Context Defines A Relational World View

[boagie]

Billy,

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.

[Billy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Billy,

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."

[boagie]

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.

[Billy]

Originally Posted by boagie

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.

[boagie]

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?

[Billy]

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."

[boagie]

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.Perhaps another will take up this dialogue with you. All things being equal!!

[Billy]

Originally Posted by boagie

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.Perhaps another will take up this dialogue with you. All things being equal!!

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?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Billy

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?

[Billy]

Originally Posted by boagie

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.