RE: WHAT IS REALITY? A SYSTEMIC VIEW OF LIFE - Part One
We isolated ourselves from the circular knowledge and turned nature into an object. Since the time of the Reconnaissance a few hundred years ago, we have been pursuing this view and as a result, we are facing global crises. We regularly create damaging feedback loops.
This seems not only quite simplistic but also mistaken.
In fact, today we are facing less poverty, less crime, less hunger, less war, less violence than ever before in human history. Life expectancy is going up in almost every country, more and more people are breaking free from absolute poverty and so on.
This has not only but as well to do with the disregard of irrational beliefs such as a "pure state of nature" (I'm looking at you, Rousseau).
The stricter we distance ourselves from our savage nature, the more peaceful human societes become.
Anyway. I do agree, there are feedback loops in every interaction we experience, but this does not mean, we have always to be aware of them to achieve a better life for ourself and the ones around us.
As far as I understand it, systemics seems to have a lot in common with philosophical constructivism, especially when it comes to perception of reality and concepts like objectivity. It is quite likely, that we will never be able to perceive reality as it really is, but we don't need to as long as we have methods, which aren't relying on human perception, thus can at least get some degree of objectivity.
Additionally, I'm not sure, if I agree with your conclusion, that systemics is the best offer there is.
For example: I don't think, communication without violence is always a good idea - sometimes it's not only useful but necessary to communicate in a violent way to ensure certain goals.
It seems to me, if you choose a strictly systemic approach, you will get trapped in a limbo of relativity at some point, because you have no way of agreeing on universal truths (or call them axioms), which are necessary for the survival of a society.
Even if this were true, what's the point if we're killing the planet in the process?
From these comments and from your sparse writings I can see that you are a true believer in the religion of Scientism, the belief that science is the only rational way to view the cosmos and that other views are without merit. In addition, you are a Humanistic Materialist, one who believes that the material world is the only thing worthwhile knowing and that humanity is the most important life form on the planet. Even your handle: @egotheist smacks of the belief that your own mind is somehow something to believe in and worship, even dietific, a very adolescent position to take.
Take a few minutes to read this post about materialism and humanism. It's quite right-brained analytical and so right up your alley. No point in me reinventing the wheel here.
I see that you are quiet young and full of yourself, far too young to have closed your mind and formed such strong opinions. I realize that your beliefs are reflections of Western philosophy, which is woefully unevolved at this stage of human development. I cut you slack because, you're still young, still reeling from the programming of your education and on the cusp of the experiential phase of your life. Hopefully, you'll open back up and continue to grow.
You dirty stupid dumbass! Get out of here and shut the fuck up!!!
That is violence, correct?
How do you prefer to be talked to?
What are you supposed to do when you get stuck in a negative loop without wanting?
Say, when you have a conflict with another one who accuses you of something you weren't even aware of doing, what is your reaction? Because the other perceived you as a harmful or ignorant person. What would you do? Would you try to solve the conflict? How would you do that, without strengthening the conflict?
Are you telling me that you don't want to rely on your perception? But that is what you and I are doing every day of our lives. You have your perception and I have mine.
I have a question: When you would have to consult a couple from another culture and where the woman is pregnant and her husband does not want that she gives birth in a clinic because other men could see and embarrass her. How would you create a winning situation for all participants involved? I mean to acknowledge their culture and not violate the present culture where they live in at the same time. Do you have a solution for that? What would be the objective view on that? Is there a difference between an objective and a systemic view?
I wanted to encourage you to take your time and experiment with this view on a personal level.
There is no strict usage of this view even in sight. And that is also not meant. It is an ideal which should be idealistic in order to shoot at this goal. One never will reach it fully. But if you are lacking an ideal form of communication, where do you put yourself for orientation?
Let's take a scale where 1 is the worst way of communication (always nay-saying, rejecting everything and using violent speech) and 10 the best way (using non-violent communication, considering the possibility that another perception might have its point, choosing cooperation instead of separation). What is your life experience telling you? That you rarely get to 10, isn't that so? Which is okay because we are not flawless. Would it be okay for you to move somewhere in the middle?
The systemic view offers in its practical applications a middle way. At least in the realm, I am practicing.
Thanks for commenting and annoying me :-)