Context Defines A Relational World View

@Billy phil,

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 logically 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 proved 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.

Alan Watts - "Lack of awareness of the basic unity of organism and environment is a serious and dangerous hallucination."

@boagie,

boagie;27835 wrote:

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.

There are not 2 "systems," there is a continuum of world views ranging from relational to individualist.

When my medical doctor deals with my problem, it's INSIDE me and has little to do with my relations or context. Changing my relations or context will not help my flu, my heart attack, or my stroke. the individuaistic approach isolates the problem and tries to deal with it in isolation, that has proved very productive in personal health care.

There are many such instances where the relational wv falls short.

@Billy phil,

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

Smile

"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

@boagie,

boagie;27860 wrote:

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

Boagie,

I hope all the Smile

suggests some new-found willingness to discuss with me. I don't know why your second last sentence says everything in the universe, is composed of networks of two elements, or two parts -- when it's probably many more.

Even a binary system one can count to infinity--it doesn't mean only 2 elements.

In psychology, the systems family therapists (old-school strategic therapists, like the Strategic Therapies of Chloe Madanes, Jay Haley, Virginia Satir, the work of the Mental Research Institute; the family therapy of the original Milan group; and Minuchin's Structural Family Therapy, all hold the collectivist or as you say, the relational philosophical position) refer to "everything is both cause and effect" as circular causality. Systems therapists do not believe in individuals at all, and have nothing to do if only one person appears for a session. They are not interested in intrapsychic dynamics, individual pathology, or bad cognitions, all of which are the foundation of INDIVIDUAL psychotherapy.

Of course, Marylyn Ferguson's statement "A simple variable can be both cause and effect", is quite unclear, and potentially misleading.

billy

@Billy phil,

Billy,

I am afraid I do not know much about what they do in the world of psychological therapies but no matter how you slice it one cannot consider anything in isolation. Even ones own biology is a host of verious interacting systems, a community. The above statement about verything being two, as binary, perhaps it is just indicative of the necessity of at least two, as when it comes down to there being no separating subject and object. The Ferguson quote, is pretty straight forward I think, it simply states that a simple variable can be both cause and effect.

This business of considering something in isolation, in general systems theory they refer to something called a closed system, but, this is a system which is relatively isolated and in fact not entirely closed, a closed system is in fact impossiable, there is no such creature that has no relations to its context/environment. The above mentioned therapist not chosing to deal with the individual is indeed strange, for even dealing with the individual one must consider the problems of the individual in context, society, family, job, love life ect, if the individual was not having any difficulties with his/her life he would not be coming to a therapist.

General system theory is the new science, it does not replace the old reductionist approach to science but compliments it, the most striking statement of my previous post was perhaps the statement that nothing can be understood out of context, the reductionist method of disection can tell us some things but through this means one cannot understand a working whole. So what do you think Billy, do we have some common ground here?

@boagie,

boagie: I am afraid I do not know much about what they do in the world of psychological therapies but no matter how you slice it one cannot consider anything in isolation.

Billy: Of course, but the individualist does this to a much greater DEGREE than the relationalist.

boagie: Even ones own biology is a host of verious interacting systems, a community. The above statement about verything being two, as binary, perhaps it is just indicative of the necessity of at least two, as when it comes down to there being no separating subject and object.

Billy: Yes, I should hope so. Lets give them the benefit of their unclarity.

boagie: The Ferguson quote, is pretty straight forward I think, it simply states that a simple variable can be both cause and effect.

Billy: What about time? As a simple variable, does it tend to be cause? Or effect?

What about my response to your post? Is it possible my response actually caused your very first post?

When they say "simple variable," is that to distinguish it from complex variables. Might she say complex variables CANNOT be both cause and effect? Obvioulsy a continuum between simple and complex variables, but why that damn qualfier "simple"?

It's misleading because it suggests that circular causality is always in operation.

boagie: This business of considering something in isolation, in general systems theory they refer to something called a closed system, but, this is a system which is relatively isolated and in fact not entirely closed, a closed system is in fact impossiable, there is no such creature that has no relations to its context/environment. The above mentioned therapist not chosing to deal with the individual is indeed strange, for even dealing with the individual one must consider the problems of the individual in context, society, family, job, love life ect, if the individual was not having any difficulties with his/her life he would not be coming to a therapist.

