Strategy as Curation | Epilogue: The Meaning of the Social World and Its Consequences

How can we connect Sociology and Psychology?

by Oliver Ding

December 31, 2024

This article is the epilogue of a possible book Strategy as Curation (v1, 2024).

by Oliver Ding

December 31, 2024

Last week, I published The Advanced Life Strategy Toolkit (v2, Dec 2024) and Strategy as Curation (book, v1, 2024). Some friends appreciated them, and one friend even sent me a long email to discuss their further development.

On December 27, 2024, I reflected on this toolkit, particularly the History {Life[Self(Body)])} framework.

As mentioned in the previous article, the framework was inspired by Robert Rosen’s Anticipatory System Theory, especially his ideas on Natural Systems and Formal Systems.

I added the following concepts to the framework and made version 2.

• Symbolic Universe
• Social Territory
• Social Landscape
• Thematic Space

Symbolic Universe and Social Territory come from theoretical sociologist Ping-keung Lui’s Subjectivist Structuralism. I have followed Lui’s work for many years, and his Subjectivist Structuralism has greatly influenced my Creative Life Theory and guided my research on Knowledge Centers.

The other two terms — Social Landscape and Thematic Space — were developed during various projects I worked on between 2023 and 2024.

The result is a meta-framework for understanding the Social World that integrates actors’ subjective experiences, mindsets, and meanings.

It also offers a perspective that connects Sociology and Psychology as complementary disciplines within the same theoretical family.

This article shifts from the practice level to the theory level, exploring the theoretical value of the History {Life[Self(Body)]} framework.

• Sections 1–7 offer more details about these four terms, especially Ping-keung Lui’s Subjectivist Structuralism.
• Section 8 discusses Robert Rosen’s ideas on Natural and Formal Systems.
• Sections 9–10 adopt ideas from the Ecological Practice Approach to further support the framework.

Thus, version 2 of the framework can be seen as a theoretical knowledge curation that bridges Robert Rosen’s Anticipatory System Theory, Ping-keung Lui’s Subjectivist Structuralism, and the Ecological Practice Approach.

The result is profound: the Social World can be understood as a nested Anticipatory Activity System (AAS).

• The Micro AAS corresponds to the Mental System (Natural System).
• The Mega AAS corresponds to the Cultural System (Historical System).

Moreover, the Advanced Life Strategy toolkit (v2) claims that actors not only take actions but also curate their actions into a meaningful whole, such as projects, journeys, landscapes, etc. The Curativity of Actions is behind the Micro AAS.

On a broader scale, both the Cultural and Historical Systems are emergent and curated. The Curativity of Actions also operates behind the Mega AAS.

This Double Curativity and its implications reveal a hidden secret of human life.

Contents

1. The Self — Life — Mind Meta-framework
2. The Sociology — Psychology Connection
3. Lui’s Subjectivist Structuralism
4. Symbolic Universe: Cultural System + Historical System
5. Social Territory: Mental System + Behavioral System
6. Thematic Space: Cultural System + Mental System
7. Social Landscape: Historial System + Behavioral System
8. Robert Rosen: Natual System and Formal System
9. Social World: Moves and Meaning
10. Strategic Curation and its Consequences

1. The Self — Life — Mind Meta-framework

In 2024, I adopted the “Self — Life — Mind” meta-framework to curate my works. Examples include the Advanced Life Strategy (v2) and Strategy as Curation.

The schema was initially developed in May 2024.

The core idea of the diagram is the following correspondence:

• Self as Ontology
• Life as Realism
• Mind as Hermeneutics

The “Ontology — Realism — Hermeneutics” schema is adopted from Ping-keung Lui’s Theoretical Sociology.

This grand theory represents a dialogue between philosophy and sociology. “Ontology” and “Hermeneutics” are well-established philosophical concepts, while “Realism,” positioned between them, adds a sociological perspective.

In psychological science, the concept of “Self” is challenging for empirical research. Here, I use “Self” to refer to the Ontology of Theoretical Psychology, defining it from a philosophical perspective.

The Concept of “Life” refers to the Realism of Theoretical Psychology.

The concept of “Mind” refers to the Hermeneutics of Theoretical Psychology.

