Jump to content

Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens


Recommended Posts

 

 

Nature may not require our understanding, but me thinks nature requires the search - or we humans would never have evolved to ask, "why"? wink.png

I'm under fewer illusions every day. As an acquaintance of mine once said, "Life is soft and ruthless, as always."

 

Apparently, a living natural system (an organism) must be an anticipatory system. This means, among other things, that its current behavior is shaped by predicted events. Those who correctly anticipate on their own behalf, survive.

You and I agree completely, we humans have evolved to ask, "why" because nature requires the search. Asking, "why" increases our chances of survival. It has historically and it does now (not only as individuals, but as a species as well).

 

 

Uh, well, I think QM could be understood in relational terms. My view has become that relational science is a more general form of natural inquiry than reductionism. It doesn't exclude reductionist findings of the past. It includes them and expands.

Yes - I'd say this is all accurate. The only thing I'd point out is that QM is not reductionism, refer to the title of this thread for my personal postion on QM and reductionism: Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens wink.png

 

But ... to the larger discussion ... what I've read about Relational Biology is quite intriguing. As fascinating as it is .. and I intend to learn what I can of it, in the time that I've available for such queries ... I don't see where there is any conflict or competition, etc.. with Quantum Physics.silverpenny013Hmmm.gif

 

 

you alluded to it above. When we ask "why?" about some natural thing then we fully expect natural answers to exist. We may find several answers in the form of "because...". This pairing of "why" and "because" is natural entailment.

Thank you - that is actually the best and most succinct explanation of "natural entailment" that I've seen since digging into this matter.

 

__________________________________________________

 

On another note ... going back to one of your statements:

 

 

 

Apparently, a living natural system (an organism) must be an anticipatory system. This means, among other things, that its current behavior is shaped by predicted events. Those who correctly anticipate on their own behalf, survive.

 

Just so I can gauge where this conversation is on the slide of pure empirical sciences to pure scientific philosophy, can you give me some idea of how predicitve the equations are around relational biology? For instance - just one link I found related to the math behind relational biology was found at the Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling .

 

So... because this is all so new to me, I wonder where this field is in terms of moving from the theoretical to application, to predictive equations which can be tested in the laboratory, or applied in the actual medical sciences.

 

Thanks Legion - I look forward to delving deeper into our conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 659
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Bottom line this for me if you can. Do you believe in an afterlife, i.e., the continuation of your own personal consciousness when your brain dies? If not, then is it fair to say at the end of the d

Viglie, I have to commend you for getting to the root of the issue.

No one is making you. But what's the point of these gigantuous threads on the subject then if it can't be explained?

Posted Images

I'm not contributing anything to this thread except to say hi and welcome back Open Minded! Good to have you back again. biggrin.png

Hello Onyx:

 

Thank you for popping in to say hello. It's good to "see" you again as well, and to be back on board again, and good to see folks from the "good ol' days" smile.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

My view has become that relational science is a more general form of natural inquiry than reductionism. It doesn't exclude reductionist findings of the past. It includes them and expands.

This is a good way to talk about these things. I like the view of these as a nested hierarchy, a series of nested bowls that includes the smaller sized bowl within the next larger sized bowl. The larger doesn't get rid of the smaller bowl within it, but it not restricted by the limits of the size of the smaller bowl. It has a greater reach, covers greater territory. And then there are larger bowls within which that larger bowl is nested within, and that bowl within another, etc. Each bowl is a view of the world within which those who live in that bowl see and interpret the world as reality. They can see the smaller bowls nested within its own world, but cannot see outside what is within its own bowl because it is living within the bounds of that bowl and its contents. And so the analogy goes.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apparently, a living natural system (an organism) must be an anticipatory system. This means, among other things, that its current behavior is shaped by predicted events. Those who correctly anticipate on their own behalf, survive.

Ah, but how does the human organism correctly anticipate in such a manner? In other words is this something we've lost, or have become quite out of touch with to the point we orchestrate our own destruction both individually and globally?

Excellent Point - Antlerman.

 

I hope we've not lost touch with this ability, but somedays I do wonder. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Apparently, a living natural system (an organism) must be an anticipatory system. This means, among other things, that its current behavior is shaped by predicted events. Those who correctly anticipate on their own behalf, survive.

Ah, but how does the human organism correctly anticipate in such a manner? In other words is this something we've lost, or have become quite out of touch with to the point we orchestrate our own destruction both individually and globally?

 

 

Excellent Point - Antlerman.

