I’m sure the moderators are very impressed with your color scheme.
I do not believe Anti-Positivism and Reciprocal Determinism is incompatible, for Anti-Positivism is explainable through the heurmeunetics that arise from Reciprocal Determinism.
And she didn’t invent this idea, it has been around since Chryssipus, earlier more likely. You see it in Plato as well.
The neurons would fire in feedback loops between nodes… these feedback loops create linear steps information is locally fired upon in reaction, after processing it. The feedback loop in parts, not the individual nodes independent of the connections, is what Consciousness is.
Your breaking up analysis of facts in Anti-Positivism… the feedback loops that do the (MBTI) Intuitive Thinking functions aren’t the same as Extroverted Sensing, or Introverted Sensing, and how we prioritize emotive personality traits in a biography isn’t the same as we do for traits of a atomic element. Both a categories, but not united in all operations, the feedback loops diverge.
This is ironically where Anti-Positivism proves itself, and defeats itself, as it explains itself in a relativistic biological mode, showing the differences scientifically… by looking at behavioral patterns, and mapping these into algorithms overlapping conjoined parts of the brain, we can often deduce and predict how these differing modes behave.
The general movement of typing philosophers and ideas neurologically… which I belong to for example, combines both ideas together… it isn’t either Anti-Positivism or reciprocal determinism that makes personality determination, but the two together. There aren’t antithesis, but share many compatibilities. When looking at the biography or works of a philosopher, you should after some typological practice predict what modes of mind they used, or didn’t use. It is both a historical craft, as much as a scientific one.
And philosophers like me… we are aware of Vico’s and Cottonwoid’s contributions, but aren’t limited to them. I look towards Ibn Khaldun and Machiavelli more… but am flushed with hundreds of different historians from around the classical world in which to indulge in their methods. I’m hardly trapped in the narrative of Anti-Positivism vs Scientific thought… I have access to better thinkers who moved naturally and immediately beyond that in earlier eras. The western tradition isn’t always the best. Take the various Chronological histories Romans both east and west developed… John Malalas used a hybrid system… he wasn’t the best historian, but was the most inventive in application of various widespread historical methods. It doesn’t resemble John Zonoras’ approach much… and neither your dichotomy you presented. Arrian was quite open to exploring psychological theories to explain Alexander the Great too. Doesn’t obey the pattern, because ancient historians already early overcame this issue, thanks in large part to early philosophers studying how the mind works in relation to writing history. How would you rate Lucian of Samosota’s critic in his “The Way to Write History” in regards to your two conflicts? He surpasses and overcomes your presented limitations.
Those last few authors exist in Greek. Should be easier for you to read in depth. I believe late Byzantine translations of Boethius’ works exist as well. He was a great advocate for combining systems quite far dispersed, such as Platonism and Aristolianism, but also NeoPlatonism such as Numenius into Christianity, he did internal soul searching in his consolations of philosophy, but could write on hard sciences as well. The mechanical and liberal arts hadn’t fully separated yet, like Martianus Capella was attempting, and which we continue in separating liberal and mechanical arts (liberal arts from the “hard” sciences). Alchemy is another system that never accepted this division. Jungian psychology doesn’t either. Could you accept the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili as belonging to either system alone?