In this way, the “Self — Life — Mind” schema serves as a vehicle for the “Ontology — Realism — Hermeneutics” schema, forming the foundation for a novel approach to Theoretical Psychology.

From May 2024 to the present, I have used the “Self — Life — Mind” schema to explore Strategic Life Development. The diagram below outlines a model for the Strategic Life project.

On the PRACTICE side, it applies insights from my book drafts to develop practical frameworks and tools. On the THEORY side, it seeks to advance the theoretical understanding of “Strategy” within the field of developmental psychology.

I later realized that this framework extends beyond psychology, forming a bridge between philosophy, sociology, and psychology. For example, Andy Blunden has employed a similar meta-framework to frame his creative journey.

This schema has become my primary creative theme for 2024!

2. The Sociology—Psychology Connection

On Dec 6, 2024, I wrote an article titled GO Theory: Philosophy, Sociology, and Psychology (What?) and discussed the Sociology — Psychology connection.

Sociologists often maintain a boundary between Sociology and Psychology to protect the Genidentity of the academic discipline of sociology. However, GO Theory centers on Life as its primary objective and adopts a creative dialogical approach to bridge sociology and psychology.

As stated in GO Theory: Love, Learn, and Legacy (Why?), GO Theory emerged from the creative space between Sociology and Psychology. See the diagram below.

GO Theory is the outcome of the dialogue between Creative Life Theory and the Ecological Practice Approach. While Lui’s Theoretical Sociology inspires Creative Life Theory, the Ecological Practice Approach is inspired by Ecological Psychology.

Returning to Merleau-Ponty’s reflections on the relationship between philosophy and sociology, we can see that his insights also apply to the interplay between psychology and sociology.

Knowledge will then be based upon the unimpeachable fact that we are not in a situation like an object in objective space. Our situation is for us the source of our curiosity, our investigations, and our interest in first other situations as variants of our own and then in our own life, illuminated by (and this time considered as a variant of) the lives of others. Ultimately, our situation is what links us to the whole of human experience, no less than what separates us from it. “Science” and “sociology” will designate the effort to construct ideal variables which objectify and schematize the functioning of this effective communication. We shall call “philosophy” the consciousness we must maintain — as our consciousness of the ultimate reality whose functioning our theoretical constructions retrace but could not possibly replace — of the open and successive community of alter egos living, speaking, and thinking in one another’s presence and in relation to nature as we sense its presence behind, around, and before us at the limits of our historical field.

Thus [...] philosophy is not defined by a peculiar domain of its own. Like sociology, it only speaks about the world, men, and mind. It is distinguished by a certain mode of consciousness we have of others, of nature, or of ourselves. It is nature and man in the present, not “flattened out” (Hegel) in a derivative objectivity but such as they are presented in our present cognitive and active commence with them. Philosophy is nature in us, the others in us, and we in them. Accordingly, we must not simply say that philosophy is compatible with sociology, but that it is necessarily to it as a constant reminder of its tasks; and that each time the sociologist returns to the living sources of his knowledge, to what operates within him as a means of understanding the forms of cultures most remote from him, he practices philosophy spontaneously. Philosophy is not a particular body of knowledge; it is the vigilance which does not let us forget the source of all knowledge.

It is worse to notice that Merleau-Ponty defines philosophy as “… the consciousness we must maintain of the open and successive community of alter egos living, speaking, and thinking in one another’s presence and in relation to nature as we sense its presence behind, around, and before us at the limits of our historical field.”

According to Lui, “To Merleau-Ponty, intersubjectivity is the relationship between ego and alter ego, totally Husserlian, not Schutzian. What does it mean in the sociological perspective? It means this: If one insists that every member of the human community should be regarded as ego as well as alter ego, one is in fact insisting that the underlying sociology is micro. But micro-sociology is not the whole of sociology, the larger portion is in fact macro-sociology. Though his insight is partial it remains as an insight that befits his capacity as a phenomenologist.”

If we adopt a psychological perspective, we could claim that what Merleau-Ponty talks about is Mind.

Now we should reflect on Merleau-Ponty’s significant statement:

Every science secretes an ontology; every ontology anticipates a body of knowledge.

Though its source is titled The Philosopher and Sociology, we can understand the “body of knowledge” as both Sociology and Psychology. Every Realism anticipates Hermeneutics.