 

I hope we've not lost touch with this ability, but somedays I do wonder. sad.png

 

 

It's my feeling that as part of evolution the environment creates the pressure for the organism to find a way to survive. I think we're at that point where we have to evolve our minds beyond our egos to avoid this destruction, or at the least survive it is some fashion and in a reduced, yet more effective number. Thinking our way through this isn't enough.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Excellent Point - Antlerman.

 

I hope we've not lost touch with this ability, but somedays I do wonder. sad.png

It's my feeling that as part of evolution the environment creates the pressure for the organism to find a way to survive. I think we're at that point where we have to evolve our minds beyond our egos to avoid this destruction, or at the least survive it is some fashion and in a reduced, yet more effective number. Thinking our way through this isn't enough.

Once again - excellent point.

 

You're right on the mark for such an early hour in the morning Antlerman. I take it you've already had your cup of coffee. tongue.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right on the mark for such an early hour in the morning Antlerman. I take it you've already had your cup of coffee. tongue.png

I actually quit drinking coffee about a year ago. It was interfering with meditation too much. Sort of like having the monkey mind invite his entire extended family out of the forest to make a living zoo in your head. You don't realize how much noise there is in there until you enter into meditation. I just do a very nice light green tea first now before morning meditation, just enough to shed the dust of sleep to be able to be present mentally.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apparently, a living natural system (an organism) must be an anticipatory system. This means, among other things, that its current behavior is shaped by predicted events. Those who correctly anticipate on their own behalf, survive.

Ah, but how does the human organism correctly anticipate in such a manner?

In a very real sense, I don't know. And perhaps can't know. With what capacity does one know one's own intuition?

 

I view anticipation as having two main parts: understandings and self-control. If we focus on understandings (models) of natural systems, then we may see that there is an observational component, a reasoning component, and a predictive component. Regardless of what system of reasoning we use, the observational and predictive components move across the subjective/objective divide. Constructing or finding them requires an act of art.

 

In other words is this something we've lost, or have become quite out of touch with to the point we orchestrate our own destruction both individually and globally?

I have a somewhat bleak outlook these days. When I look for hopeful signs, I have a difficult time of it. The anaerobic bacteria which dominated the seas of the Earth several billion years ago were victims of their own reproductive success. The oxygen they exhaled poisoned them. In an analogous fashion, that may be our situation. I heard a guy assert the other day that people have not even yet adapted to the incandescent lightbulb. We're way beyond that now. We are apex omnivores on Earth, over 6 billion and counting, and we've been excreting new technologies and ideas at an insane pace. I think we are fast approaching a branching point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Apparently, a living natural system (an organism) must be an anticipatory system. This means, among other things, that its current behavior is shaped by predicted events. Those who correctly anticipate on their own behalf, survive.

Ah, but how does the human organism correctly anticipate in such a manner?

 

 

In a very real sense, I don't know. And perhaps can't know. With what capacity does one know one's own intuition?

 

I view anticipation as having two main parts: understandings and self-control. If we focus on understandings (models) of natural systems, then we may see that there is an observational component, a reasoning component, and a predictive component. Regardless of what system of reasoning we use, the observational and predictive components move across the subjective/objective divide. Constructing or finding them requires an act of art.

 

 

Very well said. There is an art to it, but the key component is developing the ability to 'think' artistically, which is in a very real sense a developed intuitiveness. What's missing culturally that makes us so 'unaware'?

 

 

In other words is this something we've lost, or have become quite out of touch with to the point we orchestrate our own destruction both individually and globally?

I have a somewhat bleak outlook these days. When I look for hopeful signs, I have a difficult time of it. The anaerobic bacteria which dominated the seas of the Earth several billion years ago were victims of their own reproductive success. The oxygen they exhaled poisoned them. In an analogous fashion, that may be our situation. I heard a guy assert the other day that people have not even yet adapted to the incandescent lightbulb. We're way beyond that now. We are apex omnivores on Earth, over 6 billion and counting, and we've been excreting new technologies and ideas at an insane pace. I think we are fast approaching a branching point.

 

 

Frighteningly well said. I however have optimism, not necessarily that we will avoid destruction, but that through it we will find a way. Through it, we will evolve. I cite the great prophet Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park, "Life finds a way"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkWeMvrNiOM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Open-minded, I'm at work and so my time is constrained. I just want to hop in and let you know that I plan to address your last post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Open-minded, I'm at work and so my time is constrained. I just want to hop in and let you know that I plan to address your last post.

