Worldview

Worldview

I was challanged recently “you claim to understand the Amerind world view”. Well, that’s true, I also do not “understand” anything. Nor do I know how a 300 lb fat man in a red suit gets down that 6 inch pipe to put presents under the Yule tree every Christmas.  But I am gaining an understanding on worldviews.  The issue is not the man in the red suit but the presents under the tree. The fat man is a myth, the presents are real.

A worldview is a myth, a suite of social mores, words, traditions, used to describe something which is happening in the right mind, evaluated in the left mind, and expressed as a worldview.   PTIB

Two people can be in the same situation, have the same thing happening in their right minds, and the left mind can describe what is happening in two, seemingly different ways.

Worldview “ain’t real” in the same sense that euclidian space “ain’t real” the logical brain fart as compared to the perceptual brain fart, the delusional belief that there is something unique happening in the mind and that their “worldview” is the valid one and the other is not.

The worldview is not the issue, but the evaluation of the perception that is happening in the mind. The problem is not that western civilization has an invalid worldview, but that it doesn’t have a worldview.

Mother earth, shakina, yoga, bottom up, sub conscious, psyche, nirvana, constructionist are merely words used to describe this “happening”. God and religion are mutually exclusive concepts.  If you prefer to think of the universe as GOD, GOD is outside the skull, god is inside (if not hijacked by religion). god being our perception of GOD. (GOD is not god) ShortcutGod Deicide

It helps to have a worldview, it doesn’t matter which one

What, exactly, is happening in the right mind?

Why do you people complexify things so?

 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Worldview”

  1. Walt,

    i don’t disagree with what you are getting at here, but statements like ‘GOD is not god’ silently scream out something else; ‘Include the tools of inquiry in your inquiry!’ The word dog does not bite. That is, world views are generally developed and share by means of language. what’s my point?

    Language ≠ experience

    worldviews are expressed in language, they can’t be expressed in experience because experience is beyond words.

    Poincaré said (Science and Hypothesis) that; to say that ‘the earth rotates’ is nonsense. people thought he was nuts. he was saying that ‘absolute space’ is a nonsense concept. it is a convention that simplifies our word-modeling of dynamics but it puts in contradiction with our own views.

    that is, our experience informs us that the universe is a ceaselessly innovatively unfolding spatial-relational flow, like the flow of the atmosphere, and the stars and planets are emergent features within the flow which are essentially ‘flow-features’. but when we define and name-label the feature we call ‘the earth’, we axiomatically affirm its LOCAL INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE and based on its local existence, if it moves, we can impute that “IT” is doing the moving; i.e. we impute to it its own behaviour when, a moment ago, we had agreed that it was an emergent feature in a flow-continuum akin the emergent storm-cell in the fluid flow of the atmosphere.

    if we impute the behaviour of ‘rotation’ to ‘the earth’ as a local, independently existing object/system, then such movement is absolute; i.e. it is relative to an absolute fixed and unbending space. Poincaré just made the point that such space is nothing like the space of our experience. it is nonsense, but it is convenient nonsense because it allows us to shift the origin of dynamic around and impute them to these word-things that we have put in place of the real entities of our experience.

    Poincaré was amazed how few people ‘got it’ and how many insisted that ‘of course the earth rotates’. the most accomplished and respected scientists in the world today still don’t get it. they will say that ‘absolute space’ i.e. ‘euclidian space’ is a good enough approximation for us to safely use it. they are missing the point. our conception of space as a container that matter can inhabit is the ‘self-other-split. because all that has just been said about the earth applies to the self as well.

    what’s the point of arguing about which geometry of space will serve us best if all of these geometries we are talking about are seen as containers for material bodies, as is the case just described with euclidian space. our language gives rise to that absolute space. once we make a flow-feature absolute (locally existing) by defining and naming it and imputing it to have ‘its own behaviour’, we have with the same strokes, imposed the notion of absolute space on ourselves.

    if absolute space is nonsense, words are nonsense because words that designate local systems with their own behaviours are the reciprocal complement of absolute space. the one could not exist without the other.

    wittgenstein came along and said the same thing ‘words are nonsense’, they are just a means of trying to share our experience, a very imperfect means of doing so. as both Poincaré and Wittgenstein observed, scientific modeling is based on ‘language games’. the most common language game is based on the euclidian space convention. this is the familiar science based world view that dominates in our modern western culture.

    it is nonsense. that is, it is only a ladder to try to get us into position to see something that gives a flavour of the actual worldly experience. there are no local systems with their own locally originating behaviour. the word organism and the word human understood in the local system context is nonsense. the universe is a ceaselessly innovatively unfolding spatial-relational flow, not a rectangular box of infinite dimensions that contains a zillion local systems with their own local behaviours.

    world views are based on ‘words’ and ‘words’ are nonsense.

    world views are language games.

    so, i am not disputing your intention when you say;

    “The worldview is not the issue, but the evaluation of the perception that is happening in the mind”

    but i just think that you might mention the role of language in distorting our perception.

    otherwise we might think that your intention is that we can ‘take you at your word’.

    ted

    p.s. believing in words can make living dangerous, because, in the end, meaning doesn’t come from words, it comes from ourselves. words are little buckets that we fill up with meaning that we have gathered together. it is therefore not a case of ‘taking someone at THEIR word’.

    some people do get carried away, though and start believing that words, if they come from a trusted source are ‘atoms of truth’ and more e.g.

    Take You at Your Word (Avalon)

    Your word is life,
    Your word is love,
    Your word is true. . .
    Everybody’s looking for something to believe in
    Lord, I find the faithful are few and far between
    The more I read about You
    The less I’ve cause to doubt you
    What You say Lord,
    You mean Now I’ve seen
    I can take You at Your word
    And my heart can rest assured
    Lord I love you, Oh, I trust You
    As I live I’ve learned
    That I can take You at Your word
    Your name is written here on the my life in love and kindness
    Your word is hidden here in my heart to guard my soul
    I’ve heard the gospel of
    You’re redeeming love
    What You say, Lord, You do
    I know it’s true
    Your word is life,
    Your word is love,
    Your word is true
    Say You, say Your word to me
    Lord, Your word is a lamp to my feet
    And Your word is a light to my path

    … somebody’s playing with words here,… and they are not the only ones, … you are playing with words, ….. and so am i.

  2. ellocogringo Says:

    hi ted
    very good
    ir re god vs GOD i need to expand that on a seperate post. basically GOD is outside god is inside if not hijacked by religion. god being our perception of GOD. That’s if you want to think of the universe as GOD.
    as to language, there’s more than language, I thought I said that here
    >a suite of social mores, words, traditions,
    Language ≠ experience
    How’d you get that not equal sign in there? really need an cannot capture sign. is there one.
    How you coming with your visualization? Kirby should be able to help you there, that’s what he’s into.
    walt

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: