Context Defines A Relational World View

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Context Defines A Relational World View

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

boagie
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 12:40 am
Hi you'all!!Smile

Context defines is an idea the struck me sometime ago, but often little jewels of insight fail to be taken to a fruitful point of development. When I discovered recently the relational worldview of native North Americans so much made sense to me. No wonder they do not adopt the whiteman's worldview, based on the linear understanding of cause and effect, it is a vastly deficient worldview in which to understand the individual. This relational worldview I thought must have been developed through the new general systems theory, or systems science, but no, this worldview is as old as the native peoples of the land, and it is as simple and complex, as the concept of context defines. Its a shift in mindset folks!!!

find below a few links to relational understanding

http://www.casanet.org/program-services/tribal/relational-worldview-Inidan-families.htm#

Relational Studies - Theses

Relational constructionism - Participatory world views
 
Ron C de Weijze
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 03:35 am
@boagie,
Boagie, did you know that the word 'religion' stems from re-'legare', to 'connect/join/bind/unite' (Latin) i.e. to relate?
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 07:27 am
@Ron C de Weijze,
Ron C. de Weijze wrote:
Boagie, did you know that the word 'religion' stems from re-'legare', to 'connect/join/bind/unite' (Latin) i.e. to relate?


Ron C. de Weijze,Smile

Actually I did know and I guess a congregation is somewhat of a model, in a unified community the process would be complete. Actually the way I see it now, it is the only sane approach to life, how is it that main stream white folks did not realize the superiority of this system. It makes the mass confusion of our society more understandable. I have spent some time in the northern communities of Baffin Island but did not really know what I was seeing at the time. I sensed the difference, but could not really put my finger on it as a world view making the difference. Of course analysis was the last thing on my mind at the time.


2) "That which exists is inexorably relational." Relational Studies
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 09:23 am
@boagie,
Think of the world as content. Content is meaningless without context. The interplay between the two for an individual is the relation of one being to the world.
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 10:10 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
Think of the world as content. Content is meaningless without context. The interplay between the two for an individual is the relation of one being to the world.


Theaetetus,Smile

The real relation for any organism is that to earth, it is through these relations that it must adapt or perish from the earth. Being that the earth is a very big system, those organisms which are found in particular locals, are adapted to a particular environmental [context], as a system within a system, so there are many contexts which are separate but open to the larger system of earth. A relational world perspective is not only most interesting in biology but in the social sciences as well, humanity must start to examine itself with contructive intent if it is to survive. Our own well being as individuals is much easier to understand through this relational understanding, it is in my view, a return to sanity.


"Change or perish!" L S B Leaky!!




"General Systems Theory, a related modern concept [to holism], says that each variable in any system interacts with the other variables so thoroughly that cause and effect cannot be separated. A simple variable can be both cause and effect. Reality will not be still. And it cannot be taken apart! You cannot understand a cell, a rat, a brain structure, a family, a culture if you isolate it from its context. Relationship is everything."
- Marilyn Ferguson
The Aquarian Conspiracy
 
Billy phil
 
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 10:06 pm
@boagie,
These writers seem to equal individualist worldview=linear worldview and collectivist worldview=relational worldview.

They talk about time such that is might seem individualist worldview is associated with Becoming worldview and Collectivist worldview associated with Being worldview.

Asia is also said to have a collectivist worldview, and "systems" family therapies do too. The link seems to recommend a systems therapy approach when treating Indian families.

I wish I could explain why I find this kind of exciting.

Billy

From your link: "The European and American linear worldview dominates social services to Indian families. These families, however, use a relational worldview in their thinking. Understanding this worldview enhances the Indian Child Welfare worker's ability to provide services.

On our globe today there are two predominant worldviews, linear and relational. The linear worldview is rooted-in European and mainstream American thought. It is very temporal, and it is firmly rooted in the logic that says cause has to come before effect.

Worldview is a term used to describe the collective thought process of a people or culture. Thoughts and ideas are organized into concepts. Concepts are organized into constructs and paradigms. Paradigms linked together build a worldview. This article will summarize both worldviews and show how family functioning can be understood from the relational view.

...In human services, workers are usually taught that if we can understand the causes of a problem, by taking a social history, then we will better know how to help. Interventions are targeted to the cause or symptom and the relationship between the intervention and the symptoms are measured. Yet, the linear view is narrow. It inhibits us from seeing the whole person.

The relational worldview, sometimes call the cyclical worldview, finds its roots in tribal cultures. It is intuitive, non-time oriented and fluid. ....

