TALE: The Theme of “Conceptual Elaboration”

Published in

TALE500

15 min readDec 7, 2023

The background, a case study, and a toolkit

I have mentioned the theme of “Conceptual Elaboration” in several articles. This post aims to make a hyperlink for the theme.

The “Early Discovery” Framework
Situational Note-taking for Conceptual Elaboration
An Example of Conceptual Elaboration
The Name — Meaning Relationship
The Part — Whole Relationship
The Means — End Relationship
The Mindset — Meaning Relationship

The “Early Discovery” Framework

In June 2023, I edited a book (draft) titled Thematic Exploration: The Early Discovery of Knowledge Engagement (v1).

The possible book is about thematic creativity and thematic curativity.

I introduced a model of EARLY DISCOVERY of the journey of knowledge engagement.

Strategic Thematic Exploration and Conceptual Elaboration are two phases of EARLY DISCOVERY of the journey of knowledge Engagement. See the diagram below. The further phase is Continuous Objectification which aims to turn a concept system into real things.

You can find more details in Thematic Exploration: The Early Discovery of Knowledge Engagement (book, v1).

Situational Note-taking for Conceptual Elaboration

On August 21, 2023, I made a possible theme called “The Territory of Concepts” which refers to the phase of Conceptual Elaboration.

In order to manage the “Territory of Concepts” project, I created a doc on Coda. See the screenshot.

I wrote private notes about the project and put them in this doc. For example, I wrote a Twitter thread about the theme of “Concepts” on August 29, 2023.

I also wrote a private note on Coda.

On August 29, Jeroen Coelen recommended a book titled The Big Book of Concepts within the tiny Twitter conversation.

I read the book and made some notes. See the diagram note below.

You can also find more details in this long article: Themes of Practice: Concept, Activity, and Cognition.

What did I read The Big Book of Concepts and made the above note?

In the phase of Conceptual Elaboration, there are three critical challenges.

Internal Integration: curate our pieces of ideas into a meaningful conceptual framework or concept system, understand the Part — Whole relationship
External Alignment: compare our ideas with other ideas, understand the Collaboration — Competition relationship
Cultural Projection: match our ideas with cultural needs, understand the Means-End relationship

My approach to “Concepts” and “Cognition” was inspired by Ecological Psychology, Activity Theory, and Lui’s Theoretical Sociology. The “Territory of Concepts” project started with the creative dialogue between three approaches. This refers to the Internal Integration challenge of my project on Themes and Concepts.

The Big Book of Concepts is about the perspective of Cognitive Psychology. So, my action of reading the book is related to the External Alignment challenge of my project on Themes and Concepts.

How about the Cultural Projection challenge?

From Sept 9, 2023, to Nov 20, 2023, I worked on a case study about the concept of “Mindset” in the field of psychological knowledge engagement. A by-product of the case study is the “Grasping the Concept” model. See the diagram below.

The above diagram highlights four types of thematic spaces which refer to four sociocultural areas.

Theoretical Psychologists — The THEORY thematic space
Empirical Psychologists — The END thematic space
Intervenors — The MEANS thematic space
Actors — The PRACTICE thematic space

This is an answer to the Cultural Projection challenge.

In a given field such as psychological knowledge engagement, there are four major sociocultural areas. Each area has its own logic of the Means-End relationship.

Theoretical Development -> Setting the Term
Empirical Research -> Bounding the Case
Intervention and Curation -> Capturing the Theme
Life Reflection -> Weaving the Mind

All three challenges are related to a deep issue: the Mindset — Meaning relationship.

So, we need to pay attention to our notes about the following issues in the phase of Conceptual Elaboration

The Part-Whole relationship
The Collaboration—Competition relationship
The Means-End relationship
The Mindset — Meaning relationship

After Early Discovery, what should we do?

I roughly used “Continuous Objectification” to describe the stage after Early Discovery.

(This section is part of The Art of Situational Note-taking)

An Example of Conceptual Elaboration

On Dec 5, 2023, I published an article titled Social Moves: An Integrated Ecological Approach to Social Cognition.

During the process of writing the article, I faced the challenge of dealing with the concept of “Ecological Formism”.

Let’s review the historical development of the concept of “Ecological Formism”.

On Nov 21, 2022, I made the Kind of Actors diagram and used the term “Ecological Formism” for the first time.