Legion - Don't worry about it. I completely empathize with time constainment. smile.png

 

 

I actually quit drinking coffee about a year ago. It was interfering with meditation too much. Sort of like having the monkey mind invite his entire extended family out of the forest to make a living zoo in your head. You don't realize how much noise there is in there until you enter into meditation. I just do a very nice light green tea first now before morning meditation, just enough to shed the dust of sleep to be able to be present mentally.

I've never had a cup of coffee in my life. Like you, I drink tea - prefer the root varieties myself.

 

But ... your vivid description of a mind on coffee gives me insight into a few people in my life. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never had a cup of coffee in my life. Like you, I drink tea - prefer the root varieties myself.

 

But ... your vivid description of a mind on coffee gives me insight into a few people in my life. wink.png

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif I was sitting next to someone yesterday who was on the phone with some friend of hers. Her leg was bouncing as she said this friend that she can't stand sitting still, that she always has to be doing something. Yeah, that is a problem. If people do not know how to be alone with themselves, then how in the hell are they going to be able to see anyone else if they can't see themselves? People fear being alone, fear being by themselves, fear having to hear themselves. Text, tweet, chat, talk, etc. Ever the mind distracting itself from itself.

 

We are monkeys with over-sized brains. We don't know how to deal with the thoughts, and turn instincts into neurosis. To sit in silence for even 20 seconds drives some mad. We fear knowing ourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've never had a cup of coffee in my life. Like you, I drink tea - prefer the root varieties myself.

 

But ... your vivid description of a mind on coffee gives me insight into a few people in my life. wink.png

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif I was sitting next to someone yesterday who was on the phone with some friend of hers. Her leg was bouncing as she said this friend that she can't stand sitting still, that she always has to be doing something. Yeah, that is a problem. If people do not know how to be alone with themselves, then how in the hell are they going to be able to see anyone else if they can't see themselves? People fear being alone, fear being by themselves, fear having to hear themselves. Text, tweet, chat, talk, etc. Ever the mind distracting itself from itself.

 

We are monkeys with over-sized brains. We don't know how to deal with the thoughts, and turn instincts into neurosis. To sit in silence for even 20 seconds drives some mad. We fear knowing ourselves.

How right you are Antlerman.

 

I've grown to really appreciate silence, but our culture makes it difficult to acquire the taste.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I've never had a cup of coffee in my life. Like you, I drink tea - prefer the root varieties myself.

 

But ... your vivid description of a mind on coffee gives me insight into a few people in my life. wink.png

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif I was sitting next to someone yesterday who was on the phone with some friend of hers. Her leg was bouncing as she said this friend that she can't stand sitting still, that she always has to be doing something. Yeah, that is a problem. If people do not know how to be alone with themselves, then how in the hell are they going to be able to see anyone else if they can't see themselves? People fear being alone, fear being by themselves, fear having to hear themselves. Text, tweet, chat, talk, etc. Ever the mind distracting itself from itself.

 

We are monkeys with over-sized brains. We don't know how to deal with the thoughts, and turn instincts into neurosis. To sit in silence for even 20 seconds drives some mad. We fear knowing ourselves.

How right you are Antlerman.

 

I've grown to really appreciate silence, but our culture makes it difficult to acquire the taste.

Well, it seems it feeds upon itself.  Capitalism finds a market in vulnerabilities and sells the solution.  "Feeling anxious?  Here, buy an iPhone and talk to your friends non-stop!  You'll never have to be pestered with those nervous feelings without constant distraction.  Buy more!  Feel less."  And so it goes.  We don't promote introspection.  That doesn't sell products.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So... because this is all so new to me, I wonder where this field is in terms of moving from the theoretical to application, to predictive equations which can be tested in the laboratory, or applied in the actual medical sciences.

This is a frustrating question for me. At the moment, most of relational biology is theoretical, and though a growing number of scientists are picking it up, their numbers are still relatively small.

 

I think most of this is due to the newness of it all. The math associated with relational biology was only made explicit around 1948. Because Rosen was so engaged in mathematics, he was familiar with it early. And in fact, published his first treatise on metabolic-repair systems (a class of relational models of organisms) in 1958. Louie remains the forerunner of those continuing the work, and his work is also theoretical.

 

Let me share a snippet of a conversation I had with a woman who is the administrator of the pediatric emergency department where I currently work.

 

Me: Life, a living organism, is a complex paradox.

Her: Medicine doesn't deal with wholes.

