Worldviews - Wikipedia and DMs-links-on-LIM. Re: history and future: Human energy supply ... {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/36014 sign-in first}: · Below are some excerpts of Wikipedia's article on worldviews. But first; I was surprised to find that I had used: worldview: http://tinyurl.com/yuhk9n (original: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/msearch?query=davd.geo+worldview&submit=Search&charset=UTF-8 ) - and: world-view: http://tinyurl.com/2dx7mo (original: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/msearch?query=davd.geo+world-view&submit=Search&charset=UTF-8 ) - a total of 206 times on LIM, since Dec 166, 2002. · The Wikipedia "worldview" article (below) contains: “The Christian thinker James W. Sire defines a worldview as "a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic makeup of our world." and suggests that: "we should all think in terms of worldviews, that is, with a consciousness not only of our own way of thought but also that of other people, so that we can first understand and then genuinely communicate with others in our pluralistic society."[3] ... The philosophical importance of Worldviews became increasingly clear during the 20th Century for an number of reasons, such as increasing contact between cultures, and the failure of some aspects of the Enlightenment project, such as the rationalist project of attaining all truth by reason alone.” David. v-=##=-v http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view - has: World view - from Wikipedia ... A worldview describes a consistent ... and integral sense of existence and provides a framework for generating, sustaining, and applying knowledge. ... One of the most important concepts in cognitive philosophy and generative sciences is the German concept of ‘Weltanschauung’. This expression refers to the 'wide worldview' or 'wide world perception' of a people, family, or person. - The Weltanschauung of a people originatess from the unique world experience of a people, which they experience over several millennia. The language of a people reflects the Weltanschauung of that people in the form of its syntactic structures and untranslatable connotations ... * Construction of worldviews The 'construction of integrating worldviews' begins from fragments of worldviews offered to us by the different scientific disciplines and the various systems of knowledge. It is contributed to by different perspectives that exist in the world's different cultures. This is the main topic of research at the Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies. It should be noted that while Apostel and his followers clearly hold that individuals can construct worldviews, other writers regard worldviews as operating at a community level, and/or in an unconscious way. - For instance, if one's worldview is fixedd by one's language (as according to a strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) one would have to learn or invent a new language in order to construct a new worldview. According to Apostel, a worldview should comprise seven elements: 1. An ontology, a descriptive model of the world 2. An explanation of the world 3. A futurology, answering the question "where are we heading?". 4. Values, answers to ethical questions: "What should we do?". 5. A praxeology, or methodology, or theory of action.: "How should we attain our goals?" 6. An epistemology, or theory of knowledge. "What is true and false?" 7. An etiology. A constructed world-view should contain an account of its own "building blocks", its origins and construction. _Impact_of_worldviews_ * Structural aspects The term denotes a comprehensive set of opinions, seen as an organic unity, about the world as the medium and exercise of human existence. Weltanschauung serves as a framework for generating various dimensions of human perception and experience like knowledge, politics, economics, religion, culture, science, and ethics. - For example, worldview of causality as unni-directional, cyclic, or spiral generates a framework of the world that reflects these systems of causality. A uni-directional view of causality is present in some monotheistic views of the world with a beginning and an end and a single great force with a single end (e.g., Christianity and Islam), while a cyclic worldview of causality is present in religious tradition which is cyclic and seasonal and wherein events and experiences recur in systematic patterns (e.g., Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, and Hinduism). These worldviews of causality not only underlie religious traditions but also other aspects of thought like the purpose of history, political and economic theories, and systems like democracy, authoritarianism, anarchism, capitalism, socialism, and communism. ... _Worldviews_in_Religion_and_Philosophy_ * Philosophical basis Various writers suggest that religious or philosophical belief-systems should be seen as worldviews rather than a set of individual hypotheses or theories. The Japanese Philosopher Nishida Kitaro wrote extensively on "the Religious Worldview" in exploring the philosophical significance of Eastern religions[1]. According to Neo-Calvinist David Naugle's "Worldview: The History of a Concept" "Conceiving of Christianity as a worldview, has been one of the most significant developments in the recent history of the church"[2]. The Christian thinker James W. Sire defines a worldview as "a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic makeup of our world." and suggests that "we should all think in terms of worldviews, that is, with a consciousness not only of our own way of thought but also that of other people, so that we can first understand and then genuinely communicate with others in our pluralistic society."