The diagram displays four types of actors in a different visual layout. Now we can see the implicit similarity between Curators and Theoretical Sociologists.
I use “Linguistic Formism” as a label to describe Theoretical Sociologists, especially Lui’s approach. According to Lui.
For the Creative Life Curation framework, Curators tend to use Units of Analysis to reflect on Actors’ life experiences. There is a “frame” behind each Unit of Analysis. Curators work with Actors’ life experiences and frames.
Since Curators have to deal with Actors’ life experiences, their frames have to be suitable for sensemaking with actions and projects. So, I called it “Ecological Formism”.

Why did I use “Ecological Formism” to name Curator’s epistemological stance for the Creative Life Curation framework?

The term “Ecological” was inspired by Ecological Psychology which emphasizes the combination of “Action” and “Experience”.

The term “Formism” was inspired by units of analysis of the Creative Life Curation framework. There is a “Frame” behind each Unit of Analysis. Each Frame is a Form.

The similarity between Curators and Theoretical Sociologists is “Formism” while their difference is between the Ecological approach and the Linguistic approach.

**On Jan 27, 2023, I wrote a post titled TALE: Possible Configurations of A Theme Network and used “Ecological Formism” again. That time I mentioned the meaning of “Ecological Formism”.**

I will use some diagrams to discuss some examples of theme networks. As mentioned above, a diagram is the representation of a theme network. I have to emphasize the following distinction:
Possible: many possible configurations of a theme network
Actual: a particular configuration of a theme network
Representation: a diagram of a particular configuration
Is “Possible” real? It depends on your philosophical stance on realism.
I see the “Possible (Actual)” structure as a whole and claim it as a reality. You can call it Ecological Formism.
The Ecological Formalism stance sees “Possible” as a Form and “Actual” as Content.
The most important thing is the “perception — action” loop.
How does it work?
We perceive many possible configurations of a theme network…
…then select a particular configuration…
…finally, we make a diagram to represent the particular configuration.
We should notice that there is a gap between “Actual” and “Representation”.

Wow, I made a mistake at that time.

I made two different statements.

Statement 1: I see the “Possible (Actual)” structure as a whole and claim it as a reality. You can call it Ecological Formism.
Statement 2: The Ecological Formalism stance sees “Possible” as a Form and “Actual” as Content.

I should directly use “Ecological Realism” for Statement 1.

It’s fine to use “Ecological Formalism” to claim the epistemological stance behind the “Possible(Actual)” structure. But, it is different from its original meaning.

On April 29, 2023, I used the “Variant > Quasi-invariant > Invariant > Invariant Set” schema to make a new framework for the “Frame for Work” project.

The framework was named “Ecological Formism” and its object is about Framework. See the diagram below.

At that time, my mental focus was the “Frame for Work” project which aims to build a new ontological theory of Knowledge Framework.

The “Variant > Quasi-invariant > Invariant > Invariant Set” schema was inspired by the Kind of Actors framework. See the diagram below.

I used it to create a solution of the ontological theory of Knowledge Framework.

On Dec 1, 2023, I the “Variant > Quasi-invariant > Invariant > Invariant Set” schema to make a diagram about the “Thematic Space Theory” framework.

I wrote a note about it and related ideas. You can find more details in Situational Note-taking: Creative Life, Thematic Space, and the Social Moves Project.

See the diagram below.

What’s the difference between the above diagram and the diagram I made on April 29, 2023?

The new diagram used the “Variant > Quasi-invariant > Invariant > Invariant Set” schema as a meta-framework to curate five different units of analysis together.

This is not “new”.

I made a similar diagram (the original table) on April 29, 2023, too.

The original table was made to compare the unit of analysis “Frame for Work” (“Ecological Formism” on April 29, 2023) with other units of analysis.

However, I didn’t consider all units of analysis as a meaningful whole on April 29, 2023.

In the past several weeks, I developed some new ideas about the concept of Thematic Space. Thus, I used the “Variant > Quasi-invariant > Invariant > Invariant Set” schema to frame these ideas and make the “Thematic Space Theory” (TST) framework.

On Dec 5, 2023, I decided to use “the Ecological Formism Framework” to name the new table.

From Dec 1 to Dec 5, I tried to find an appropriate approach to deal with the new table and the concept of “Ecological Formism”.

