, or is it maybe thought form 6? Or is it maybe a transformational thought form? 

Cognitive Interview Evaluations 

For those who do cognitive interview evaluations, which is the best preparation for learning dialectical thinking, by the way, although very cumbersome and pedantic in the beginning, you read an interview and you try to understand what the person was saying, whom you interviewed, in terms of thought forms. You then have to evaluate fragments of the interview, which are called bits. So table B3 will help you decide, should I evaluate this bit in terms of thought form 1, or is it 6, or some other thought form? 

Thought Form 1 Is About Unceasing Change 

If we go away from the task of evaluating interviews, the table is still most useful, or even more useful, because we can learn what thought form 1 really means. Indeed, 

In making a distinction between past, future, and present, we are already moving away from the world, and we are not describing it anymore because the world does not know what we think we can see as different between past, present, and future. 

So, this is just an example of a single thought form, and the table lists 28. 

Four Moments Of Dialectic With Seven Thought Forms Each 

You might ask why it is not 65 thought forms, or 127, and so on. For instance, Michael Basseches has 24 Schemata but slightly differently arranged. For good reasons, Laske’s DTF has changed that. 28 is just a manageable size of a group of thought forms. We have four moments of dialectic; in each moment or quadrant, you have seven thought forms. The first seven thought forms have integer names, 1 to 7, then come 8 to 14, and so forth. When we say, Oh, this is thought form 1, we know we are in process. We say, Oh, this sounds like thought form 11, we know that we are in context, and so forth. 

Tables in the Manual of Dialectical Thought Forms 

Let’s go away from the assessment and return briefly to the Manual of Dialectical Thought Forms. In Table B1, we have the table of thought forms in its four columns, with seven thought forms in each. Then, in Table B3, we come to the questions about thought forms, as I pointed out, pointing to thought form 1. 

Then in the Manual, in Table B4, we come to Thought Forms as Mind Openers (B4; p. 610-617). 

Thought Forms As Mind Openers B4 

A thought form is not just a way for evaluating an interview or what somebody is telling you in the moment, but it is a way for you to ask yourself, have I thought of all the moments of dialectic as I am preparing this speech or writing this text? Have I thought in process thought forms, or have I only thought in context thought forms? Have I also thought of relationships? Have I managed to point out and become aware of transformations? It is a handy way to check yourself as to what you are telling people and what you are writing down. 

Here, in B4, after each thought form, there are questions that can also be used in coaching and consulting and psychotherapy, and all other human communication. And each thought form gives rise to an infinite number of questions that you can adapt to the present context you are in. So, let’s look at the Questions derived from thought form 1, here the four questions that are listed are:  

• What complications might arise from the fact that the situation you describe is in constant flux? 
• What would happen if this situation changed further, as it has changed before? 
• What is gained by assuming that this situation will remain stable? 
• In what way is this situation determined by past events or trends foretelling the future? 

You could add to this table. This is just meant to explain that thought forms are mind-openers. You can open your own mind, and you can open other people’s minds. 

Cognitive Interview Coding Example 

Then we come to a Thought Form Selection Sheet (B5; p. 618-619), the Thought Form Coding Sheet (B6; p. 620-621), and the Cognitive Behavior Graph (B7; p. 622). 

Maybe we could briefly look at the cognitive behavior graph. We have a cognitive interview coding example in Table 11.5 [Thought Form Selection Sheet for Donald’s Cognitive Interview (MHD V2; p. 338-348)]. There you see texts listed in column 3, and in column 2 you find an evaluation of the thought form having been used in the text listed. 

I was a senior collector, so I had a good amount of authority and so forth. 

Somebody scored that as context thought form 8. Whether this is correct or not is not in question here, but that’s how we are teaching dialectical thinking using cognitive interviews and their evaluation. 

Ways To Learn Thought Forms 

We don’t do this in this course, which is an introduction, but I just want to give you an idea of what is one way to learn thought forms. There are many ways to learn these thought forms. Take a thought form a day and go through the world with that thought form in mind. What do you see? 