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. On 10-14 you wrote: "you must draw a line somewhere." Of course. Systems therapists draw that line at the interpersonal level, not the biological or biochemical level. And I think you'll agree with this line. After all, you're not talking about our physiology or atoms feeling alienated. You're talking about PEOPLE.

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.

You have also brought up the idea of utility, an idea relationalists have no claim to over individualists. However, research shows that taking a stance to be more fully relational than you, boagie, as the systems therapists do on the one hand, or taking a firm individualist position on the other hand, is more effective than sitting on the fence as you wish to do. That is, extremism in either direction is more effective than fence-sitting.

boagie: General system theory is the new science, it does not replace the old reductionist approach to science but compliments it, the most striking statement of my previous post was perhaps the statement that nothing can be understood out of context, the reductionist method of disection can tell us some things but through this means one cannot understand a working whole.

Billy: " 'Understanding' a working whole"--whew!!! Where do we begin?

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).

As for understanding, can I assume you use this term in the limited manner related to utility? Rather than the larger UNDERSTANDING?

By the way, when you write "General system theory is the new science, it does not replace the old reductionist approach to science but compliments it," there is a suggestion that it's all relative. But eventually the old system that the Earth is the center of the universe, gets displaced by the new.

boagie: So what do you think Billy, do we have some common ground here?

billy: A common ground, in model railroading, is the use of a single wire to complete a circuit for numerous track sections or accessories. In philosophy, it is a basis agreed to by all parties for reaching a mutual understanding.

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.

Good talking!

Billy

PS It's my birthday! Is that both cause and effect? Is that a simple variable? what does it cause? effect?

@Billy phil,

Billy,

"What about time? As a simple variable, does it tend to be cause? Or effect?" quote

You tell me, it has never occured to me to consider time as cause or effect, if one were to consider it effect what then would be the cause. Wait, I remember a quote from the Upanishads, " I am death destroyer of worlds"-----this is time, perhaps time is a creator as well as a destroyer.

"What about my response to your post? Is it possible my response actually caused your very first post?" quote

Actually not as silly an idea as it might at first seem, it ain't solipsism!!

"When they say "simple variable," is that to distinguish it from complex variables. Might she say complex variables CANNOT be both cause and effect? Obvioulsy a continuum between simple and complex variables, but why that damn qualfier "simple?" quote

I believe the intent is to say the any variable can be both cause and effect.

"It's misleading because it suggests that circular causality is always in operation." quote

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. On 10-14 you wrote: "you must draw a line somewhere." Of course. Systems therapists draw that line at the interpersonal level, not the biological or biochemical level. And I think you'll agree with this line. After all, you're not talking about our physiology or atoms feeling alienated. You're talking about PEOPLE." quote

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"

"You have also brought up the idea of utility, an idea relationalists have no claim to over individualists. However, research shows that taking a stance to be more fully relational than you, boagie, as the systems therapists do on the one hand, or taking a firm individualist position on the other hand, is more effective than sitting on the fence as you wish to do. That is, extremism in either direction is more effective than fence-sitting." quote

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?

"By the way, when you write "General system theory is the new science, it does not replace the old reductionist approach to science but compliments it," there is a suggestion that it's all relative. But eventually the old system that the Earth is the center of the universe, gets displaced by the new." quote

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 It's my birthday! Is that both cause and effect? Is that a simple variable? what does it cause? effect?[/quote]

I think mom and dad were cause, at anyrate Billy have a good one, treat yourself in some way, make it significant. HAPPY BIRTHDAY!! Boagie:D

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.

@boagie,

boagie;27934 wrote:

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.

Boagie,

Don't go changing the rules on me, old boy! We were just shooting for mutual understanding, not agreement. You're a fence sitter, I cannot agree with that position.

And there's no way a compulsive fence sitter like yourself could move to the extremes. Your meta-world view mechanism (a function of your human biocomputer) won't allow it--not your fault).

Since I'm an extremist, I hope you won't mind me switching to the relational wv, since I don't think you're an adequate ambassador for it.

More later.