Should I use the concept of “Ecological Formism” to name the “Variant > Quasi-invariant > Invariant > Invariant Set” schema?
Should I use a new term to name the new table?
Should I use a new term to name these five units of analysis?

Finally, I decided to use the term “Ecological Formism” to name the whole table.

Originally, the term only refers to one row. Now it means the whole table.

This change also made a connection between the Social Moves project and the Frame for Work project.

The Frame for Work project is part of the Social Moves Project.

I also developed the “Possible — Actual — Representation” schema for the Frame for Work project. On Dec 5, 2023, I merged it with the “Possible — Actual — Logical” schema. The outcome was named the “Ecological Actualism” framework.

Finally, I curated the “Ecological Formism” framework and the “Ecological Actualism” framework together.

The outcome is an integrated ecological approach to social cognition! This is a major milestone of the Social Moves project.

You can find more details in Social Moves: An Integrated Ecological Approach to Social Cognition.

The Name — Meaning Relationship

From the above example, we see some critical issues in the activity of “Conceptual Elaboration”.

Each time I used the term “Ecological Formism” to name some things I made. Eventually, the Meaning associated with the Name became fuzzy.

In March 2023, I worked on the Mental Moves project and adopted Dean Keith Simonton’s Chance-configuration theory (Scientific Genius,1988) to study creative cognition. In Mental Moves #1: The Transformation of Mental Elements, I developed a framework about Mental Elements. See the diagram below.

Name: does it have a name?
Form: does it have an identifiable form?
Content: does it have more than one identifiable entity?

For a concept, both Form and Content are part of Meaning.

In the above discussion, we see changes in the Meaning behind the Name “Ecological Formism”.

In the phase of “Conceptual Elaboration”, we need to define a fine configuration between these three aspects.

We can also use the Concept Dynamics Framework to analyze a concept.

The Concept Dynamics framework suggests four views on a concept:

Ecological Reality: real experience with a concept
Conceptual Reality: an idea about a concept
Linguistic Reality: name of a concept or ordinary language
Context: what’s the background of the situation?

You can find more details in Knowledge Discovery: The Concept Dynamics Framework and Against Conceptual Heterogeneity: A Case Study of Academic Knowledge Curation.

I made a case study about the theme of “KPI” on Oct 6, 2022. You can find more details in the original article: #TalkThree 16: Concepts, Themes, and Culture.

The original concept of KPI is a fit between three things:

Linguistic Reality: KPI
Conceptual Reality: Kew Performance Indicators, a type of performance measurement.
Ecological Reality: real practice such as the balanced scorecard.

The new KPI keeps using the original name with a new conceptual reality. It made a good fit between Linguistic Reality and Conceptual Reality.

However, it still needs to achieve the Ecological Reality — Conceptual Reality fit in order to establish a new concept. For the new KPI, what’s its version of “balanced scorecard”?

In Against Conceptual Heterogeneity: A Case Study of Academic Knowledge Curation, I mentioned three types of activities:

Theorizing: Construct
Forming: Concept
Naming: Word

The Theorizing Activity is about connecting Ecological Reality and Conceptual Reality. The outcome is a Construct that can define a theoretical concept for academic research.

The Forming Activity is about connecting Conceptual Reality and Linguistic Reality. If you have an idea about a conceptual creation, how do you present it in texts, diagrams, or other forms? For the present discussion, the term Concept is more about defining a general theme for a field of academic research.

The Naming Activity refers to normal life communicative practice which is about connecting Ecological Reality and Linguistic Reality.

For non-academic normal discussion, we can also use “Theme/Concept” to replace “Concept/Construct”.

Theorizing: Concept
Forming: Theme
Naming: Word

If we only work on the Forming activity, then we stay around a theme. This is about discourse.

For developing a knowledge framework, the phase of “Conceptual Elaboration” should work on the fit between four aspects of concept dynamics.

The Part — Whole Relationship

In the case of “Ecological Formism”, I made decisions about the Part — Whole relationship several times.

Should I use the concept of “Ecological Formism” to name the “Variant > Quasi-invariant > Invariant > Invariant Set” schema?
Should I use a new term to name the new table?
Should I use a new term to name these five units of analysis?

Finally, I decided to use the term “Ecological Formism” to name the whole table.

I also detached the term “Ecological Formism” from the Frame for Work project and used the term “Ecological Actualism” to name a new framework.

Moreover, I attached the “Ecological Actualism” framework to the “Ecological Formism” framework and made an integrated ecological approach to social cognition.