Dialectical Thinking Is In Search Of Truth 

We can distinguish between making meaning and making sense, or between meaning and truth. In recent developmental research, truth has kind of taken a back seat because Kegan tells us that everything is about meaning-making, and, following him, Wilber tells us that, and here we are saying: No, No, that’s not the case. We need to also focus on truth. By which I mean it’s okay that we say we make meaning, but that’s not all our thinking is doing. Our thinking is also searching for the truth and has always done so and will always do so. Dialectical thinking is in search of truth. 

Piaget told us there are four steps or stages in which we develop logical thinking, which he called formal operations. Here we are trying to make a step beyond logical thinking, not throwing it away but using it as a tool for some more holistic and systemic thinking. 

I will not go into cognitive development here. I am mainly interested in dialectical thinking itself, not so much in how it develops. You can read up on that in MHD Volume 2. 

Four Moments Of Dialectic Emerge From Formal Logic 

The four moments of dialectic emerge from formal logic, which is in place at about age 25. When we go beyond formal logic, we get into the four moments of dialectic: process, context, relationship, systems in transformation. Michael Basseches, who initially set up this Thought Form framework, arrived at the Thought Forms by reading the philosophical literature, and he found, somewhat miraculously, that these are the four moments of dialectic we can distinguish. Miraculously, because in Roy Bhaskar’s work published in 1993 Roy Bhaskar, who is the founder of critical realism, in his book Dialectic, The Pulse of Freedom, came up with the same four categories. He just called them differently as 1M, 2E, 3L, and 4D. Bhaskar was thinking about categories that explain the dialectic in the world, in reality. Whereas Basseches was thinking about the four moments of dialectic that structure the mind. Here we are pulling the two together. 

We know that there is no world if there is no mind and the world we see is based on what the mind does with it, starting from perception and going upward. So in Fig. 6.1, we have the four quadrants of dialectic or moments of dialectic as they were seen by Bhaskar in 1993 and by Basseches in 1984. That points to the validity, if you want, of this thought form framework we are learning. And in ten years we may have moved on to something more refined. 

Assigning Weights To The Articulation Of A Thought Form: Fluidity Index 

There is one thing about thought forms that we don’t have to deal with here in the Practice Course, that in evaluating thought forms, we actually assign weights to them if we have a text, not during a dialogue. Then we would say, well, this is a very strong articulation of thought form 5, and we would give it a weight of 3, rather than 2 or 1. It’s just a convention that we want to distinguish, in evaluating a person’s thinking, between levels of articulation of a particular thought form. We do that by way of weights. 

We look back on a one-hour interview, and we are asking, what is the total weight of all process thought forms that have been used in this one-hour interview? We might come up with a number like 5. If we ask the same about context, we might come up with a number like 12. If we go to relation, it might be 9, and if we go to transformation, it might be 4 or something. We then have four numbers, 5, 12, 9, and 4, which, when we sum them up, amount to 30. And we call that the fluidity index of a person. So we are saying, at this point in their cognitive development, this person has a fluidity index of 30, which is lower than 40 but higher than 20. And we can compare people in terms of their cognitive profile. 

Now, this fluidity score has limitations because we don’t learn from the number 30 what is the proportion of fluidity in the different four moments of dialectic, which is in this example, as I said, 5, 12, 9, and 4. If we turn these into percentages, we get the proportions with which the moments of dialectic are represented in the person’s thinking. For instance, just to give you an example, fluidity of 5 in process would be a percentage of 24%. That has to do with the fact that there is a total weight, the largest total weight of thought forms, which is 84, because the 7 thought forms in each class when you give them the highest weight, you come to 7 times 3 is 21, and if you have four moments, you have 84, so 84. If a person got a fluidity index of 84, he would be in phase 4 of dialectical thinking, and he would be a stellar dialectical thinker because he would use all thought forms at the highest weight level possible. 

Here we are talking about assessment, but the important point I want to make is that if we convert these numbers into percentages, we get a sense of the proportion of use of thought forms between the four moments of dialectic. We can see that context thought forms are in the majority in this person’s thinking, namely 12, and then comes 9, relationship, which is remarkable, for reasons I will explain, and so forth. So ultimately, what matters in a person’s cognitive development and thinking is not the use of the number of thought forms alone but also the proportions in which thought forms are used in each of the four moments of dialectic because, ideally, we would want a thinking that equally uses all thought forms. 

