Context Defines A Relational World View

@Billy phil,

Billy,:rolleyes:

We just are not on the same wave length, not that one wave length is any longer or short the another wave length, they are all pretty equal wave lengths, don't you think? Seriously, if all perspectives are to be considered of equal value, there seems little point in further dialogue.

@boagie,

boagie;27291 wrote:

Billy,:rolleyes:

We just are not on the same wave length, not that one wave length is any longer or short the another wave length, they are all pretty equal wave lengths, don't you think? Seriously, if all perspectives are to be considered of equal value, there seems little point in further dialogue.

Really? I thought that was the position where respectful dialogue begins. Not "mine is much better than yours."

@Billy phil,

Billy,

If you do not acknowledge that there are more intelligent perspectives then others on any given topic, why would there be any need whatsoever to make choice. I think you understood my meaning well enough, don't make me out to be the bad guy.

@boagie,

boagie;27311 wrote:

Billy,

If you do not acknowledge that there are more intelligent perspectives then others on any given topic, why would there be any need whatsoever to make choice. I think you understood my meaning well enough, don't make me out to be the bad guy.

I'm not making you out to be the bad guy. many good people (so-called christians and so-called members of any religion) who misbelieve their way is the best way, their world view is the best, most informed, most correct path.

I disagree with all of them, and though I have to say they are misguided, I would never say they are bad.

There may be more intelligent perspectives on various TOPICS, but world views are by definition none better than another.

I'm almost of the belief that we don't even CHOOSE our world view, but it's a function of the way we have been processing/inputting information and creatively symbolizing the world.

@Billy phil,

Billy,

"There may be more intelligent perspectives on various TOPICS, but world views are by definition none better than another." quote by Billy

I rest my case Billy, if you believe this then there is indeed nothing to discuss-------do you truley not see that?

@boagie,

From this site, you'll see how much people can benefit from learning about a wv without judging it as superior or inferior. Social workers can intervene better with Indians if they understand another wv. If they disparage a wv like you do, they prolly won't do their job as well!

: Understanding the Relational Worldview in Indian Families

I edited this a lot, but the gist is that they seem to equal individualist wv=linear wv and collectivist wv=relational wv.

"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."

@Billy phil,

Billy,

Very inpressive, but If you cannot acknowledge that the idividual world view is inadequate, or that the relational world view is inadequate or perhaps they are both inadequate, all is equal, then again, there is NOTHING to discuss.:lol:Perhaps another will take up this dialogue with you. All things being equal!!:eek:

@boagie,

boagie;27376 wrote:

Billy,

Very inpressive, but If you cannot acknowledge that the idividual world view is inadequate, or that the relational world view is inadequate or perhaps they are both inadequate, all is equal, then again, there is NOTHING to discuss.:lol:Perhaps another will take up this dialogue with you. All things being equal!!:eek:

Can we discuss if I take a stand on you being WRONG about this? Suppose just for the sake of argument, I say individualist is superior. The individualists have achieved so much more than collectivists relational tribes and primitive nations. THerefore, it must be wrong.

How's that?

@Billy phil,

Billy wrote:

Can we discuss if I take a stand on you being WRONG about this? Suppose just for the sake of argument, I say individualist is superior. The individualists have achieved so much more than collectivists relational tribes and primitive nations. THerefore, it must be wrong.

How's that?

Billy,

Well alright, as long as you do not insist upon the premise that everything is equal. I do think however we need a defination of progress that we can both agree upon. Is your defination of progress an ever increasing production of material goods, or progress as greater harmony of peoples and nations, stabilty of the human psyche?

@boagie,

boagie;27384 wrote:

Billy,

Well alright, as long as you do not insist upon the premise that everything is equal. I do think however we need a defination of progress that we can both agree upon. Is your defination of progress an ever increasing production of material goods, or progress as greater harmony of peoples and nations, stabilty of the human psyche?

Of course! Increasing production of material goods creates greater harmony of peoples and nations, and stabilty of the human psyche.

When people are hungry, their psyche is unstable.

When people see the next nation with lots of material goods while they themselves are lacking, there's less harmony of people and nations.

@Billy phil,

Billy wrote:

Of course! Increasing production of material goods creates greater harmony of peoples and nations, and stabilty of the human psyche.

When people are hungry, their psyche is unstable.

When people see the next nation with lots of material goods while they themselves are lacking, there's less harmony of people and nations.

Billy,

The present ever increasing of production along with an ever increasing population is unsubstainable, thus, the relation of humanity to the earth is not in balance and well lead to disaster. Do you believe there is a balance to nature, that is a relation, a most important one but it is one relation, a healthy individual cannot be heathy without relational support, man is a social animal thus, he requires society, nothing can be considered in isolation, much least an individual, and it is unreasonable to pass judgement on an individual without considering the relational context of his actions. Relations spell health or illness physcial and mental. It is true there is no revolution of the people when they have full stomachs, but all industry is dependent upon the environment, and ones relation to it, it is just irresposible/unrealistic to not consider ones relations to others/commmunity and the physical world in general, thus, a relational world view is a highly rational world view.

@boagie,

boagie;27426 wrote:

Billy,

The present ever increasing of production along with an ever increasing population is unsubstainable, thus, the relation of humanity to the earth is not in balance and well lead to disaster. Do you believe there is a balance to nature, that is a relation, a most important one but it is one relation, a healthy individual cannot be heathy without relational support, man is a social animal thus, he requires society, nothing can be considered in isolation, much least an individual, and it is unreasonable to pass judgement on an individual without considering the relational context of his actions. Relations spell health or illness physcial and mental. It is true there is no revolution of the people when they have full stomachs, but all industry is dependent upon the environment, and ones relation to it, it is just irresposible/unrealistic to not consider ones relations to others/commmunity and the physical world in general, thus, a relational world view is a highly rational world view.