[3] The Rev. Professor Keith Ward bases his discussion of the rationality of religious belief in Is Religion Dangerous? on a consideration of religious and non-religious worldviews.[4] The philosophical importance of Worldviews became increasingly clear during the 20th Century for an number of reasons, such as increasing contact between cultures, and the failure of some aspects of the Enlightenment project, such as the rationalist project of attaining all truth by reason alone. Mathematical logic showed that fundamental choices of axioms were essential in deductive reasoning[5] and that, even having chosen axioms not everything that was true in a given logical system could be proven[6]. Some philosophers believe the problems extend to "the inconsistencies and failures which plagued the Enlightenment attempt to identify universal moral and rational principles"[7]; although Enlightenment principles such as universal suffrage and (the universal declaration of) human rights are accepted, if not taken for granted, by many.[8] A worldview can be considered as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for[9]. However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically, and if two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive dialogue between them[10]. ... ^-=##=-^ _~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_ At 09:04 a.m. 22/03/2007 +1200, I (David M) wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/36013 sign-in first}: · I see people using Less unsustainable goods and energy, as a major part of moving the whole world towards a sustainable future. — Having a world-view of what we humans are doing and where we want to go, is another part. I've called this: philosophy of LessIsMore ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - World-views, 6,529,195,913 of them {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/34574 on Jul 19, 2006}, has: {this is about my: "Everyone is constantly re-creating their own world"} · Under - - - is my response to Christiaan Briggs (it's public, on his blog http://last-straw.net/2006/04/revoking-baptism-and-confirmation/ ). - I'm sending it because IMO, in world disccourse today, there's too much emphasis on "real", "true" and the like, which I interpret as an attempt to say that your own world-view is correct. This often causes conflict. · There _are_ clearly great similarities between different people's world- views, and one could define "real" to mean those features which are common to the most people; a consequence is that the definition of "mad" (or its modern equivalents) then is simply the decision as to where to draw the line, how far away from the median view _should_ be called/labelled "mad". · In my "Re: Fw: An antidote to the fear headlines we read everyday ..." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/34484 4 Jul'06 13:32 +1200 - I said: “. Since [1972], watching the detail of how the world actually worked out, it's clear that ... it's absolutely necessary to accept the pre-eminence of complexity in all ecology (including the sub-set which is human activities) ... · My conclusion: We cannot say that each of us _is_not_ the butterfly-in-the-rainforest which (together with millions of other inputs) "causes" a hurricane in USA. - - Since we cannot be certain we are havinng precisely zero effect, we must assume we each have an effect; so we (ethically) should do the best we can [going on the knowledge we have at that particular time].” · My: “we (ethically) should do the best we can” just-about-states that it's our _individual_ choice, based on our _individual_ world-view. · A lot of people feel that what they think and how they act should be acceptable to certain others. True, it makes living easier, when others approve (& maybe say "you're doing the right thing"), but IMO we each have sole responsibility for our own actions, based on our 6,529,195,913 world-views. —{ continued under the quotes.}— - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - http://last-straw.net/2006/04/revoking-baptism-and-confirmation/ - has: -- begin quote from David & Christiaan, on Ch's Last-Straw blog 17 Apr '06 ... # David MacClement says [to Christiaan Briggs]: April 18th, 2006 at 4:21 am • First (and less important): my atheist view of the world is based on my 60 years’ experience with the place of Occam’s Razor in science: “The minimum needed to explain something, is more likely to be correct than a more complicated explanation”. That’s my version; see Wikipedia’s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_razor , and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham — So adding an extra layer (in this case, supernatural) is unnecessary. • To your main quandaries: (1) your own attitude to your Baptism and Confirmation, and ... Re (1): Easy. They happened in the past, before you became an independent person (the equal of anyone else, free to choose your own actions or inactions). Everyone is constantly re-creating their own world, so simply write your Baptism and Confirmation out of your current world. And leave other adults free to make _their_own_ choices about their attitudes to such ceremonies. ... -- end quote from David & Christiaan, on Chh's Last-Straw blog, 17 Apr '06. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - ... [David: ] · Since my early 20s I have built my attitude on the understanding that scientists at least (and others if they choose) _act_as_if_ the most useful non-disproved theory _is_true_, but knowing it has some chance of having some parts (possibly all) disproved. — I don't understand those who want to have 100% reliance on a certain piece of knowledge (like the existence of a god, or anything else). · We should just do the best we can (with what we have right now, including the knowledge and world-view we have right now). _Not_ being 100% sure of anything, has worked fine for me, for the last fifty-five years. David.