Me: But life is a whole.

Her: Well we deal in columns. We're getting better at treating the whole.

 

Unfortunately, I believe Kuhn was probably accurate about some of his treatment of paradigm shifts. We basically have an entrenched mentality. We don't want to think of things in entirely novel ways unless we may know in advance that doing so is useful. But we won't have a taste of a paradigm's utility until people think in novel ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... just one link I found related to the math behind relational biology was found at the Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling .

 

BTW OM, thank you for this. It brings to mind some things Rosen said, and it makes me want to contact a researcher in England.

 

Rosen said something like... an organism is a theory of fabrication (manufacturing) which has been pulled inside that which is being fabricated... or something along those lines. I'll have to dig out my copy of Life Itself and see.

 

The guy I wish to contact is trying to develop a theory of construction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... just one link I found related to the math behind relational biology was found at the Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling .

BTW OM, thank you for this. It brings to mind some things Rosen said, and it makes me want to contact a researcher in England.

 

Rosen said something like... an organism is a theory of fabrication (manufacturing) which has been pulled inside that which is being fabricated... or something along those lines. I'll have to dig out my copy of Life Itself and see.

 

The guy I wish to contact is trying to develop a theory of construction.

Legion - just popping in to let you know I've not forgotten about our conversation. This week is extremely busy, and the coming weekend is not looking much better. I will respond to you, but am waiting until I've got the time where I can fully express myself.

 

In Peace - O_M

Link to post
Share on other sites

Legion - just popping in to let you know I've not forgotten about our conversation. This week is extremely busy, and the coming weekend is not looking much better. I will respond to you, but am waiting until I've got the time where I can fully express myself.

 

In Peace - O_M

I only expect you to be you. Please do as you may.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Legion



This whole area of discussion is highly theoretical right now, which may account for some of the entrenchment you mentioned earlier. So… I proceed with caution, knowing full well that, to have any value at all, theory must be supported by experimentation. Having made that qualification, my thoughts follow:

 

You and I, as individuals, have followed our own paths of learning and research. It is my contention that, although our paths of learning have been somewhat different, they also parallel each other quite nicely. You mentioned:
 

 

 

Quantum physics, for all its fanciness, is still a state based concept. I believe along with a growing number of scientists that we also have the option of encoding (observing) natural systems in other ways, without states. Methods based on the way phenomena are organized through natural entailment. In these ways, we may still understand mechanisms, but also understand natural systems which are not mechanistic.


If the approach to Relational Biology can be loosely defined as: "throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization”, then I think there is much in common between Quantum Physics and Relational Biology.


I know very little about Relational Biology, so I may be off base. But what I know of Quantum Physics, is that it can directly impact the “underlying organization”. The very first thing that comes to mind is “quantum superposition”. Specifically the state of limited potentialities, quantum superposition is the state before a decision has been made. This state is all the potentialities available in a given situation. Earlier you, mentioned:

 

 

Apparently, a living natural system (an organism) must be an anticipatory system. This means, among other things, that its current behavior is shaped by predicted events. Those who correctly anticipate on their own behalf, survive.


Firstly, you should know that scientists have proven "superposition" within the process of photosynthesis:

 

 

“There are definitely three areas that have turned out to be manifestly quantum," Dr Turin told the BBC. "These three things... have dispelled the idea that quantum mechanics had nothing to say about biology."

 

The most established of the three is photosynthesis - the staggeringly efficient process by which plants and some bacteria build the molecules they need, using energy from sunlight. It seems to use what is called "superposition" - being seemingly in more than one place at one time.

 

Watch the process closely enough and it appears there are little packets of energy simultaneously "trying" all of the possible paths to get where they need to go, and then settling on the most efficient.

 

"Biology seems to have been able to use these subtle effects in a warm, wet environment and still maintain the [superposition]. How it does that we don't understand,"Richard Cogdell of the University of Glasgow told the BBC.


 

With that in mind, doesn’t “superposition” provide an “anticipatory system”? Yes, we’ve yet to show that “superposition” can happen in the human brain/body, but it has been proven within plants; that is a first step.

 

Beyond “superposition”, and directly related to keeping the “underlying organization”, I would urge you to really look into quantum coherence and
entanglement. The following is a quote from the above linked article:

 

 

 

What makes more sense is the quantum effect of entanglement. Under quantum rules, no matter how far apart an "entangled" pair of particles gets, each seems to "know" what the other is up to - they can even seem to pass information to one another faster than the speed of light.