GO Theory uses the “Ontology — Realism — Hermeneutics” Schema to generate a new schema: Self — Life — Mind.

• Self (Ontology): Philosophy
• Life (Realism): Sociology
• Mind (Hermeneutics): Psychology

This schema provides an interdisciplinary approach to understanding both social life development and creative life development.

While GO Theory adopts the Ecological Practice approach and Creative Life Theory as primary theoretical resources, the Advanced Life Strategy toolkit uses Robert Rosen’s Anticipatory System Theory and Ping-keung Lui’s Subjectivist Structuralism to understand the social world.

More specifically, Lui’s subjectivist structuralism is a great approach to connecting sociology and psychology.

3. Lui’s Subjectivist Structuralism

Lui’s Subjectivist Structuralism is part of his theoretical sociology.

The structure of Lui’s theoretical sociology is nested. See the diagram below. According to Lui, “The realism comprises a subjectivist structuralism and an objectivist stock of knowledge, while the hermeneutics is an interpretation and an analysis. Second, I shall present an ontology that nests the realism within its boundaries.” (p.250, 2016, Aspects of Sociological Explanation)

We should see this grand theory as a dialogue between philosophy and sociology because “Ontology” and “hermeneutics” are respectable terms in philosophy, but “realism” — sandwiched between them — is not. Lui emphasizes that realism is the proper sociological matter (p.251, 2016, Aspects of Sociological Explanation).

Lui considers the following four realities for the grand theory:

• the Weberian course of action
• the Giddensian course of action
• Social Territory
• Symbolic Universe

The Realism is determined by the Ontology. According to Lui, “I made a distinction between action and its course; that is, action is not a reality but its course is. My justification is based on a fundamental ontology.” (p.251, 2016)

The Realism leads to the Hermeneutics which considers two parts: the actors’ interpretation and the researcher’s analysis.

A major aspect of Lui’s Subjectivist Structuralism is the distinction between “Outside Subjective Experience” and “Inside Subjective Experience” which refer to the concepts of “Symbolic Universe” and “Social Territory.”

While “Symbolic Universe” refers to “Outside Subjective Experience,” “Social Territory” refers to “Inside Subjective Experience.”

4. Symbolic Universe: Cultural System + Historical System

Lui adopted the term “Symbolic Universe” from The Social Construction of Reality by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann (1966). In their work, Berger and Luckmann used “Symbolic Universe” to describe the fourth level of legitimation.

The symbolic universe is conceived of as the matrix of all socially objectivated and subjectively real meanings; the entire historic society and the entire biography of the individual are seen as events taking place within this universe…On this level of legitimation, the reflective integration of discrete institutional processes reaches its ultimate fulfillment. A whole world is created. All the lesser legitimating theories are viewed as special perspectives o phenomena that are aspects of this world. (1966, p.96)

Lui claims that the “Symbolic Universe” exists outside of subjective experience. For example, the works of a knowledge creator — such as books or theories — belong to the Symbolic Universe. Even after the creator’s death, their works remain a part of this domain.

I use the term “Symbolic Universe” to refer to the intersection of the Cultural System and the Historical System.

5. Social Territory: Mental System + Behavioral System

Lui coined the term “Social Territory” to describe the “social structure within subjective experience.”

For example, in the Knowledge Center project, I used “Knoweldge Center” as an example of a Social Territory.

Similarly, in 2023, I applied the concept of “Social Territory” to the “Social Moves” project. More details can be found in Social Moves (book, v1, 2023).

In the History {Life[Self(Body)])} framework, I use the term “Social Territory” to refer to the intersection of the Mental System and the Behavioral System.

6. Thematic Space: Cultural System + Mental System

From 2022 to the present, I have been developed Thematic Space Theory.

A Thematic Space refers to a cognitive space where an individual’s ideas, activities, and practices revolve around a particular theme. A theme can take many forms, such as an established theory like “Activity Theory,” a general concept such as “Platform” or “Life,” or an intermediate idea such as “Design Thinking” or “UX.”

The concept was first created in January 2022 to guide the development of a canvas for discussing the evolution of tacit knowledge.