Let me just bring this computation to an end here, so I can speak more about the proportion in just a minute. So, 12 is a percentage of 57, 9 is a percentage of 43, and 4 is a percentage of 19. So we have the following proportions in this interview that we are imagining, and this is the cognitive score derived from the fluidity score, 24, 57, 43, and 19. The ideal score for this person would be 57, 57, 57, 57, which would mean the person is using thought forms at equal weight, with equal power, in each of the four moments of dialectic. That means he or she not only can think of the world as a static world, in context thought forms, but also can think critically about the world, which means thinking in terms of process, 24, or even relationship, 43. And then, we have 19, which is the indicator of how many transformational thought forms the person has used in the interview, and that’s the lowest number. 

So we can say, well, this person is very strong in using context thought forms, seeing the world statically, but not so good in terms of process, although he has a highly developed relational thinking, 43%, but he does not at this point in his development manage to bring these four moments of dialectic and their thought forms together, because his transformational systems thinking index is only 19, and that’s much lower than 57. 

People Are Disproportionately Thinking In One Quadrant Or Moment Of Dialectic 

What we are seeing before us is quite typical of people you might assess, and of all of us in a way, that they are disproportionately thinking in one quadrant or moment of dialectic but not the other. Dialectical thinking in the full-blown sense also implies equilibrium of the use of thought forms in the four moments of dialectic, and the systems thinking index, 19, is kind of an indicator of the potential for that kind of thinking. 

Critical Thinking 

We distinguish between critical thinking and constructive thinking. What do we mean by thinking critically? There are two ways to do that. We think about something saying to ourselves, Oh well, that’s quite relative; it’s not absolute. If you are critical of something, you don’t take it for the truth. You’re not taking it for some absolute. You’re saying, well, it could be different; it was different before and will be different hereafter. That’s process. Another way of thinking critically is thinking in relationships. Because you say, well, this is quite relative because there is something else quite different, and the two are related. There is nothing absolute about this house because the other house looks quite different. And we can look at the first house critically if we look at the relationship between the two houses. These two categories of critical thinking we find in the thought forms. 

Interestingly, in terms of what we know about the development of the human mind after age 18, the thought forms that come to the fore most easily are the context thought forms, which bind us to logical thinking. The process thought forms appear next. But the relationship thought forms appear much later. They are more difficult to think, to grasp, in part because relationships are invisible. Processes are quite visible at times, not always, but some of them are. Relationships are not. 

Constructive Thinking 

Constructive thinking here is a kind of thinking in which we focus on the what in context, with context thought forms, or we focus on the transformations that something like a system is undergoing. Like our own body is constantly transforming, everything living is doing the same. 

Transformation Thought Form 22, Limits Of Stability 

You need to think in process and context and relationship thought forms to think in terms of transformation. Why? Thought form 22, which is the transformation thought form, speaks of limits of stability, harmony, and durability. Limits of harmony. Why, in order to understand the limits of harmony and stability, and durability, do we need process, context, and relationship? Let me explain. 

In order to see something as having limited stability, we already need to think of it as a system. Because otherwise, to say that something has limited stability is not very convincing, because what are the limits, what is the stability? If we have a system before us, let’s say a beehive or a human body, which we know is going to die, we can say, well, my body has limited stability. We need to think of context, there has to be something that has this limited stability. 

But when we speak of limited stability, we also need to think, and immediately are thinking, of processes, because it is processes that bring about the limits on stability. That’s the second element we need to think when we think transformation. 

And the third is relationship. Because something that has no parts, like the absolute, does not have limited stability if it exists. But if it does, if it exists in the sense of something real, it has parts, and the parts are related, and the relationship between the parts is constantly changing, and if even only one relationship between two parts of a thousand parts is changing, the whole thing is changing. So without thinking of relationships, we cannot think of transformation. We can think of change, but even there, we speak of an earlier stage and a later stage, which are related, but we cannot think transformation without relationship. 

And this makes it understandable why we need to look at the three moments of dialectic prior to transformation. Transformational thought forms are situated, one might say, at a meta-level. They already presuppose thought forms of context, process, and relationship. 

