Abstract
This paper is the first part of a series. The series suggests that attitude toward equilibrium theorizing varies inversely with capacity for Rorschachian inner creation (production of Rorschach movement responses), regardless of discipline or of object of theory (e.g., biological, economic, psychological, or social systems). Positively, it suggests that capacity for inner creation may be conceived as a property of both subject and object, i.e., knower and known, observer and observed, theorist and theorized, that the capacity for Rorschachian inner creation is (among other things) the capacity for cognizing the capacity for inner creation in biological, economic, psychological, social, and other systems. More specifically, the series proposes an appeal of Hegelian, Marxian, and Schumpeterian theorizing that has nothing to do with politics, economics, or sociology, and that links it to the “Leibnizian” tradition in psychology. Similarly, it proposes that a kind of movement alleged to exist in life, nature, or history—whether by psychological specialists discussing change in mental patients or by sociologists and philosophers discussing social change—has much to do with the kind in the Rorschach test. In short, the series proposes (1) dialectical thinking as one dimension of what Rorschach meant by inner creation, (2) that such thinking may be seen as not only Hegelian-Marxian-Schumpeterian but also as what Allport meant by Leibnizian, and (3) that no matter how much political difference may exist between Leibnizian, Hegelian, Marxian, or Schumpeterian scholars and scientists, they are of kindred outlook when it comes to the attitudes, beliefs, or values that are the correlates of high Rorschach movement production.