From 2023 onward, the concept evolved into a theoretical framework. One major project associated with Thematic Space was the Mental Moves project. More details can be found in Mental Moves (book, v1).

In the History {Life[Self(Body])} framework, I use the term “Thematic Space” to refer to the intersection of the Cultural System and the Mental System. An easy way to understand “Thematic Space” is to think of it as a place for a concept in your mind. All “Concepts” originate from the Cultural System.

The development of this theory is documented in The Journey of Building Thematic Space Theory.

7. Social Landscape: Historial System + Behavioral System

The term “Social Landscape” was developed for the House of Project Engagement several months ago. Now I use it to refer to “the ecological structure of social environments.”

In May 2024, I developed the Project Engagement approach (v3.1) as a theoretical toolkit, structured around two components: a Map and Models.

In June, a friend needed to introduce relevant knowledge in a workshop, so I designed a simplified version of the toolkit (v3.1). The House of Project Engagement was born. While designing, narrating, discussing, and testing the House of Project Engagement, the theme of Social Landscape gradually emerged.

Initially, the term Social Landscape only described the content presented in the 12 thematic rooms of the House of Project Engagement. Later, when designing the English version of the House of Project Engagement, I adopted Social Landscape as its name.

In August 2024, I expanded this into the Social Landscape Framework as part of a theoretical knowledge curation project titled the House of Social Theories.

The first iteration of the House of Project Engagement with its 12 thematic rooms, inspired by the Map element of Project Engagement (v3.0), was designed on June 14, 2024. While the framework component of the toolkit didn’t appear in this initial design, the thematic rooms later became instrumental in curating social theories.

More details can be found in The House of Knowledge Discovery and the Social Landscape Framework.

8. Robert Rosen: Natural System and Formal System

The terms “Natural System” and “Formal System” are adopted from Robert Rosen’s work on the Anticipatory System Theory.

Let’s first consider Robert Rosen’s original definitions:

2.1 The Concept of a Natural System

Roughly speaking, a natural system comprises some aspect of the external world which we are with to study. A store, a star, the solar system, an organism, a beehive, an ecosystem, are typical examples of natural systems; but so, too, are automobiles, factories, cities, and the like. Thus, natural systems are what the sciences are about, and what technologies seek to fabricate and control.

We use the adjective “natural” to distinguish these systems from the formal systems which we create to represent and model them; formal systems are the vehicles for drawing inferences from premises, and belong to mathematics rather than science.

(p.45)

It is perhaps best to begin our discussion of natural systems with our fundamental awareness of sensory impressions, which we shall collectively call percepts. These percepts are the basic stuff of science. It is at least plausible for us to believe that we do not entirely create these percepts, but rather discover them, through our experience of them. If we do not create them, then their source must lie, at least in part, outside of us, and thus we are led to the idea of an external world. We are further led to associate the sources of our percepts with definite qualities belonging to that external world; thence to identity such qualities with the percepts which they generate, and which we experience.

The first obvious step in our characterization of a natural system can then be stated: a natural system is a member or element of the external world. As such, then, it generates (or can generate, under suitable conditions) percepts in us, which we identify in turn with specific qualities, or properties, of the system itself.

(p.46)

Briefly, we believe that one of the primary functions of the mind is precisely to organize percepts. That is, the mind is not merely a passive receiver of perceptual images, but rather takes an action role in processing them and ultimately in responding to them through effector mechanisms. The organization of percepts means precisely the establishment of relations between them. But we then must admit that such relations reflect the properties of the active mind as much as they do the percepts which the mind organizes.

What does seem to be true, however, is the following: that the mind behaves as if a relation it establishes between percepts were itself a percept. Consequently, it behaves as if such a relation between percepts arises from a corresponding relation between qualities in the external world. Therefore it behaves as if such a relation between qualities in the external world were itself, and as if the perception of this new quality consisted precisely of the relation it established between percepts. The basic point is simply that relations between percepts are, at least to some extent, creations of the mind which are then imputed to the external world. As such, they may be regarded as “working hypotheses”, or, to use a more direct word, models of how the external world is organized.

(p.46)

I use Robert Rosen’s theory and terminology as a heuristic tool to inspire the development of the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework. However, my work is not a direct application of his theory.