The Means — End Relationship

The Means — End Relationship is about the Objective and the Object of an Activity.

The journey of knowledge engagement is an Activity of Building A Knowledge Enterprise.

The journey is formed with several knowledge projects.

I often curated my mind about knowledge projects by diagramming with pictures, text, and signs. For example, I used the diagram below to curate a network of themes on August 24, 2023.

On August 24, 2023, I used the above diagram to highlight some possible themes for further exploration with some possible books and reviewed their status:

Social Moves (theme) — To Do
Ecological Strategic Cognition (theme) — To Do
Frame for Work (theme) — To Do
Value Circle (project) — Doing
Thematic Exploration (book) — Done
The Territory of Concept (theme) — To Do
Platform Ecology (project) — Doing
Platform for Development (book) — Done

Later, I published a post about the theme of “Social Moves” on Oct 17, 2023.

On Nov 29, 2023, I closed the Territory of Concept project and edited a book (draft) titled Grasping the Concept: The Territory of Concepts and Concept Dynamics.

The changes in Concepts and Frameworks will cause the changes in knowledge projects.

In the case of “Ecological Formism”, we see the change in a network of projects.

Originally, the Social Moves project, the Frame for Work project, and the Ecological Strategic Cognition project are connected loosely. I considered them as three independent knowledge projects.

However, the integrated ecological approach to social cognition changed their status on Dec 5, 2023.

Now, the “Frame for Work” framework is a row of the Ecological Formism Framework.

The Ecological Formism Framework is part of the integrated ecological approach to social cognition.

The new integrated framework becomes the primary object of the Social Moves project.

It also can be applied to the Ecological Strategic Cognition project.

This is a dynamic developmental process. Concepts and Frameworks are Objects of the Activity of building a knowledge enterprise. Closing a project, and editing a book are my Objectives for each knowledge project.

The changes in Objects will cause the changes in Objectives.

I used the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework to understand this dynamic process.

The above diagram is the standard model of the Anticipatory Activity System framework. It was formed by the following pairs of concepts:

Present — Future
Self — Other
Object — Objective
Result — Reward
First-order Activity — Second-order Activity

You can find more details from D as Diagramming: Strategy as Anticipatory Activity System.

For the Anticipatory Activity System framework, we have to use two terms because Objective (what is motive about) is about the Future while Object (what is acted on) is about the Present.

Moreover, Objective is related to Anticipation while Object is related to Performance. They refer to two types of complexities. See the diagram below.

In the beginning, an Objective projects our anticipation about the future, and the complexity of anticipation is high because we don’t know if we can achieve the objective. At the end of an activity, the complexity of anticipation becomes low because the outcome is there.

However, the complexity of Performance on Object is a different trajectory. In the beginning, we do less work on an Object. Then, the complexity of interaction with Objects is getting higher and higher.

Now, we see the Object — Objective Gap. It is not a bug, but a wonderful key for unlocking the deep secret of the Anticipatory Activity System. You can find more details in Life Discovery: The “Object — Objective” Gap and Attachment and Life Discovery: The “Means — End” Spectrum and Becoming.

The Mindset — Meaning Relationship

All the above challenges are related to a deep issue: the Mindset—Meaning relationship.

On Nov 20, 2023, I made the “AAI as Mental Tuning” diagram and discovered four types of mindsets of knowledge engagement.

Knowing-for-all (Theoretical Psychologists’ Mindset)
Knowing-for-fact (Empirical Psychologists’ Mindset)
Knowing-for-us (Intervenors’ Mindset)
Knowing-for-me (Actors’ Mindset)

Each type of Mindset is associated with the following aspects of behavior patterns:

Tacit knowledge
Construal levels
Practical interests
Points of observation
Methodological preferences
Expressive conventions (or language habits)

Finally, we have to answer the question of Why.

Now we can use the Meaning Discovery Canvas for the phase of “Conceptual Elaboration”.

If we don’t have a clear idea about the meaning of our actions in the phase of “Conceptual Elaboration”, we can ask us the following questions:

What’s it? (The REFERENCE question)
What’s the purpose? (The MOTIVATION question)
Why is it different? (The SIGNIFICANCE question)
What should I do? (The AGENCY question)

Developing a concept system is a challenge. The above discussion highlights several significant issues and offers a toolkit for dealing with these issues.