The Four Quadrants of Dialectic 

On the diagram in Fig. 6.1 The Four Quadrants of Dialectic (MHD V2; p. 172), the three categories, process, relationship, and context all point to transformation. That is one set of arrows. The other arrow is one that begins in transformation and goes around and points to all of these preceding moments of dialectic or quadrants. And that is meant to indicate that not only does transformation presuppose process, relationship, and context, but also the other way around. That you can’t really think of process if you do not in some way imply transformation. You can’t even think of context if you don’t imply transformation. Because to say something is static makes no sense if there is no transformation. 

Uncovering Hidden Implications: The Example of “I have changed” 

We are thinking here at a meta-level above language, focusing on the thinking that underlies the language we are using. We are looking at the implications of what we are saying. For instance, when I say, “I have changed,” if we look at this sentence more closely, the I is of course what is the identity here. In that sense, that’s the context. I. We say I all the time, and we only think of I as identity, but we never think of I as transforming. Now if the I is saying “I have changed,” then it is pointing to change, but ultimately also to transformation. This is in a way a dialectical sentence, “I have changed,” and not just a factual sentence. I encourage you to look for implications in what you are saying to yourself and others, and listen for or look for these elements that we call transformation. 

Transformation has to do with absence, it has to do with what is not yet there but is potentially there. I’ll give you more examples of that. So we have a double relationship here between the three plus one moments of dialectic. They presuppose each other. The sentence, “I have changed” makes no sense if there is no transformation, or at least if there is no change. And there is a relationship involved between the two I’s, I before I change and I after I change, and they are not the same I. But the logical structure of the sentence gives us the illusion that the I is the same. But the I tells us that it is not the same, that it has changed. 

Visual Depictions: Visualizing the Moments of Dialectic  

Let’s go to Table 6.1 Characteristics of the Four Classes of Thought Forms (MHD V2; p. 200). The first row is for Dialectical Image that serves as an intuitive shorthand by which to remember the four quadrants. The images – emergence, big picture, common ground, living system – can be visually depicted as pictures. 

For example, a visual depiction of process is a wave. This wave is returning into itself all the time and is unending, unceasing. To think of process, we can think of the waves of an ocean that break on the shore. 

Context, if you look at a tree stump, you see the history of the tree and its growth depicted in the rings. There is transformation indicated, and change also, but they have been frozen into the rings. The rings are of course related to each other, they expand from the inside out, and they form a system. Here you have in a way also the picture of a transformational system. But you can look at it just as an abstraction, as a context. You can describe it in the minutest detail. The upper part is darker than the lower part, and so forth, you can go into endless detail. That’s what logical thinking is good for. But it’s not good for understanding that this embodies and is manifesting a transformation. 

Then for relationship, we can picture some organism or some plant organism that looks like a vine. And by relationship, I want to point to the relationship of the parts in this totality. That all the parts are based on common ground, on sharing this totality of the vine, if it is a vine. Relationship thought forms have to do with what the things that are different share in common. The relationship here is not a logical relationship, a linear relationship between A and B, but it is more a relationship between parts and the whole. 

And then transformation. Picture an image of a crowd in a city moving and transforming itself. It’s not easy to show transformation in visual terms. You need time, you need to show the elapse of time, and so forth. But these are some pictorial representations you might want to think about. 

Homework and Future Applications 

Here’s your homework. You would welcome it if you were reading through the table of thought forms in the Manual of Dialectical Thought Forms, and also the detailed table of thought forms. In future sessions, we will do some exercises using these thought forms. For instance, we can pick a dilemma, or we can pick a problem. We can think about the many ways in which we can formulate the problem, ask questions about it, ways of answering the questions, and so forth. You could think about a concept or a dilemma you want to bring into the open, which we could discuss in a dialogue. We will see how this concept will unfold for us, and we’ll show its many sides and aspects in terms of process, context, relationship, and transformational system. 

The Actual World And The Real World 

Dialectical thinking has to do with getting at the reality of things and in that sense at the truth and not at the meaning, at least not in the sense of Kegan. In one way, you can look at dialectical thinking as a way of transcending what Roy Bhaskar called the actual world to go into the real world. This is a point of view of what is real and in contrast to Wilber and the internet and Facebook and all that, Bhaskar would say, that is all actual, that is just actual. In this time and in the period of the internet we seem to be completely submerged in the actual world and we never get to the real world. Even speech, we can say, is part of the actual world because in speech you can say lies, you are not telling the truth, you have a choice, you can stay in the actual world or you can deceptively tell people the untruth whereby you keep them in the actual world but you never take them to the real world. 