Interventions need not be logically targeted to a particular symptom or cause, but rather are focused on bringing the person back into balance. Nothing in a person's existence can change without all others things being changed as well. Thus, an effective helper is one who gains understanding of the complex interdependent nature of life and learns how to use physical, psychological, contextual and spiritual forces to promote harmony."
 
nameless
 
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 02:08 pm
@boagie,
boagie;18682 wrote:
Context Defines A Relational World View

Context defines existence (all worlds).
Existence without context is not possible.
For anything to exist, there must be 'other' to compare/define it.
 
Billy phil
 
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 03:07 pm
@nameless,
nameless;24662 wrote:
Context defines existence (all worlds).
Existence without context is not possible.
For anything to exist, there must be 'other' to compare/define it.


First to quote from Boagie's links to relational understanding which he opened this thread with:

Understanding the Relational Worldview in Indian Families

abstracted from Relational constructionism - Participatory world views
 
nameless
 
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 09:46 pm
@Billy phil,
Billy;24676 wrote:
nameless;24662 wrote:
For anything to exist, there must be 'other' to compare/define it.

while of course true,

So far...

Quote:
nameless holds a linear worldview and an individualist philosophical position.

No, nameless does not. Incorrect on both counts. (If you had read any three of my posts you'd have known.)
My actual view of existence is that all moments of existence, ever, are synchronously arising, Now! (And immediately self-anihilate.)
Every universe in Complete in and of itself, One; every apparent 'part' is essentially one and the same as the perceived universe. I and that perceived by this Perspective are One.
I hold no 'philosophical position', but at the moment of disclosure. There might be another Perspective in another moment, in relation to the new universe perceived in/as that new moment. That does not qualify as a 'position'.
Perhaps before making such a presumptuous (and erroneous) assertion, if you are interested what I might think, feel free to ask me.

Quote:
The S-O worldview is not more true nor more false than the relational worldview.

No Perspective is more true or false than another, but to the 'local' egoPerspective.
All Perspectives are 'correct'/true/reality within the context of that Perspective.
All Perspectives are unique.
 
Billy phil
 
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 06:12 am
@nameless,
nameless;24782 wrote:
So far...


No, nameless does not. Incorrect on both counts. (If you had read any three of my posts you'd have known.)
My actual view of existence is that all moments of existence, ever, are synchronously arising, Now! (And immediately self-anihilate.)
Every universe in Complete in and of itself, One; every apparent 'part' is essentially one and the same as the perceived universe. I and that perceived by this Perspective are One.
I hold no 'philosophical position', but at the moment of disclosure. There might be another Perspective in another moment, in relation to the new universe perceived in/as that new moment. That does not qualify as a 'position'.
Perhaps before making such a presumptuous (and erroneous) assertion, if you are interested what I might think, feel free to ask me.


No Perspective is more true or false than another, but to the 'local' egoPerspective.
All Perspectives are 'correct'/true/reality within the context of that Perspective.
All Perspectives are unique.


Sorry. I should have said: At the moment of this disclosure, you held that position [if i read you correctly]
 
nameless
 
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 12:29 am
@Billy phil,
Billy;24796 wrote:
Sorry. I should have said: At the moment of this disclosure, you held that position [if i read you correctly]

I hold no positions. To 'hold a position', one must 'choose' to do so, despite all odds and further 'information'. If I see something one way one moment, and see it similarly, another, there is no 'me' 'holding' onto anything. The 'me' to whom you refer would have to be ego, which holds onto things desperately. I think and evaluate often. New moments bring new universes which bring new data that brings, sometimes, a completely different 'world-view', a completely different universe (the one you are in at the moment).
Have you never declared that 'everything that you have believed is a lie'?
It (a position) is a 'posture', something to defend.
Looking back at my previous posts, one can see a complete reversal of some concepts. I enjoy 'transformation'. There is uniquely different universe every moment. To "hold a position" well might be to 'miss it'!
So, if we can deal with concepts here, rather than 'perceived personalities', i would appreciate it. If you wish to know how I feel about something, at the moment, just ask; assumptions will be overwhelmingly incorrect, guaranteed.
(Unless you wish to define "holding a position" as 'anything that you might be thinking at the moment'... But that would not be any definition that works in 'this' world.)
I hold no positions, have nothing to defend, am selling nothing, I am member of no 'club', espouse no one's thoughts but my own, and they are all tentative and and change with the universes.
Capisce'?
Thanx
 
