Advertisement

Spiritual Rationality: Integrating Faith-Based and Secular-Based Problem Solving and Negotiation as Systems Design for Right Action

  • Melvin F. ShakunEmail author
Article
  • 86 Downloads

Abstract

Faith-based (spiritual) and secular-based (rational) approaches to problem solving and negotiation are commonly viewed as strongly conflicting approaches. While analysis is used in faith-based problem solving, problem solutions can come directly from God (One, all there is) in which case advocates say that analysis is not really necessary. Problem solutions can also come from religious laws and practices providing values that serve as intermediates/surrogates (Section 11) for connectedness with God. These religious laws and practices are based on analysis and interpretation – much of it quite rational – of God's word/scriptures, the latter providing religious axioms. Axioms for secular-based problem solving follow scientific method. Faith and secular belief systems differ, but share some values. For advocates of secular-based problem solving, faith-based solutions (actions) that differ from the results of their own rational analyses are hard to accept. Rationality and spirituality represent different brain capabilities. Extending rationality to spiritual rationality can integrate these capabilities. With spiritual-rationality problem solving, an individual – whether his orientation is primarily faith-based or secular-based – validates a problem solution both rationally and spiritually for right action (decision) using a spiritual rationality validation test. If the solution is not valid, the individual continues problem solving trying to validate spiritual rationality of a solution.

With spiritual rationality both a faith-based advocate and a secular-based advocate can each achieve internal consistency of rationality and spirituality. Conflict between them could still exist. However, their common adoption of spiritual rationality and the Evolutionary Systems Design (ESD) framework – providing a common methodology that highlights high-level purpose shared by individuals – can facilitate problem evolution leading to group agreed-upon solution (right action).

The core axiom of ESD/spiritual-rationality problem solving is that individuals (agents) have a shared inherent purpose to experience connectedness with One. In integrating spirituality and rationality, spiritual rationality – by validating right action in problem solving and negotiation – can help maintain connectedness with One as shared inherent purpose in an individual's life.

Key Words

spiritual rationality right action (decision) faith-based and secular-based problem solving and negotiation Evolutionary Systems Design 

References

  1. Brooks, D. (2005). “Stuck in Lincoln's Land,” The New York Times, May 5.Google Scholar
  2. Bui, T. and M. F. Shakun. (1996). “Negotiation Processes, Evolutionary systems Design and NEGOTIATOR,” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(4–6), 339–353.Google Scholar
  3. Friedman, T. (2005). “The Tipping Points,” The New York Times, March 1.Google Scholar
  4. Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  5. Kelman, K. S., L. F. Lewis, and J. E. Garcia. (1993). “Script Management: A Link Between Group Support Systems and Organizational Learning,” Small Group Research 24(4), 566–582.Google Scholar
  6. Kremenyuk, V. A. (2002). International Negotiation, second edition. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Lewis, L. F. (1995). Group Support Systems: A Brief Introduction. Bellingham, Washington: Meeting Works Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Lewis, L. F. and M. F. Shakun. (1996). “Using a Group Support System to Implement Evolutionary Systems Design,” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(4–6), 319–337.Google Scholar
  9. Raiffa, H. (2002). “Contributions of Applied Systems Analysis to International Negotiation,” in Kremenyuk. V.A. (2002) (ed.).Google Scholar
  10. Shakun, M. F. (1988). Evolutionary Systems Design: Policy Making Under Complexity and Group Decision Support Systems. Oakland, CA: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
  11. Shakun, M. F. (1990). “Group Decision and Negotiation Support in Evolving, Nonshared Information Contexts,” Theory and Decision 28(3), 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shakun, M. F. (1992). “Defining a Right Problem in Group Decision and Negotiation: Feeling and Evolutionary Generating Procedures,” Group Decision and Negotiation 1(1), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shakun, M. F. (1996). “Modeling and Supporting Task-Oriented Group Processes: Purposeful Complex Adaptive Systems and Evolutionary Systems Design,” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(4–6), 305–317.Google Scholar
  14. Shakun, M. F. (1999a). “Consciousness, Spirituality and Right Decision/Negotiation in Purposeful Complex Adaptive Systems,” Group Decision and Negotiation 8(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shakun, M. F. (1999b). “An ESD Computer Culture for Intercultural Problem Solving and Negotiation,” Group Decision and Negotiation 8(3), 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shakun, M. F. (2001). “Unbounded Rationality,” Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2), 97–118.Google Scholar
  17. Shakun, M. F. (2003). “Right Problem Solving: Doing the Right Thing Right,” Group Decision and Negotiation 12(6), 463–476.Google Scholar
  18. Shakun, M. F. (2004). “ESD: A Formal Consciousness Model for International Negotiation,” Working Paper, Stern School of Business, New York University (to appear).Google Scholar
  19. Sharansky, N. (2004). The Case for Democracy. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  20. Suskind, R. (2004). “Without a Doubt,” The New York Times Magazine, October 17.Google Scholar
  21. Tolle, E. (1999). The Power of Now. Novato, CA: New World Library.Google Scholar
  22. Tolle, E. (2003). Stillness Speaks. Novato, CA: New World Library.Google Scholar
  23. Walsch, N. D. (2000). Communion with God. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.Google Scholar
  24. Zohar, D. and I. Marshall. (2000). Connecting with our Spiritual Intelligence. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leonard N. Stern School of BusinessNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations