*Open and Closed Conceptualizing

“The character and origins of conceptualizing and its path to rational evaluation.”

Starting from no conception, no willingness to conceptualize, no ability to conceptualize, afraid to conceptualize, and having no imagination. Perhaps the reality of this collective incapacity creates a continuous path of cultural belief that is perpetuated when those who are beginning to think are “told” not to conceptualize. The consequences of which result in a severe lack of knowledge or training, practice or experience, in developing the skill of conceptualizing. Because of this repression, they too become captive in the concepts and beliefs of their culture’s leaders. Bypassing any act of creating from their own knowledge, experience and thought.

An interesting circle of socialized ”thinking” and conceptualizing, control over societies beliefs, laws, rules, and behavior.

This seems to be a “natural” malady in the social obstruction to thinking freely and openly. It feels like it is at the “heart” of controlled learning, standardizing, teaching and assimilation of social/political beliefs and expectations of the children and citizens; generally embracing the social concepts of what is politically correct. Which, at its core, is a paradigm for socialized concepts obtained from history’s experience with previous conceptual standards.

The evolving of new concepts is a battle between old and new, real and imagined, knowledge and ignorance, and changing beliefs. The ability to conceive openly and freely in a generality of frozen social concepts of the past, and conceptual deficits of the general populations rational absence, is an extreme challenge, especially in a job training university and college paradigm.

How do we demonstrate the psychological asset of open minded conceptualizing?

What we most often see is rejection and judgment of those who conceive openly and freely. ‘Believers’ use a protective reaction and response to ‘free thinking’ when it manifests in the behavior of other individuals. Especially when it manifests as the cause of the evoked violence between different arcane cultural concepts that contradict each other.

We also see ego-itis as a manifestation of zealous self-right-ness. Tyrants and zealous leaders emotionally rallying those who are closeted in arcane-learned-socialized-concepts. Most are unable to take control of their own conceptualizing i.e belief based irrational thinking and the mystical validation of the conceptualizing process.

Perhaps I should call this “The character and origins (“orangins”) of conceptualizing and its path to rational conceiving.”

It feel like this image has a universal reach. It is also restrained in the generality of belief based concepts from the past in an avoidance of knowledge based conceptualizing in the present. A potent insight.

It is not only about the nature and character of conceptualizing, it is also about knowing when you are doing; moving from one to another.