Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Billy,
I do not understand your stance on this topic, the fact the all things are relational should be apparent, acknowledging ones interdependence is only reasonable, that is to the only way to logical determine your best course of action. These two systems are not entirely different, they are not arch enemies, that is a little dramatic. Social services in dealing with native concerns have in the past not consider the full context of the individual and so, it was in the past largely unsuccessful. I think the systems only differ in the degree of focus, the individuaistic approach isolates the problem and tries to deal with it in isolation, that has prove unproductive. Well it is true you must draw a line somewhere, as the world is made up of systems within system within systems within systems, to deal with the whole is sometimes out of the question, so in dealing with the problems of the individual it is necessary to limit the context examined perhaps to community and/or family supportive relations. It is just not reasonable not to consider the individual in context.
Billy,
That fact that you are going to a doctor should be an indication of your relational dependence. Diseases are of a reactionary nature, the advice the doctor is likely to give you on a change in life style is of a relational nature, your health in relation to how you behave what you consume ect. A doctor examines you in private, in isolation, that does not mean that your health your constitution is not dependent upon your circumstances your context/environment as I stated earlier, that which is considered in isolation, is not. Your probably right though about there not really being two systems just one attitude that enstranges one from what is logical and natural. It is cause and effect thinking, linear in nature, when in fact ever cause has many effects and indeed everything is both cause and effect.
:)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
:)All these natural systems are wholes whose specfic structures arise from the interactions and interdependence of their parts. The activity of systems involves a process known as transaction- the simultaneous and mutually interdependent interaction between multiple components." - Fritjof Capra
The Turning Point
"It appears that all units of reality are comprised of two basic elements in an asymmetrical binary relationship in dynamic interaction..." (p.38) "As noted above, one of the basic ideas that underlies my thinking, one of the images I have in mind when I contemplate the universe, is that it is constructed upon a simple pattern of order that may be seen in any and all phenomena, no matter how complex. The simple pattern is that of a binary relationship, recognized in a binary system. The implication here is that everything in nature, everything in the universe, is composed of networks of two elements, or two parts in functional relationship to each other..."(p.39) "The most fundamental phenomenon in the universe is relationship."(p.44) - Jonas Salk
Billy,![]()
That is one area you might enlighten me upon, do you believe that causality is linear?
Billy: "Again, we're not talking about your lack of conviction as a relationalist (though it shows). These people have conviction, they are much farther down the continuum to a relational wv than you.
I believe your working much to hard at being negative, how could an individual have problems if he does not have any relations to consider.
"Just your use of the phrase 'the problems of the individual' reveals that you are much less relational than the systems therapists, who would consider that colluding with the pathology-inducing individualism wv. What appears to the individualist as 'the problems of the individual' are actually the systems efforts to distract by creating an "identified patient," often the child, or in marriage therapy, the husband. The identified patient often colludes in this as well, and fuly volunteers for the position.
Well old chap, perhaps your right in all reality with all its relations the individual is exempt, a close system in the truest sense of the word"
That's me alright mr extremist, you are very forceful in your stance but not real conviencing
Billy: " 'Understanding' a working whole"--whew!!! Where do we begin?
While it is true that one must draw a circle around the area to be considered as to consider the totality is quite overwhelming if not possiable, as the earth itself is an open system, and the universe unknown as to whether it is open or closed.
"Where do you draw the line around to limit the "whole"? For the individual therapist, it's at the edges of the body; for the systems therapist, it's around all members who are involved in the presenting problem (in circular causality fashion)." quote
I think if one wants to understand the individual one would have to consider him in the context of society and mybe even family, with the exception perhaps of a biological adnormality.
"As for understanding, can I assume you use this term in the limited manner related to utility? Rather than the larger UNDERSTANDING?" quote
What is the larger understand?
know and comprehend the nature or meaning of
I am not even sure what you mean by this, are you saying that systems theory displaces the reductionist method of science makes it obsolete?
"I think we have a basis, yes, a common ground. You seem to understand me. Now it's up to you to confirm that we have reached a mutual understanding. You will do this by stating whether you think I understand YOU." quote
Well you are forceful in your protests but I do not understand if you agree about the nature of reality, what makes you think that the individual is exempt from said reality.
PS: Just an after thought, perhaps you could discribe to me just how your individual functions independently. I get the feeling that you find the relational world view offensive because it underlines interdependence and you think John Wayne perhaps a realistic role model-------sorry if I am reading you incorrectly but to me it is a puzzling stance.
"don't think you're an adequate ambassador for it."
Billy:whistling:
Best of luck in your quest for a competent ambassador, some things you just have to do for your self.
Billy,
I find the dialogue a little confusing, you certainly seem sure of yourself, but could you clearly outline what your concept of the individual is in its nature as the alternative to a relational world view. I am not trying to be cute, I would just like finally to have a clear idea about what is being protested.
Billy:)
Yes perhaps you are right, perhaps I am not all that much of a relationalist, I think the individual is still foremost of importance. I just think he needs to consider more greatly the relations that support his life. There is a tendency in the west not to be entirely in touch with reality, which is a direct outcome of the denial of interdependance. Society is but a biological extension of the body, and the principles that govern ones biology should be consider as food for thought in the running and changing of society. Relationalism is the basis of reality, not to take this into consideration I think is just folly.
Billy,
I am not up on Aye Rand, however a dogma is a doctrine present as authority without proof. These world views are of a very practical nature and it is up to the individual to discern which of these process is the more intelligent mode to live by. If you chose the mythology of the individual, then you deny the supporting relations of environment and community to a large extent, this is simply not real smart, besides being unhealthy.
Billy,
Excellent, I cannot say that I disagree, but the position of the individual sticking hard to their worldview, philosophical position or values could hardly be said to be sitting on the fence, it is in a sense a topographical view yours, taking all positions into consideration, but perhaps you will agree, it is not the way lifes game is played. If you stand nowwhere, you stand for nothing.
Billy,
Excellent, I cannot say that I disagree, but the position of the individual sticking hard to their worldview, philosophical position or values could hardly be said to be sitting on the fence, it is in a sense a topographical view yours, taking all positions into consideration, but perhaps you will agree, it is not the way lifes game is played. If you stand nowwhere, you stand for nothing.