What we are doing here is we are trying to get to the real world. Whether you share this belief system, this philosophical stance or not, it is useful to distinguish between the actual world and the real world. Dialectical thinking is an attempt to go into but beyond the actual world, which is to a great deal illusion, and for that I need dialectical thinking. 

The World Of Empirical Science 

There is another world which you might call the world of empirical science. And science is trying to start in the actual world of appearances and find out the structures underlying the actual world, the generative mechanisms that are not seen, that cannot be seen, but whose outcome we see before us. If you don’t make the distinction between the actual world and the real world, you are in Ken Wilber’s camp where everything is just a matter of taking perspectives. It’s kind of a demi-real, half-real, or illusory world where you live entirely in your mind. And the internet of course almost challenges us to just get lost in our own mind. So some Donnie Groppman on Facebook is going to post an image of his grandchild, and from the point of view of Roy Bhaskar it’s a total illusion we are looking at. Even the self is only demi-real and kind of an illusion as you know. I just want to remind you of what, at least philosophically or in terms of self-reflection, we are doing here. I think this is very serious in a world that is being submerged into illusion by the internet, by TV, by films, by Facebook. It’s an entirely astounding, illusory world. From one point of view, we really need the internet to even come to our senses as who we are. 

Making The Effort 

As I may have indicated, if I say I have changed, that’s a dialectical statement that could help me get out of the actual world, of the illusory world, into the real world. Because on the one hand I’m holding on to the I as my identity, which is a different identity from the one I had yesterday. I’m saying I’ve changed, but there would be no sense in saying I’ve changed if I were not also the same, because only what changes can be the same and what is the same can change. That’s the challenge that dialectical thinking poses for us. If you think of the global crisis, what is the reality of that beyond what is its actuality? I will end here, but I just want to remind you what it is we are actually doing here. We are trying to get at what underlies all the illusions and the actualities we are immersed in to something that could be called real. And it takes a huge effort. And most people don’t make the effort. That’s exactly why we live in the world we live in. 

Cognitive Development Formal Logic To Dialectical Thought 

We can see cognitive development of individuals as following the diagrams in Fig. 2.5 Four Eras of Adult Cognitive Development (MHD V2; p. 70) or Fig. 5.3 Dimensions of Cognitive Development (MHD V2; p. 150), of moving from formal logic to dialectical thought forms of process, context, relationship, and finally systems in transformation. As you remember, the journey to master formal logic took 15 years, from about 10 to 25. So we are talking about the age beyond 25, and we are trying to be some of the few adults that actually make it into dialectical thinking. We are trying to consult with them, to help them get real, in a way. We are trying to absorb epistemic structures, structures of knowledge, that we can use to free ourselves of the illusions that the actual world provides us with, through its technology. 

And the question of how to use the technology we have, to get at the actual world has actually never been asked. 

Critical And Constructive Thinking 

One way to look at the thought forms as tools for getting at the real world, beyond the actual, is that we distinguish between critical and constructive thinking. 

We can say that any time we think about what is the structure of the process that may be at work in what we actually see, we are being critical because we are going beyond the actual. We are looking deeper into the generative mechanisms of our mind, but also of the world itself. The same is true for relationship. When we ask ourselves what is the relationship between this and this, we can stay in the actual world and say, you know, there is a relationship between this house and the next house, so we stay in the realm of illusion. But we can also use relationship thought forms to give us a lift to the real world, where we transcend the actual world. 

So we have critical thinking that puts into doubt anything that pretends to be absolute and being the way it is, and something that just couldn’t be different. We are also being critical in saying there is nothing that couldn’t be different in this world. You know, people tell us that this is how it is and these are the facts, but sorry to say from a dialectical point of view, that’s just nonsense. 

So we have critical thinking and then we have constructive thinking. For one reason, we need context thought forms, because if we don’t have context, we have nothing to be critical about or think in terms of processes about and so forth, nor can we think any transformation. So logical thinking prepares us to be glued to context thought forms. But as I will show you, context thought forms are not necessarily based on or restricted to logical thinking.