 

Experiments suggest this is going on within single molecules in birds' eyes, and John Morton of University College London explained that the way birds sense it could be stranger still.


From the perspective of quantum biology, the underlying organization, is directly impacted by entanglement and superposition.

 

You mentioned the following:
 

 

 

Let me share a snippet of a conversation I had with a woman who is the administrator of the pediatric emergency department where I currently work.

Me: Life, a living organism, is a complex paradox.

Her: Medicine doesn't deal with wholes.

Me: But life is a whole.

Her: Well we deal in columns. We're getting better at treating the whole.

Unfortunately, I believe Kuhn was probably accurate about some of his treatment of paradigm shifts. We basically have an entrenched mentality. We don't want to think of things in entirely novel ways unless we may know in advance that doing so is useful. But we won't have a taste of a paradigm's utility until people think in novel ways.



I do think we are dealing with entrenched mentality, and that is preventing research in these areas from proceeding at a faster clip. (If a researcher can’t get the funding for research it doesn’t happen). But… research is happening, not as fast as you and I would like, but it is happening. And – I would propose that those researching in the areas of Relational Biology, are not that far apart from those researching in the areas of Quantum Biology, in fact, I would say there is much in common.

 

As to the conversation you had with the administrator of the pediatric emergency department, it brought to mind some of my own life experiences. I live near a community with a large state university, and University Hospital System. One department within this University Hospitals System is the Integrated Medicines department. It might be worth your while to find out if the hospital system you are affiliated with as anything like an Integrated Medicines Department. I know a few folks who work in this area, and had you been having the same conversation with them, their responses would have been much different. We are dealing with an entrenched mentality.. but in reality things are pushing ahead.

 

20 years ago the Integrated Medicines department did not exist at my local University. I know one of the founding providers and the work it took to get it up and running. 20 years ago the study of biological organization was a tiny little seed. It may be in its infancy now, but it at least it has pushed up through the hard ground and is starting to grow. Of course it will take much nurturing and care to grow to adulthood, but it is on its way.  I personally don’t think the classical reductionists are going to be able to put this particular cat back in the bag, it’s too “real”, and I mean that very literally. The facts can no longer be denied, our universe is not just a massive, mechanical, clockwork machine. Our universe is an undivided, dynamic (see superposition) and connected (see entanglement) whole; and all living beings are children of this universe


 



 



 


 



 

 



 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OM, I'm very tired. I'm dealing with narcissists and psychopaths almost daily.

 

I think I know now what types of natural systems I wish to better understand and why.

 

I can't believe I find myself where I'm at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OM, I'm very tired. I'm dealing with narcissists and psychopaths almost daily.

Legion

 

- I'm sorry you're tired. Your job sounds very stressful. One of my children worked in a residential facility for the mentally ill. She too had to deal with psychopaths daily and it was very exhausting.

 

 

I think I know now what types of natural systems I wish to better understand and why.

 

What types of natural systems do yo want to better understand? And why?

 

 

 

I can't believe I find myself where I'm at.

Again - I'm sorry (hugs)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

- I'm sorry you're tired. Your job sounds very stressful. One of my children worked in a residential facility for the mentally ill. She too had to deal with psychopaths daily and it was very exhausting.

 

 

Whew, my exposure is probably not as severe as hers was, but dang. I'm off this weekend and so I should be able to recharge.

 

 

I think I know now what types of natural systems I wish to better understand and why.

What types of natural systems do yo want to better understand? And why?

Human societies. The why part is difficult for me to see. There's what gave rise to the curiosity, and there is the hoped for use of the understandings (if any).

 

And I think this ties into the OP very well Openminded. I was speaking with a Czech who is very intelligent and knowledgeable about some things some years ago. But he was doing something which now strikes me as being very odd. He would speak about things like QM on the one hand, in a very rigorous way, but then he would speak of sociology in a very loosey goosey kind of way. When I asked him if would try to understand a society in the same terms that he would understand QM, he sort of danced around a bit and waved his hands.

 

 

I can't believe I find myself where I'm at.

Again - I'm sorry (hugs)
It's okay, I think OM. It doesn't strike me a being entirely bad.
Link to post
Share on other sites


 

 

 

 

I think I know now what types of natural systems I wish to better understand and why.


What types of natural systems do yo want to better understand? And why?

Human societies. The why part is difficult for me to see. There's what gave rise to the curiosity, and there is the hoped for use of the understandings (if any).

