Sunday, April 13, 2008

World View-ism

reposted from http://seattle.craigslist.org/forums/philosophy

Quantum Theory for philosophy < theworks345 > 04/13 20:47:46

Nothing exists until it is measured by an observer.

Ie. You create your own reality. How? By habit. Are you aware of your habits? Yes. Can we collectively create a better reality by ending our habits? It would appear so.


Reply:

All of your statements are wrong.

The best proof that world view does not create the next instance in our reality is the age of exploration and colonialism. European cultures had the gun, boats, and a new economic construct called the corporation. The Europeans often wanted to take land from native peoples, or use the natives as slaves.

In the very earliest stages of this drama the native cultures had not been indoctrinated by the invading European culture. The native "world view" was all native. The native view had their own sense of order and power of the universe much different from the European world view that respected the use of guns and economics.

The natives world views had a chance to defeat the competing world view of the invaders. In every instance the native culture was defeated by Europeans.

World view did not shape the outcome. I would add that the Europeans were full of as much idea garbage as the natives (e.g. Catholicism). They did not "win" because of a better world view. All that mattered was guns, global navies, and global economic constructs.

The most peaceful and positive world view does not command the next iteration of reality, the strategic world view that utilizes technology and allows for the dynamics of exploitation, does.

There has never been an exception to this. Progressives do not try to undo this historical record, fundamentalist and monotonic Humanists do.

2 comments:

Ryan Hawkes said...

Depending on how your defining "world view" it would seem to me that the world view of the Native Americans (at least in the beginning) clashed with the world view of the Europeans, to their disadvantage. I'm pretty sure any sort of help would not be offered to a tribe that was intent on exterminating you unless you didn't think plausable that they would. The same for Jews in WWII, they held a world view of were the idea of mass killings didn't register to the detriment of their survival. Both groups preferred to stick to their own world views and dispose of information outside of that frame until it was too late to make a difference.

Maybe the world view of Europeans in America wasn't 'better' but it certainly gave them advantage because they organized all social systems around the idea of private rights and exploitation (which influenced their use of technology).

I'd say the same for those whose current world views view pacifism as the only answer in the face of overwhelming control and power. The world view based on exploitation and technology will win...you are right there.

The Serpent Lord said...

We're dealing with someone who wants us to abandon habits (tooth-brushing? Setting our alarm clocks?) to put a stop to .. get this .. REALITY.

(Also note that the post is in the Q&A form of a catechism.)

I'll spare you my clumsy paraphrase of Guns, Germs and Steel. Aside from a few specific tactical victories which might be attributed to an older literary and military tradition, evidence for differences in ideas giving Europeans a strategic edge in First Contact scenarios is poor.

It's easy to make assertions about the world views of pre-literary people who can't speak for themselves, but at any rate Native Americans weren't the only societies conquered by Eurasian empires: everyone in the Old AND New Worlds got that treatment at one time or another (including and perhaps especially Europeans.)

All this speculation is weak defense against the Ramtha-itish teleology, since we could have dreamed up everything we've been talking about just now as we discussed it and brought all that history into being through our materialistic habits.