My research topic：Pan situational theory

From June 2023 to today, nearly a year has passed, and after a lot of debates and ideological struggles, a certain consensus has been reached with peers on the completeness of the topic. Therefore, I would like to record the beginning and end of the research on the topic of Pan Situational Theory.
After reviewing a lot of literature, we chose to use the term 'context' to refer to everything that directly or indirectly interacts with the subject. And name this topic "Pan Situational Theory". What is Pan Situational Theory? What is the difference between pancontextualism and contextualism? What is the manifestation of the "pan" in the context theory compared to the context theory? If we want to give affirmative and specific answers to these three questions, then such answers will inevitably be influenced by the analysis of the root causes of situations in the context of general situational theory. From the perspective of general situational theory, these answers need a specific context to be constrained in order to conform to the definition framework of "universal truth" in academic research, and the constrained context will inevitably have an expandable nature due to its relatively affirmative or absolute established concepts. The philosophical dilemma brought about by the Pan Situational Theory lies in a more complex perspective - that is, the negation of Pan Situational Theory also constitutes a situation defined in Pan Situational Theory, just as the "ultimate truth" expressed in the theory of human and metaphysical truth seems to have an insurmountable boundary. The negation of Pan Situational Theory constitutes a new situation, and this tail snake seems endless and never-ending, while all attempts to approach truth seem to have become the futile act of Sisyphus of Corinth pushing the giant rock to the mountaintop in the public's understanding. Therefore, in order to meet practical efficiency needs, we have extracted two basic principles based on current thinking results to better explain the paradox that "negation of pancontextualism is also affirmation of it".
The first principle of pancontextualism is that context precedes everything that can be expressed
From the perspective of social cognitive theory, the context here is different from the context proposed by situationist Walter Mitchell. Mitchell's context refers to an observable and specific stimulating environment that is opposite to the "traits" proposed by the trait theory in personality psychology. The context of pancontextualism is used to describe a situation that includes and contains more content than the two. The context defined by pancontextualism is almost infinite - that is, from the perspective of personality psychology, the "individual differences" and "comprehensive individual output" expressed and studied by trait theorists are also a kind of context. Therefore, when analyzing and dealing with personality psychology issues, from the perspective of the pancontextualism of "pursuing more accurate research results as the goal", both trait theory and contextualism are worth considering. However, when we look at the role of pancontextualism in the above issues from another perspective, it seems to have a rather serious tendency towards compromise and opportunism. However, as determined by the first principle - that context precedes everything, the evaluation of compromise and opportunism towards the concept of pancontextualism comes from a self perspective that is undergoing dialectical reflection when we narrate and think about this passage. This "self" extracts two adjectives that are similar to the specific manifestations of pancontextualism in the above conclusions based on our own practical experience and knowledge experience. The evaluation process that occurs in this context actually proves the principle that "context precedes everything that can be expressed". The need for reflection comes from the need for affirmation, while the affirmation of the concept itself and the negation of the need for reflection constitute two different contexts. And 'everything that can be expressed' is just like the literal meaning, the expression made by a subjective individual after being restrained in a determined context. If we describe the first principle from a more popular but somewhat limited perspective, it would be that 'every word spoken by anyone must have a position', and when someone tries to weave a sentence that absolutely does not have any position, the motivation for this sentence also includes the position of 'trying to say something that absolutely does not have any position'. The reason why he tries to say something that does not have a position is precisely because he has a position of 'saying something that does not have a position'. This example seems to illustrate that the principle of "situation before everything that can be expressed" is a universal law, but when this principle exists alone, it also has various flaws. The most fatal flaw in the above example is that the definitions of "position" and "everything that can be expressed" seem somewhat ambiguous and unclear, which requires the second principle of pan situational theory as a supplement.
