Overton W F
Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122.
Adv Child Dev Behav. 1991;23:59-71. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2407(08)60022-1.
The contradictions found at any level of abstraction among concepts such as subject-object, whole-part, synthesis-analysis, metaphor-observation, organicism-mechanism, and interpretationism-realism cannot be eliminated or resolved at that level. They can, however, be reconciled into productive paradoxes by recognizing them as components of recursive systems. The resolution of the paradox occurs only at the next higher level of abstraction where a synthesis can be established. However, this synthesis at the next higher level entails its own contradictions. These can again be reconciled into productive paradoxes through the recognition of broader recursive systems. This progressive solution continues at each iteration, or level or recursion, and it is illustrated in Fig. 5. In the figure, the innermost cycle represents the knowing organism, knowing in the paradoxical cycle of metaphor-assumptions-concepts-observations. This knowing organism is explained and hence understood, and the paradoxes reconciled, only by moving to the next level of recursive cycle. At this next level, the first level of abstraction, psychological theories operate to explain the phenomenological knowing organism of the first cycle. In fact, it is only by moving to this level that we transcend the paradox of man knowing and explaining himself. And only by moving to this level do we avoid the vicious circularity that could befall the use of recursive systems. However, the theories themselves involve a new paradoxical cycle of metaphor-assumptions-concepts-observation. Thus, explanation of this level requires movement to the next level of abstraction or next outer cycle. Here metatheoretical assumptions provide the transcendence and the opportunity to reconcile the paradoxes of psychological theory. But this level too operates in a cycle of paradoxes and consequently the process continues as it does for any dialectic process. In closing, I should in fairness note that I have outlined only one type of solution to contradictions that are found among approaches to the game called science and the game called developmental psychology. It is a solution that draws heavily on the categories of dialectical method, and it is just this method that is both the reason for, and the consequence of, the organismic metaphor. Thus, my solution generates its own contradiction for I have again, as Scholnick argues, based my solution at some level of organicism: a point that will not escape the discerning realist or, for that matter, the discerning rationalist.
在诸如主体 - 客体、整体 - 部分、综合 - 分析、隐喻 - 观察、有机主义 - 机械主义以及解释主义 - 实在论等概念的任何抽象层面所发现的矛盾，无法在该层面被消除或解决。然而，通过将它们视为递归系统的组成部分，这些矛盾可以被调和为富有成效的悖论。悖论的解决仅发生在下一个更高的抽象层面，在那里可以建立一种综合。然而，在下一个更高层面的这种综合会带来其自身的矛盾。通过认识到更广泛的递归系统，这些矛盾又可以再次被调和为富有成效的悖论。这种渐进的解决方案在每次迭代、每个层面或递归中持续进行，图5对此进行了说明。在图中，最内层的循环代表认知有机体，它在隐喻 - 假设 - 概念 - 观察的悖论循环中进行认知。只有进入下一个递归循环层面，这个认知有机体才能得到解释并因此被理解，悖论也才能得到调和。在这个下一层面，即第一个抽象层面，心理学理论发挥作用以解释第一个循环中的现象学认知有机体。事实上，只有进入这个层面，我们才能超越人类认识和解释自身的悖论。也只有进入这个层面，我们才能避免递归系统使用中可能出现的恶性循环。然而，这些理论本身涉及一个新的隐喻 - 假设 - 概念 - 观察的悖论循环。因此，对这个层面的解释需要进入下一个更高的抽象层面或下一个外层循环。在这里，元理论假设提供了超越以及调和心理学理论悖论的机会。但这个层面同样在一个悖论循环中运作，因此这个过程会像任何辩证过程一样持续下去。最后，公平地说，我应该指出，我仅概述了在被称为科学和被称为发展心理学的游戏方法中所发现的矛盾的一种解决方案。这是一种大量借鉴辩证方法范畴的解决方案，而正是这种方法既是有机主义隐喻的原因，也是其结果。因此，正如肖尔尼茨所论证的，我的解决方案产生了它自身的矛盾，因为在某种程度上我再次将我的解决方案基于有机主义：这一点不会逃过有洞察力的实在论者，或者就此而言，有洞察力的理性主义者的注意。