And I think this ties into the OP very well Openminded. I was speaking with a Czech who is very intelligent and knowledgeable about some things some years ago. But he was doing
something which now strikes me as being very odd. He would speak about things like QM on the one hand, in a very rigorous way, but then he would speak of sociology in a very loosey goosey kind of way. When I asked him if would try to understand a society in the same terms that he would understand QM, he sort of danced around a bit and waved his hands.

 

Hello Legion:

 

One way to address the query above may be to start with David Bohm - Wholeness and the Implicate Order:
 

 

 

"My suggestion is that at each state the proper order of operation of the mind requires an overall grasp of what is generally known, not only in formal logical, mathematical terms, but also intuitively, in images, feelings, poetic usage of language, etc. (Perhaps we could say that this is what is involved in harmony between the 'left brain' and the 'right brain'). This kind of overall way of thinking is not only a fertile source of new theoretical ideas: it is needed for the human mind to function in a generally harmonious way, which could in turn help to make
possible an orderly and stable society."

 

You are right - this topic does fit into the OP. I don't know if you remember this exchange, earlier in the thread: smile.png

 

 

Shyone... when I write of evolving our empathy, as a species, I do not think of what people typically think of in regards to psychic abilities...

Sigh... how to communicate this... If memory serves me correctly we touched on this very early in the thread and I was never able to fully communicate what I feel.

But... right now... at least in the industrialized nations ... we humans have an internal understanding of reality as a heartless, and random, clockwork universe. This pervades the way we approach life... We talk of "survival of the fittest" in economic as well as biological terms. We, very often treat our interactions with other human beings as do or die competitions. And very often, we don't allow ourselves to feel empathy - if it means we're going to "loose".

What I elude to when I speak of how this knowledge will change humanity, is how it will change our views of ourselves and the universe. I went back to an earlier point in the discussion and found the following discussion between you and myself:
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's strange OM. I know what I should address, but I'm hesitating. Laziness and a bit of fear I think. Let's give it a shot...

 

What phenomena would be included within the natural systems we call "human societies"?

Does "comparative sociology" exist? Comparisons of different societies in various times and circumstances?

 

 

What I'm trying to get at is the meat and potatoes of observing social dynamics. I think if others would help me with this then we would all benefit. If I heard the suggestions of others, then I'd have a better grasp of how social measurements could be made, and we might see that reductionism (clockwork, particle chasing, whatnot) is an inappropriate approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What I'm trying to get at is the meat and potatoes of observing social dynamics. I think if others would help me with this then we would all benefit. If I heard the suggestions of others, then I'd have a better grasp of how social measurements could be made, and we might see that reductionism (clockwork, particle chasing, whatnot) is an inappropriate approach.

 

Legion - I do think reductionism is an inappropriate way of analyzing Human societies. From my own perspective, the most productive way to analyze a human culture is to analyze what that collective culture "sees when it looks in the mirror". Humans act out what we believe we are. Again - referring to an earlier point in this thread:

 

 

 

 

....

How we view reality matters on a very deep level. And we are living in an age where the cold, heartless, universe is giving way to a holistic universe. Whether the non-local holistic universe is living (or not) is up for debate... but the fact that we are interconnected and ONE on a very deep level is forcing us to rethink the way we interact with each other at a materilistic level. My actions are no longer independent from your actions. What happens in one part of the stream affects the WHOLE living system.

 

The scientific creation story is being rewritten as we debate its validity... time will give us a new scientific creation story. The new story will include Newtonian physics, but Newtonian physics will only be ONE part of a more holistic living story. And what kind of culture we create from that story is up to us....

 

From a more local (ex-christian.net) perspective - the above dynamic is already recognized. Folks come here after leaving Christianity, they do so (in part) because leaving Christianity requires leaving a world-view, questioning that world-view and rediscovering one's personal view of reality. The view of reality that they've been fed through their Christian background is no longer satisfying, and they are looking for something "more".

 

If cultures did not have a collective image of themselves, then there would be no such thing as "world views" and there would be no need for places like ex-christian.net. It is because this collective self-image has such a deep impact on behavior that entrenchement happens in so many areas of life.

 

It is my contention, that if you want to understand the diseases of a culture - the first place to start looking is at dominating world-view of that culture. That is one of the reasons I started this thread, because the mechanisitic and reductionist world-view is dominate in Western industrialized cultures. And that world-view, taken to extremes,is harmful. It is a world-view of separation from our fellow human beings, rather than a world-view of connection and wholeness. Wendyshrug.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.