Boagie,

Simply considering one's relations to another does not make one relational. Hitler's bad relation with those he genocided was probably a frequent consideration for both Hitler and those about to be genocided. It did neither much good that I can see.

I grew up near a Bethlehem Steel Plant that occupied the town's WHOLE shore of Lake Erie. Houses for a mile could hardly bother to keep cleaning their windows. They literally killed Lake Erie in the 1960s and 1970s, and polluted the air. They paid fines daily for this, which were well worth the price of doing business. That was their relation to the Earth and the Community, which was constantly made a consideration for them. It made little difference that I can tell.

Ralph Nader makes a difference in a thousand ways, the multitude of legislation he spearheaded, still in effect today, is Ralph relational?

You're relational, are you treating the environment any better than me?

As for the environment, Thomas Friedman in today's NYTimes (p. 10 Opinions) quotes Rob Watson, head of EcoTech International: "Mother nature is just chemistry, biology and physics. That's all she is. And because of that, says Rob, you cannot spin Mother Nature. You cannot sweet talk her, and you cannot ignore her. She;s going to do with the climate whatever chemistry, biology and physics dictate. And Mother Nature always bats last, and she always bats a thousand.

So Boagie, do you enjoy tying up your Mother Nature with ashphalt ribbons, raping her for natural resources? Do you drive on those ashphalt ribbons? Use electricity? burn fossil fuels? Is that the relational way?

Billy

@Billy phil,

Billy,

I have not the remotes idea how you descerned what you have said, out of my previous post. Sorry Billy, again we are just not on the same wave length. good luck!!

@boagie,

boagie;27426 wrote:

Billy,

The present ever increasing of production along with an ever increasing population is unsubstainable, thus, the relation of humanity to the earth is not in balance and well lead to disaster. Do you believe there is a balance to nature, that is a relation, a most important one but it is one relation, a healthy individual cannot be heathy without relational support, man is a social animal thus, he requires society, nothing can be considered in isolation, much least an individual, and it is unreasonable to pass judgement on an individual without considering the relational context of his actions. Relations spell health or illness physcial and mental. It is true there is no revolution of the people when they have full stomachs, but all industry is dependent upon the environment, and ones relation to it, it is just irresposible/unrealistic to not consider ones relations to others/commmunity and the physical world in general, thus, a relational world view is a highly rational world view.

OK then, you're just a pessimist about the future, and what you say here has nothing to do with a relational worldview.

On a separate note, when you say: "it is unreasonable to pass judgement on an individual without considering the relational context of his actions," are you suggesting revising the Federal sentencing guidelines on crime to give drug lords a break if, considering the relational context of his actions, it is indicated?

billy

@Billy phil,

We just are not rationally connecting Billy, as simple as that!

@boagie,

boagie;27623 wrote:

We just are not rationally connecting Billy, as simple as that!

You're the one who talked of passing judgement without considering the relational context of his actions, in YOUR thread about the relational worldview.

I might think you'd be able to elaborate on what that comment meant.

Billy

@Billy phil,

Billy,

It is simply unreasonable to judge someone, in the negative in particular without knowning the context of their actions. Now killing someone is judged generally to be the worst of offenses, but, if the context of that killing is a war, the judgement might be that the subject is heroic and killing the enemy is a virtue.

@boagie,

boagie;27625 wrote:

Billy,

It is simply unreasonable to judge someone, in the negative in particular without knowning the context of their actions. Now killing someone is judged generally to be the worst of offenses, but, if the context of that killing is a war, the judgement might be that the subject is heroic and killing the enemy is a virtue.

Excellent.

And as far as can be determined, those with both a relational world view and those without, and the cultures behind each, all consider the context of war in judging killers.

@Billy phil,

Billy wrote:

Excellent.

And as far as can be determined, those with both a relational world view and those without, and the cultures behind each, all consider the context of war in judging killers.

Billy,

Yes it is the degree of the focus of the understanding on the context/environment and a subjects dependence upon the relations that support his life. With the mythology of the individual as the all important, though it has it positive side, its is alienating, denying the need of those supportive relations. Like many western heros that are portrayed in the movies they are not human, and yet they are entirely altruistic, this is not a reasonable role model. To judge anything, anybody, out of context is not reasonable------considered it in isolation and it is NOT.

@boagie,

boagie;27723 wrote:

Billy,

Yes it is the degree of the focus of the understanding on the context/environment and a subjects dependence upon the relations that support his life. With the mythology of the individual as the all important, though it has it positive side, its is alienating, denying the need of those supportive relations. Like many western heros that are portrayed in the movies they are not human, and yet they are entirely altruistic, this is not a reasonable role model. To judge anything, anybody, out of context is not reasonable------considered it in isolation and it is NOT.

Most Americans, you'd agree, do not share your relational worldview. Yet we experience no alienation, and we don't deny the need of supportive relations. I'll bet there are more "support groups" per capita in America than anywhere else on Earth.

Western heros certainly are human. Do you insist there's only one way to be human?

And again, even though Americans are not relational, we consider context in judging a person. It seems that in calling Western heros NOT human, you are the one judging without consideration of that heros context. You are the one who is less relational.

Here's a poem by a relational extremist:

Even after all this time
The sun never says to the earth,
"You owe me."

Look what happens
With a love like that -

It lights the whole world.
- Hafiz

Philosophy Forum

Context Defines A Relational World View

Quick Links

My Account

able2know