The second principle of pan situational theory is that situations have infinite separability
When the context serves as a prerequisite for influencing and facilitating everything that can be expressed, from the perspective of the development process of "from context to outcome", in a relatively fair and objective evaluation context, both the context as a prerequisite and the resulting expression are determined. However, the context also has infinite separability. How is this separability reflected? We can give an example: a speaker's passionate statement during a speech: "I am a nationalist, and I have the best reverence and sincerest love for the nation I belong to." The audience's evaluation of him is often inconsistent. A selfish and self-centered person who prioritizes themselves in everything but has a certain habit of reflection may think, "He is more noble than me." This is because there was a personality and habit gap between him and the speaker before him, and he entered into reflection based on comparison due to his own habit of reflection. In this context, he made an evaluation that conforms to his established value evaluation system. If he agrees that 'whether a person is noble depends on whether he is willing to make the due contribution to the nation he was born into' With this concept, it is possible for him to make the evaluation of "he is more noble compared to me". However, based on this point, we can further divide it and then confine the audience's thinking context to the scenario of "this audience does not have a high level of trust in their established value evaluation system, such as holding a skeptical attitude towards them". Perhaps this person will think, "In everyone's eyes, he is more noble than me, but do I have to be like him?" If we change the current context to another one, the other person in this context does not agree with the value evaluation system of the previous reflector. In such a situation, The latter may lead to the conclusion that 'everyone thinks this person is noble, but I think this person is very foolish because he is not acting for his own benefit'. If a communist envelope person listened to this speech, they would probably come to the conclusion that "the speaker's values are relatively noble compared to ordinary people, but still limited by narrow nationalism. He may go down the same old path as the Third International in the future. Therefore, when we are in a situation where we evaluate something that happens in another given context based on our own value system, our answers often differ greatly, precisely because the context has infinite separability.
Two basic principles were already established with peers in August, and the next step is to supplement and redefine the theoretical framework of the Pan Situational Theory.
The situation almost contains everything that affects the corresponding things, even the air vibrations brought by a butterfly flapping its wings may ultimately change the results of things from a fixed situational perspective. Based on various subjective perspectives, discussions, analyses, observations, and even just knowledge of a thing, there is not much essential difference in the concept of "influence" compared to butterfly flapping its wings.
An experiment in the field of quantum physics also indirectly verified the viewpoint of panopticism. In 1927, Werner Heisenberg proposed the uncertainty principle, in which he envisioned using a gamma ray microscope to determine the specific coordinates of electrons. However, the accuracy of a gamma ray microscope is technically extremely limited by the wavelength λ, manifested as the resolution of the microscope being inversely proportional to the wavelength λ of light. The shorter the wavelength λ, the higher the resolution of the microscope, that is, the more precise the specific position of electrons. But in Max Planck's quantum hypothesis, after quantifying energy, human observation behavior cannot use any small amount of light, that is, at least one quantum of light is needed during the observation process. Even a single photon can perturb particles, ultimately altering their velocity in an uncertain manner. Therefore, when the purpose of observation is changed to "measuring the velocity of particles", longer wavelength waves have to be used, but this results in less accurate measurements of electron positions compared to using shorter wavelength waves. That is to say, certain physical quantities of a microscopic particle cannot all have definite values from the same perspective at the same time. From a philosophical perspective, this experimental result can be interpreted as "observation inevitably affects the state of things." This is consistent with the first principle of pan situationism, because observation is a subject based behavior, objective observation is void and difficult to explain, and subject observation is imaginable and often experienced in our civilization activities, and observation itself inevitably carries the inherent context of the subject. From the perspective of the second principle, it can also be interpreted as: the broader the definition of a thing, the wider the scope of application of this definition. The more different subjects agree with the evaluation criteria based on their own different value evaluation systems, the more precise and limited the definition of a thing, and the fewer subjects agree with it.
For example, regarding the point that "classical music and modern music are both music", I think most people will not have any objections, because among us, a considerable number of people's music views and even the vast majority of music aesthetic tools are established based on the system of classical music, and we have developed modern music as well as classical music. But if I were to say that 'experimental vocal music in modern music is also music', such as the famous song 'Lost Rivers' by Tuva female singer Shankonachiak on her album' Stepmother City ', describing this life music filled with hoarse, painful, screaming, and fearful melodies within seven minutes as music, I believe there would be a large number of' music enthusiasts' who would oppose or even criticize me, even turning this statement into a joke. The correlation between this phenomenon and the second principle of pan situational theory lies in the infinite separability of situations. Without changing the context of the evaluation purpose, the content of the evaluation is reduced in breadth and accuracy from low to high, that is, in the process of including at least multiple objects. Compared with the former, the context that is separated later has smaller limitations.