Billy phil
 
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 05:02 pm
@nameless,
nameless;24848 wrote:
I hold no positions. To 'hold a position', one must 'choose' to do so, despite all odds and further 'information'. If I see something one way one moment, and see it similarly, another, there is no 'me' 'holding' onto anything. The 'me' to whom you refer would have to be ego, which holds onto things desperately. I think and evaluate often. New moments bring new universes which bring new data that brings, sometimes, a completely different 'world-view', a completely different universe (the one you are in at the moment).
Have you never declared that 'everything that you have believed is a lie'?
It (a position) is a 'posture', something to defend.
Looking back at my previous posts, one can see a complete reversal of some concepts. I enjoy 'transformation'. There is uniquely different universe every moment. To "hold a position" well might be to 'miss it'!
So, if we can deal with concepts here, rather than 'perceived personalities', i would appreciate it. If you wish to know how I feel about something, at the moment, just ask; assumptions will be overwhelmingly incorrect, guaranteed.
(Unless you wish to define "holding a position" as 'anything that you might be thinking at the moment'... But that would not be any definition that works in 'this' world.)
I hold no positions, have nothing to defend, am selling nothing, I am member of no 'club', espouse no one's thoughts but my own, and they are all tentative and and change with the universes.
Capisce'?
Thanx


Good for you!

Have you ever played "hot potatoe"? I'll bet not. But before throwing the hot potatoe, you must catch it for an ever brief moment. a stop action video at just the right moment will reveal you holding the potatoe.

I wish someone would join in who wants to discuss philosophical positions. If you want, talk about them in other people, and your guesses about what it is like even if you've never held one.

Billy
 
boagie
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 09:22 am
@Billy phil,
Hi Billy,

Well the dialogue has gotten a little abstract and personal I think, not that it is invalid. My intent in posting a topic of a relational world view is to clearify that it is a much saner approach to living ones life. The present world view in north america is of the individual, it has its positive as well as negative side. Mostly the individual world view I think is one of alienation, the strong silent type hero that comes out of nowhere to save the day, he arrives on the scene without any relational support whatsoever, and this we are supposed to use as a model of how we should be. :No man is an island unto himself", yet, this is exactly what modern society is telling you to be. There is some logic here I think, for the individual in this society is told the he lives in a community when indeed what he lives in is an impersonal conglomerate. Just as there is no such thing as a closed system, so to there is nothing, including the individual, the can survive utterly alone. The nature of all reality is relational, thus this mythology of the individual is not only unhealthy it is unnatural. Perhaps not unatural, as any and all things in existence are necessarily natural, but, certainly this mythology of the individual is less than desireable, less than a healthy context in which to flourish.
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 02:37 pm
@Billy phil,
The contextual/dual nature of all existence transcends 'world-view', Perspective.
For something to exist, it must have context, must BE context. Individual Perspectival uniquities aside, Perspective does not alter 'reality'. There can be nothing existing unles it is dual/contextual/defined/perceived. Linear is one Perspective. There are many. Like the men surrounding the elephant; one sees the trunk, one sees the tail, one sees the side. They are all correct in their Perspective, yet the elephant is not like a snake or a wall or a tree... Perspective doesnt make it so. Reality is what it is, each and every moment, a sum total of all Perspectives, like the elephant. Any one's single glimpse of the elephant is far from a complete picture...

*****

To imagine 'relations' one must first imagine 'seperation'. Simple 'definition' precludes all that. To completely define anything requires the entire universe of the moment of definition as 'context'. 'My' definition is therefore the universe at the moment of definition; always! Like you would be part of 'my' definition and I part of yours. So would be Alpha Centauri and hamburgers.
Each moment (universe) a Completeness; balanced, perfect, needing nothing, no overabundances.. Now!

*****

It seems to be 'thought/ego' that divvys up the perceived universal Completeness into bits and pirces.
Without 'thought', all remains One Completeness, every moment.
Hence the values of meditation.
 
boagie
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 02:57 pm
@nameless,
Namesless,Smile

"To imagine 'relations' one must first imagine 'seperation'. Simple 'definition' precludes all that." Nameless, for all practicality upon your own definations, why are you not silent?
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 03:48 pm
@boagie,
boagie;26952 wrote:
Namesless,Smile

"To imagine 'relations' one must first imagine 'seperation'. Simple 'definition' precludes all that."

Nameless, for all practicality upon your own definations, why are you not silent?

(I'm assuming that you are not hinting that I should 'shut-up'! *__- )
I am not silent, 'because' I speak/write. There is no 'why'.
As "In Silence, Truth!", I never claimed to speak 'truth', I never claimed to 'know' ("...who knows doesn't speak") either, I just offer honest words.
Sometimes a reply might actually 'inspire' thought. There is no 'why', it is just, at the moment, how I am, this nature...
If I had any 'choice' in the matter, I would most definitely be silent! Maybe... Sometimes... Perhaps...
 
boagie
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 04:11 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
(I'm assuming that you are not hinting that I should 'shut-up'! *__- )
I am not silent, 'because' I speak/write. There is no 'why'.
As "In Silence, Truth!", I never claimed to speak 'truth', I never claimed to 'know' ("...who knows doesn't speak") either, I just offer honest words.
Sometimes a reply might actually 'inspire' thought. There is no 'why', it is just, at the moment, how I am, this nature...
If I had any 'choice' in the matter, I would most definitely be silent! Maybe... Sometimes... Perhaps...


