trying to bring the AIRR text's problematic forward for time limited discussion purposes
Hugh Williams
John et al,
You write below of ‘being intrigued by David Bibby’s interpretation of the ψ_ function referred to in his emails way below …’. I too am intrigued and have tried to keep up with what David is saying here below on ‘transformation, envelopment, and confinement’ which I transposed to ‘conversion in consciousness, socialization, and an ordering structure’ in a gloss in my email to the list from Sept. 1. He acknowledged some degree of ‘alignment’ with a ‘nuanced’ adjusted emphasis, if I understand him correctly, on an enveloping meaning as in a language thereby enriching the notion of ‘socialization’.
It may help to remember that these speculations, as I’m understanding them, are about this fundamental challenge in Lonergan’s thought for some more effective normative move from individual authenticity to collective-communal authenticity, and this associated desire to achieve some higher theoretical synthesis for what he at one time characterized as this liberal-marxist dialectic that constitutes his work on social theory.
It does seem to me that Lonergan’s extensive treatment of ‘common sense practicality’ and ‘scientific explanation’ in Insight (pp.196-269) does provide us with some important and highly relevant textual references for our speculations in this important area.
It also seems clear to me that both Lonergan and Marx wanted to at least contribute something to the development of a social (human) science (or social theory) where for Lonergan ‘emergent probability’, and for Marx ‘the course of history’ could at least somehow be better guided by human agency. I believe that on this much they were very much in agreement.
So, at this point we may do well to call to mind Phil McShane’s 'revolutionary Lonerganian hermeneutic' embedded in his two striking and disturbing questions to ‘all of us’ (certainly 'all of us' as more or less followers of Lonergan, but then even more unsettling to 'all of us' more or less as Christians of the West). He posed this question not that long ago …
- “does one view humanity as possibly maturing in some serious way or just messing along between good and evil, what ever one thinks they are?”
and “what is to be done? Shall the matter be left to providence to solve according to its own plan, or does one consider that providence intends to use (us and) our leaders as conscious agents in the furtherance of what it has already done?”
I believe I’m setting out a problematic, a Christian-Marxist problematic, that is very much in accord with John’s and Pierre’s very recent AIRR text’s efforts to stimulate an informed reflection and activism rooted in Lonergan’s GEM-FS …
How do others see it?
thanks
Hugh
On 2025-09-06 3:22 a.m., 'John Raymaker' via Lonergan_L wrote:
Hugh, I had begun to answer your message on settler colonianlsim, but in the process of writing my email to this group vanished. So I'm starting again. One of the realities that scares many people and myself is the huge amount of the trillions of dollars of debt the US has been accumulating and can hardly ever pay back. The US dollar's value is steadily declining in value. The BRIC nations, Russia and China are doing whatever they can to undermine US influence. Pope Leo XIV, for one, is urging us to go back to the core gospel message of love--as did Lonergan in his own way. Hoping, praying and being vigilant is part of the answer. .... I am intrigued by David Bibby's interpretation of the psi function.....John
|
Subject: |
Re: [lonergan_l] Ψ -transformations explained simply |
|
Date: |
Tue, 2 Sep 2025 22:42:01 +0000 (UTC) |
|
From: |
'David Bibby' via Lonergan_L <loner...@googlegroups.com> |
|
Reply-To: |
|
|
To: |
Dear John,
Here is a "simple" explanation of ψ_transformation, courtesy of ChatGPT.
Best wishes,
David
A ψ_transformation is a way of talking about what happens when our understanding shifts into a new pattern of intelligibility. It names the movement of consciousness when we are no longer satisfied with a partial or fragmented grasp of things, and we integrate those fragments into a new, higher viewpoint.
Lonergan often describes how insights don’t just accumulate; they can reorganise our whole horizon. A ψ_transformation is that reorganising shift: the point where our questioning, insights, and judgements come together in a fresh unity of meaning.
One analogy is a “phase change.” Just as water doesn’t gradually turn into ice molecule by molecule, but shifts state at a threshold, so too our understanding sometimes reorganises itself all at once. Another analogy is moving from a local puzzle-piece to seeing how the whole puzzle fits together.
So, ψ_transformation is not a technical algorithm, but a name for the inner dynamic of consciousness: the leap from the local to the global, from fragments to a whole. It’s part of how insight grows into understanding, and how understanding develops into wisdom.
On Monday 1 September 2025 at 21:49:28 BST, 'David Bibby' via Lonergan_L <loner...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear John,
Thanks for your question and the reference to Sizikov’s article.
The first thing to say is that the ψ_transformations discussed on this site are entirely distinct in origin and purpose from the Ψ-transformations employed by Sizikov and Chichinadze. The latter arise in computational optimisation, where the aim is to locate the global maximum of a continuous function. Their constructed Ψ-function is a heuristic device, obtained statistically, that serves as a guide for where the global optimum might lie.
By contrast, the ψ_terminology I am employing comes from Lonerganian philosophy and mathematics, where the focus is on modelling insight, personhood, and proof. Here the goal is to illuminate the structure of consciousness itself, with ψ representing the dynamism of consciousness, sublation, and the integration of intelligibility.
In this context, ψ_transformation is a movement in “insight space.” A helpful analogy might be a unitary transformation in quantum mechanics: such a transformation changes the form of the wave function (also using the symbol Ψ) while preserving the probability density. This has no physical, measurable impact, but it does alter the mathematical expression, which is its meaning or intelligibility.
That said, there are some resonances between the computational and philosophical contexts. In each case, the Ψ symbol concerns moving from local traps toward a higher integration. In optimisation, Ψ-transformation avoids being stuck in local minima; in ψ_proof, ψ_transformation avoids being confined to partial or lower-level intelligibility. Both point to a structural need to move from the local to the global through an auxiliary operation that cannot be reduced to stepwise deduction.
I am still exploring how ψ_transformations could contribute to an overall solution, but I hope this helps to clarify the distinction and remove any misconceptions.
Best wishes,
David