Based on our repeated analysis and deconstruction of the "situation", "experience" is always implemented in various situations, which forces us to consider whether the situation can exist without "experience"? After discussing this issue with my peers, we have come to another conclusion - the theory of truth boundaries, which states that due to the infinite separability of situations, the situations and their definitions within a situation are constantly deconstructed and broken down. Therefore, there is no truth in the traditional sense, and empirical things that want to be applicable to things should be confined to their empirical scope.
Based on the content we discussed above, we have summarized and induced a new concept - degree and property, which is a hypothesis that things from an analytical perspective can be expressed by existing language systems in continuation and can be induced by corresponding quantitative systems of instrumental properties. This concept is a hypothesis about the content after the truth boundary, assuming that analytical tools cannot go beyond the truth boundary. Therefore, it is only used as a tool in the context of analyzing this problem.
So, what does the mutual transformation of properties depend on, and how is it reflected? What role does degree play in it? We can use examples to illustrate this issue.
Example: Clan concept and progress in productivity
China's patriarchal clan concept has been deeply influenced by the Confucian culture for a long time, so that in the long historical process in the past, the patriarchal clan concept after certain alienation and improvement of Confucianism in the specific group that has controlled the direction of the whole social values has affected the formation of the basic values of countrymen from generation to generation, such as "the father is kind and the son is filial, the brother is kind and the brother is fraternal, the husband is righteous and the wife listens, and the long term benefits and the young are obedient." (The Book of Rites · Ritual Luck) "," filial piety is also the foundation of benevolence. (The Analects of Confucius · Learning) ". For the ruling class, the instrumental nature of Confucianism has been explored and confirmed by many people. Here, we will not elaborate on it, but only describe its general image in clan culture. Although it has undergone significant or minor changes with the changes of the ruling class and the social situation in specific historical environments, we can still feel its vigorous vitality today - even though it may seem to be struggling from many perspectives.
In the process of modernization in our country, there are numerous examples of the impact of the rapid development of productivity on old traditional concepts, but here we only analyze the phenomenon of the dissolution of clan concepts brought about by the variable of productivity.
In the historical stage before we entered the industrial era, the cost of communication between cities, villages, and even settlements was extremely high compared to now. Under such circumstances, only clans from the same hometown or clan with blood ties to form a special interest community could occupy most of the social content of an ordinary person. Therefore, in this specific environment, the specific groups that control the "input power of values" (such as respected elders, clan elders, intellectuals who can provide theoretical basis for the continuation of the clan, etc.) have the fundamental goal of stabilizing and strengthening clan relationships, and their advocated values are almost always fully serving the closely related social group of the "clan". Ordinary people have no choice in such an environment, either to integrate or to be abandoned by this limited, regional, and interconnected group. When the process of industrialization gradually started, from the popularization of electricity in 1979 to the construction of the Beijing Tianjin inter city railway in 1997, to the life and socialization of the Internet after the millennium, and the cost of cross blood, cross clan and cross regional communication between people was greatly reduced by the progress of productivity, the social relations maintained through clan relations have gradually become fragile in waves of challenges. The framework used to maintain and stabilize social status has gradually transformed into an old cultural heritage, which has changed from a practical and powerful social relationship building logic into an empty and non coercive cultural symbol. Although in some regions, similar traditional cultural constraints still exist on the functioning of the social system, it also faces external impacts brought about by informatization and transparency.
Based on the analysis of the phenomenon we have discussed above, a system that also serves to establish and maintain a stable social relationship framework has formed two completely different social phenomena in different historical periods and production situations, despite having the same nature. This is, of course, our common recognition of the transformation of traditional culture by "taking the essence and eliminating the dross", but it also reflects a phenomenon that nature and nature change depending on the degree.