In the History {Life[Self(Body)])} framework, I categorize the following entities on the Right side as belonging to Natural Systems.

• Events
• Project
• Social Moves
• Experience
• Action

These entities are grounded in real actions. I see them as Objective Things, classifying them as Natural Systems.

2.2 The Concept of a Formal System

The present chapter is devoted to developing the concept of a formal system…We must enter another world, populated entirely by mental constructs of particular kinds; this is the world of mathematics in the broadest sense.

… the world of mathematics really consists of two quite separate worlds, which are related to each other in very much the same way as the world of percepts is related to the external world. One of these mathematical worlds is populated by the familiar objects of mathematics: sets, groups, topological spaces, dynamical systems and the link; together with the mapping between them and the relations which they satisfy. The other world is populated with symbols and arrays of symbols. The fundamental relation between these two worlds is established by utilizing the symbols of the latter as names or labels for the entities in the former, and for regarding arrays of symbols in the latter as expressing propositions about the former. In this sense, the world of symbols becomes analogous to our previous world of percepts; while the world of mathematical objects becomes analogous to an external world which elicits percepts. The primary difference between the two situations (and it is an essential one) is that the mathematical worlds are entirely constructed by the creative faculty of the mind.

(pp.54–55)

While Rosen associates “Formal Systems” with mathematics, I interpret the concept more broadly. Rosen’s statement that “A formal system, on the other hand, is entirely a creation of the mind” resonates with my perspective.

In the History {Life[Self(Body)])} framework, I classify the following entities on the Left side belonging to Formal Systems.

• Themes
• Story
• Mental Moves
• Meaning
• Mindset

2.3 Encoding Between Natural and Formal Systems

In a sense, the difficulty and challenge in establishing such relations arises from the fact that the entities to be related are fundamentally different in kind. A natural system is essentially a bundle of linked qualities, or observables, coded or named by the specific percepts which they generate, and by the relations which the mind creates to organize them. As such, a natural system is always incompletely known; we continually learn about such a system, for instance by watching its effect on other systems with which it interacts, and attempting to include the observables rendered perceptible thereby into the scheme of linkages established previously.

A formal system, on the other hand, is entirely a creation of the mind, possessing no properties beyond those which enter into its definition and their implications. We thus do not “learn” about a formal system, beyond establishing the consequences of our definitions through the application of conventional rules of inference, and sometimes by modifying or enlarging the initial definitions in particular ways.

(p.71)

…we seek to encode natural systems into formal ones in a way which is consistent, in the above sense. Via such an encoding, if we are successful, the inferences or theorems we can elicit within these formal systems become predictions about the natural systems we have encoded into them; consistency then means that these predictions will be verified in the natural world when appropriately decoded into linkage relations in that world. And as we shall see, once such a relation between natural and formal systems has been established, a host of other important relations will follow of themselves; relations which will allow us to speak precisely about analogy, similarity, metaphor, complexity, and a spectrum of similar concepts.

If we successfully accomplish the establishment of a relation of this kind between a particular natural system and some formal system, then we will obtain thereby a composite structure whose character is crudely indicated in Fig.2 below:

In this figure, the arrows labelled “encoding” and “decoding” represent correspondences between the observables and linkages comprising the natural system and symbols or propositions belongs to the formal system. Linkages between these observables are also encoded into relations between the corresponding propositions in the formal system. As we noted earlier, the rules of inference of the formal system, by means of which we can establish new propositions of that system as implications, to the observables and linkages of the natural system; these are the predictions.

If the assertions decoded in this fashion are verified by observation; or what is the same thing, if the observed behavior of the natural system encodes into the same propositions as these obtained from the inferential rules of the formal system, we shall say that (to that extent) the relation between the two systems which we have established, and which is diagrammed in Fig. 2.1, is a modeling relation. Under these circumstances, we shall also say that the formal system of Fig.2.1, modulo the encoding and decoding rules in question, is a model of the natural system to which it is related by those rules.

(pp.77–73)

Although my interpretation of Rosen’s terms “Natural System” and “Formal System” might differ from his original intent, I retain the logical relationship between these two systems as outlined in his theory. If necessary, alternative terms could be adopted to better align with my framework.