Billy

@Billy phil,

"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. Laughing

@boagie,

boagie;27965 wrote:

"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.

Boagie,

StarTrek's Spock is the ambassador beyond all for the relational view!!!

Boagie: That is one area you might enlighten me upon, do you believe that causality is linear?

Billy: The individualist therapist does, and you seem to have great affinity for that. The systems therapist does not, and you cannot share the systems wv.

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.

boagie: 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.

Billy: Negative? You honestly don't see how you fail to express the relational wv? To some extent that is understandable, since you were raised in the West surrounded by the individualist wv.

"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.

Boagie: 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"

Billy: First: Thanks! Secondly: Individual?? There is no individual, to me or Spock. It's an illusion of ego.

Boagie: That's me alright mr extremist, you are very forceful in your stance but not real conviencing

Billy: What would it take to convince you? What specifically would you like to be convinced of?

Billy: "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

Boagie: 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.

Billy: Of course, you and the other individualists would have to do so, it's required by you individualist wv. But a true relationalist would not even recognize the individual, like Spock. By the way, the individualists are eudaimonic (self actualization seeking), whereas the relational wv supports a deontological wv (one for all). Recall the ease with which Spock made his last move. From a relational/deontological wv, there was no other option.

Billy: "As for understanding, can I assume you use this term in the limited manner related to utility? Rather than the larger UNDERSTANDING?" quote

Boagie: What is the larger understand?

Billy: To know and comprehend the nature or meaning of

Boagie: 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?

Billy: To the extent that its credible, it will.

Boagie: 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.

Billy: truthfully, i find fence sitting offensive and fraudulent. I embrace the relational wv.

@Billy phil,

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.

@boagie,

boagie;28066 wrote:

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.

The Relational wv is not that interested in the individual, the individual is trivial, look at Spock's view toward himself as an individual.

I'd like to get YOUR view of the individual, from your relational wv.

Billy

@Billy phil,

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.

@boagie,

boagie;28144 wrote:

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.

i can accept that. you grew up in a Western culture, so you cannot help your Western individualist world view. albeit, you add a nice turn to it, probably not sufficient to call it relationalism, it's still a nice wv.

What do you think of StarTrek Spock's world view?

Billy

@Billy phil,

What do you think of StarTrek Spock's world view? Billy[/quote]

Billy, Smile

I am aware of who spock is but as far as his worldview goes, its probable a movie I did not see.

@boagie,

boagie;27059 wrote:

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.

Boagie,

Can you believe we made 8 pages on this??! Good job! Revisiting an earlier topic, i wanted to say

Philosophic positions, worldviews, and values, are an inseparable part of our existence (Carlson & Erickson, 1999), and "function as the lens through which reality is viewed so that one can hardly know that they are there" (Thomas, 1994, p. 194).

I think that this quote is to be taken quite literally. Heidegger claims--and I believe that he is correct--that our worldview only becomes visible to us when an event that does not "fit" into our worldview manages to penetrate itself into our awareness: St. Paul being knocked from his horse on the road to Damascus; 9/11; etc. Such events bring "world" into view and reveal it as contingent, not necessary. Our response can vary. We can make a frantic effort to prove to ourselves that our "world" is, in fact, necessary and the only world possible. Having realized that our "world" was contingent, we can attempt to find another "world" that is not. (No such "world" exists.) Or we can realize that all "worlds" are contingent and then passionately commit ourselves to one (Heidegger's option).

So it's no surprise to find you so wedded to your relational worldview. But if you step up one level in meta analysis, you must recognize it's just that, rather than the end-all be-all you present it as.

Billy

@Billy phil,

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.

@boagie,

boagie;28951 wrote:

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.

Boagie,

Very funny, now you're saying I"M fence-sitting. Ha!

I'm actually saying everyone MUST have a position, as I do, but also recognizing it is only a position.

Billy

@boagie,

boagie;28951 wrote:

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.

and everyone stands somewhere, correct, everyone has a position. Even if they are not aware of it, and cannot articulate it.

When the irate husband found a strange man in his bedroom closet asked: what are you doing in here?

answer: everybody's got to be somewhere.

Philosophy Forum

Context Defines A Relational World View

Quick Links

My Account

able2know