Nameless,Smile

Sorry my intent was not to offend, but often after reading your input one could come to the conclusion that it is quite impossiable to discuss anything, to have all possiable perspectives in a given moment is just not possiable. The practicality of a relational world view verses that of the individual world view is pretty grounded stuff. Is it your intention to state that it is pointless to discuss such matters?
 
Billy phil
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 06:27 pm
@boagie,
boagie;26928 wrote:
Hi Billy,

Well the dialogue has gotten a little abstract and personal I think, not that it is invalid. My intent in posting a topic of a relational world view is to clearify that it is a much saner approach to living ones life. The present world view in north america is of the individual, it has its positive as well as negative side. Mostly the individual world view I think is one of alienation, the strong silent type hero that comes out of nowhere to save the day, he arrives on the scene without any relational support whatsoever, and this we are supposed to use as a model of how we should be. :No man is an island unto himself", yet, this is exactly what modern society is telling you to be. There is some logic here I think, for the individual in this society is told the he lives in a community when indeed what he lives in is an impersonal conglomerate. Just as there is no such thing as a closed system, so to there is nothing, including the individual, the can survive utterly alone. The nature of all reality is relational, thus this mythology of the individual is not only unhealthy it is unnatural. Perhaps not unatural, as any and all things in existence are necessarily natural, but, certainly this mythology of the individual is less than desireable, less than a healthy context in which to flourish.


I know nameless refuses to accept he ever is in any position, and never holds a philosophical position, has no momentary perspecitve. YOu Boagie, on the other hand, reify your relational "position" as if it were a truth, a reality, rather than a position, perspective. A position/perspective does not diminish anything.

In psychology, individualists see pathology residing "inside" individuals, whereas the collectivist family therapists see problems only related to circular causality, between people rather than inside.
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 06:35 pm
@boagie,
boagie;26962 wrote:
Nameless,Smile
Sorry my intent was not to offend, but often after reading your input one could come to the conclusion that it is quite impossiable to discuss anything, to have all possiable perspectives in a given moment is just not possiable.

The universe, of/at the moment of definition, is defined as "all possible Perspectives". But you are correct in that none of us Perspectives can, by definition, "have" the Complete picture.

Not that it is impossible to discuss, but, perhaps not possible to come to black and white conclusions, one-size-fits-all distinctions, about existence and Perspectives thereof. As soon as someone says that it is "this way" some other Perspective will put the lie to the statement, unless, of course, it is 'reality', which transcends all Perspectival distinctions.
The lesser (narrower) the Perspective, the greater and more vociferous the 'support' of that Perspective 'over' others ("empty barrels make the most noise"). The greater the Perspective, the more inclusive of other Perspectives, the greater the picture perceived, the less one can support any particular Perspective 'above' any other. Ultimately, "in Silence, Truth!"

Quote:
The practicality of a relational world view verses that of the individual world view is pretty grounded stuff.

All 'world-views', all Perspectives, are relational, contextual.
Perhaps I'm not understanding your intent/meaning in seperating a "relational world view" from an "individual world-view'. All Perspectives are 'individual', uniquely so.

Quote:
Is it your intention to state that it is pointless to discuss such matters?

No. It is not 'pointless', necessarily, to discuss anything. It might be 'pointless' to attempt a discussion with a 'believer' on the subject of her 'belief', though, depending on one's notion of 'point' and 'pointlessness', of course.
 
boagie
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 06:42 pm
@Billy phil,
Billy wrote:
I know nameless refuses to accept he ever is in any position, and never holds a philosophical position, has no momentary perspecitve. YOu Boagie, on the other hand, reify your relational "position" as if it were a truth, a reality, rather than a position, perspective. A position/perspective does not diminish anything.

In psychology, individualists see pathology residing "inside" individuals, whereas the collectivist family therapists see problems only related to circular causality, between people rather than inside.


Billy,Smile

I sometimes wonder how you guys find your way home at night, in posting this topic I intended to speak of the relations between people that compose community and the lack of the recognition of those necessary relations in a world view focused upon the individual. The typical western hero has no relations, no sign of mother, father, brothers or sisters he is a loner, perhaps hatched, an ill conceived role model that spells alienation, an unhealthy world view.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Context Defines A Relational World View
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:44:31