Psychic states act on each other magically and resist intellectualistic causal explanation

Evidence

But psychic processes imply also the action from a distance of prior forms on posterior forms. We cannot conceive of this action at a distance in the mode of simple causality found, for example, in classical mechanics, which supposes the totally inert existence of a moving body enclosed in the instant. Neither can we allow the mode of physical causality conceived in the manner of John Stuart Mill, which is defined by the constant and unconditioned succession of two states where the being of each one is exclusive of the other. Inasmuch as the psychic is the objectivation of the for-itself, it possesses a degraded spontaneity which is grasped as the internal, given quality of the form of the psychic and which is inseparable from its cohesive force. This spontaneity can not therefore be given strictly as produced by the prior form. But on the other hand, neither can the spontaneity determine itself in existence since it is apprehended only as one determination among others of a given existent. It follows that the prior form has to effect from a distance the birth of a form of the same nature which is organized spontaneously as a form of flow. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 544 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

The ‘magical relation’ is the dialectically sublated determination of influence. There is no longer a body which exerts the force of action at a distance over another body, but a spirit which attracts another spirit whose course of thought and actions it determines. Here an individual relates to itself as if it were a being external and controlled, an ‘other’ it has deprived of freedom. — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 367 (#expands, via linked claim)

There is, consequently, no way that an analyst can reproduce the whole decision process either introspectively or by an axiomatic method. There is no way to build a model for the interaction of two or more decision units, with the behavior and expectations of those decision units being derived by purely formal deduction. An analyst can deduce the decisions of a single rational mind if he knows the criteria that govern the decisions; but he cannot infer by purely formal analysis what can pass between two centers of consciousness. It takes at least two people to test that. (Two analysts can do it, but only by using themselves as subjects in an experiment.) Taking a hint is fundamentally different from deciphering a formal communication or solving a mathematical problem; it involves discovering a message that has been planted within a context by someone who thinks he shares with the recipient certain impressions or associations. One cannot, without empirical evidence, deduce what understandings can be perceived in a nonzero-sum game of maneuver any more than one can prove, by purely formal deduction, that a particular joke is bound to be funny. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 368 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Prior psychic forms motivate later ones as whole objects acting at a distance; Psychic causality cannot be mechanical or constant-succession, only magic action at a distance — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 544; The magical relation is influence sublated into spirit controlling spirit’s thoughts — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 367 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Psychic causality cannot be mechanical or constant-succession, only magic action at a distance #corroborates (0.95) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 544
• The magical relation is influence sublated into spirit controlling spirit’s thoughts #expands (0.85) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 367
• Interaction between two minds cannot be modeled by formal deduction alone #corroborates (0.80) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 368
• Mechanical causal explanations smuggle in what they claim to explain #corroborates (0.75)