We treat nature as a static quantitative tool with specific logical criteria for comparison and induction with concrete facts, and degree as a general term for things that constantly move between properties, are ambiguous, and cannot fully fit the assumed property characteristics. In the above content, we only discuss productivity as a variable that affects the change of clan concepts. It plays a huge role in the dynamic image composition of the impact on clan concepts in the process of urbanization, and ultimately pushes traditional clan concepts into cultural symbols of the background plate of urbanization social relations. This is how the change in degree ultimately leads to the dynamic transformation between properties. As one of the many factors that affect the change of clan concepts, the manifestation of productivity in this process precisely reflects the transformation between properties relying on the change in degree. This is the specific manifestation of the mutual promotion and transformation between properties based on degree.
After the establishment of the two basic principles of general situational theory, "truth boundary theory" and "degree and nature", and after our discussion with Teacher D, we once again shifted our focus to exploring the instrumental nature of theoretical tools.
What is a tool? What did the tool bring? We still use examples to illustrate.
Example: Vulgar Relations Studies
Before starting, let's briefly explain Vulgar Relations, which interprets interpersonal relationships as a relatively pure interest relationship. When we discuss and analyze this term and its phenomena, we only use it as a utility tool to evaluate its efficiency in specific contexts, rather than as a social, cultural, or humanistic phenomenon to analyze its "likes and dislikes" in specific values. A tool with strong vitality in a specific context must have strong support for its survival. This support constitutes the fundamental logic of its application, namely 'rationality'. I believe that in today's society where national quality has greatly improved, the public often has some common visions about the ideal form of social relations. We collectively criticize vulgar relations in public opinion and even authoritative propaganda, but even so, our evaluation of this tool in the social landscape is rich and even contradictory. We widely condemn this tool, but we have to choose or be forced to choose it under different forms of pressure. However, when we set aside "bias" and view the utility of this tool in a specific environment from the perspective of its service recipients, it is difficult to deny its actual existence and certain degree of efficiency, which is its direct manifestation as a tool in this context. What is a tool? A tool is a means of serving the subject to achieve specific goals, and in this regard, the nature of vulgar relations as a tool is irrefutable. Therefore, the tool brings a conclusion - an empirical accumulation, that is, in a specific environment and in the hands of the user, it effectively and efficiently completes its task as a tool, highlighting its efficiency as a tool. So, since it has truly brought users success that meets their goals and expectations, why is the public's evaluation of it so mixed?
Firstly, vulgar relations studies ignore the need for equal and sincere emotional communication in the process of interpersonal communication from a universal perspective. It limits the diverse communication methods between people to transactions that focus more on social status, material interests, and emotional needs associated with them (such as consumerism traps, conceptual marketing, etc.). This neglect further increases the cost of communication between different social groups with significant differences in living conditions and social status. At the same time, it also brings great limitations to the universality of vulgar relations studies as a tool - such as social and cultural rifts, imbalances in distribution systems, which will exacerbate the brewing of social contradictions and ultimately form a more turbulent, chaotic, and unfavorable situation for the normal survival of the majority of people, The vulgar relations here have become a universal and absolute tool in our assumptions, a logic that goes beyond the scope of tools and becomes a conclusion that guides social relations. It is also destined to become a shackle of the universality of vulgar relations. We have already explained this phenomenon in terms of degree and nature - one property is transformed into another property when it is influenced by specific variables in a specific environment. A tool used to solve social relationship problems has become a trigger for greater contradictions, manifested in the change of its limitations after its tool nature is concluded. The original nature was to engage in more efficient pure interest relationship communication for pure interest needs, but after the tool is concluded, its tool nature in specific situations may not be affected, but it brings more problems while solving problems. This contradiction may have far exceeded the original contradiction of bottom-up but unsatisfactory interest needs. This is the contradiction and contradiction, that is, the transformation from "nature to nature" based on degree, and also the specific logic of new problems arising when tools become conclusions. Therefore, we can conclude that, based on resolving contradictions but avoiding the emergence of new contradictions as much as possible, conclusions rely on tools, and tools cannot be used as conclusions. When using conclusions as tools, there is a problem of universality, just like using tools. The conclusions that can truly be used as tools either exist beyond the boundaries of truth or must be confined to specific contexts. The former is difficult to touch, while the latter is the establishment of modern science.