9. Social World: Moves and Meaning

On October 30, 2024, I published the Ecological Strategic Cognition: A Theory of Strategy (v1, 2024). See the diagram below.

The framework was developed using the 5M5A method. 5M refers to the following components:

• Meaning
• Moves
• Maps
• Models
• Methods

An example of this method can be found in Mapping Strategic Moves #14: The House of Creative Life Curation.

• Meaning: Achieving a creative life
• Moves: The real-life actions of creative life
• Maps: The House of Creative Life Curation, representing 12 key themes of the approach
• Models: The Lifescope Model, the Thematic Curation Framework, and the Creative Identity Engagement Framework
• Methods: The Creative Life Curation method, which uses Maps and Models to reflect on Moves

The 5A refers to the Slow Cognition model. More details can be found in The “5A” Slow Cognition Model.

In the History {Life[Self(Body)])} framework, Moves and Meaning are assigned to two systems:

• Moves: Behavioral System (Natural System)
• Meaning: Mental System (Formal System)

Now we can use the whole framework to understand the Social World.

It is a nested Anticipatory Activity System (AAS)!

The Micro AAS refers to the Mental System(Natural System), while the Mega AAS refers to the Cultural System(Historical System).

This insight represents a significant development in the Advanced Life Strategy and the AAS framework.

• The v1 of Advanced Life Strategy and earlier work on the AAS framework focused on Individual Adult Development and the Micro AAS.
• The v2 of Advanced Life Strategy expands its focus to Social Life Development, incorporating the History {Life[Self(Body)])} framework.

This change aligns with the development of GO Theory, which emphasizes Social Life Development. More details can be found in GO Theory: Philosophy, Sociology, and Psychology (What?).

GO Theory was born from a creative dialogue between the Ecological Practice Approach and Creative Life Theory (v2.0). While Creative Life Theory focuses on knowledge creators, GO Theory broadens its scope to include both knowledge creators and cultural innovators.

10. Strategic Curation and its Consequence

The History {Life[Self(Body)])} framework serves as a Model for understanding the Social World.

The Advanced Life Strategy toolkit (v2) also claims that actors not only take actions but also curate those actions into meaningful wholes, such as projects, journeys, and landscapes. The Curativity of Actions is behind the Micro AAS.

At a higher level, the Cultural System and the Historical System are both emergent and curated systems. Similarly, the Curativity of Actions operates behind the Mega AAS as well.

The Double Curativity and its Consequences represent a hidden secret of human life.

This realization inspired me to revisit the diagram below, which illustrates the foundational model of the Ecological Practice Approach. More details can be found in Curativity Theory and The Ecological Practice Approach (v2, 2020).

The diagram above represents the “germ cell” of the Ecological Practice approach. Here,

• The 0 represents a detaching act.
• The 1 represents an attaching act.
• The parentheses signify the Container.

The accompanying diagram also shows a complex state, introducing two additional concepts: Curativity and Themes of Practice. Additionally, the concept of Emergence from complexity theory is integrated into the model.

The concept of “Emergence” has gained significant traction in social sciences and related fields over the past few years. Two key books emphasize Emergence as a central concept:

• The Causal Power of Social Structures: Emergence, Structure and Agency (Dave Elder-Vass, 2010)
• Social Emergence: Societies as Complex Systems (R.Keith Sawyer, 2005)

While my approach does not reject the idea of Emergence, it places greater emphasis on the Curativity of actions and the social world.

The “Strategy as Curation” approach highlights the strategic aspect of human life as a key driver of both individual and social life development.

This perspective enables the development of a new approach to Strategy. With this new Strategy Theory, we can reimagine and construct an innovative framework for understanding the Social World.

Reference

• The Advanced Life Strategy Toolkit (v2, Dec 2024)
• Advanced Life Strategy: Anticipatory Activity System and Life Achievements (Book, 2022)
• Strategic Life: The Strategic Life Development Framework (book, v1, 2024)
• Frame for Work: Knowledge Frameworks, Predictive Models, and World of Activity (book, v1, 2024)
• Meaning Discovery (book, v1, 2024)
• The Mapping Strategic Moves Method (v1, 2024)
• Platform for Development (book, 2021)

v1.0 - December 31, 2024 - 4,790 words