Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

"A Change in Worldview..."

Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 10:44:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"A change in worldview changes the world viewed." - Joseph Chilton Pearce

What do you think of this statement, true, false, how and why?

Discuss.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 9:23:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 10:44:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
"A change in worldview changes the world viewed." - Joseph Chilton Pearce

What do you think of this statement, true, false, how and why?

Discuss.

I reply with: "Whose world?"

Because, really, everybody lives in their own.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 5:44:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 10:44:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
"A change in worldview changes the world viewed." - Joseph Chilton Pearce

What do you think of this statement, true, false, how and why?

Discuss.
My worldview is geared towards the weirder things as opposed to some of the "obvious not so obvious" things people seem to have in their world views. Red Shifts showing universe expansion. Problem is there are sister galaxies with different red shifts, not possible if red shifts is how we determine expansion. Pulsars claimed to have "special" types of matter so they can be included in current popular scientific thinking. Burial sites in America of people who are over 8 feet tall and stories of giants by Indians and such. Burial sites found in the Grand Canyon area that are freakishly Egyptian like. Metals found from "ufo" sitings that have been confirmed as metallurgy not consistent with anything on Earth. I guess I have a weirdview, worldview is too close too being a follower instead of an individual. And yeh, that patterson film of bigfoot examined by experts in animal gaits, Hollywood special effects, animal physiology and body movement all came to the conclusion there is no way it is a person in a female Bigfoot suit. Weirdview is more fun.....
Devilry
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 11:03:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's true, and it's scary what belief can do to the world.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 11:47:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think we can label the statement as true nor false, but we can observe that there are a multitude of worldviews each containing a unique perspective stemming from an individual or a collection of indivduals.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 1:47:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/12/2015 11:47:54 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
I don't think we can label the statement as true nor false, but we can observe that there are a multitude of worldviews each containing a unique perspective stemming from an individual or a collection of indivduals.

If different people inhabit different realities, then reality is contingent upon our state of mind,

It follows that we can change our reality by changing the way we think.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 8:32:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 1:47:06 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/12/2015 11:47:54 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
I don't think we can label the statement as true nor false, but we can observe that there are a multitude of worldviews each containing a unique perspective stemming from an individual or a collection of indivduals.

If different people inhabit different realities, then reality is contingent upon our state of mind,

It follows that we can change our reality by changing the way we think.

How would you define reality? Is reality "what is real" or individual perceptions of existence? It's a question of materialism vs idealism.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 11:45:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A change in worldview changes the world viewed.
Pearce isn't a philosopher, so I don't think the quote should be taken as a formal ontological proposition - it's an nice aphorism about attitude.

I would take it this way: Say you wake up with a left-wing outlook having gone to bed a right-winger. That means that yesterday - for example - welfare recipients were lazy good-for-nothings, parasites on society who should be sterilised forthwith, but today those same people are the victims of capitalism who need more help to escape the trap society has pushed them into.

Obviously the people on welfare haven't really changed overnight, but it is as if did. I'm pretty sure that's the sort of thing he meant (but probably not about welfare) and I think he has a good point, even thought it is obviously not strictly true if you over-think it.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 6:08:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 10:44:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
"A change in worldview changes the world viewed." - Joseph Chilton Pearce

What do you think of this statement, true, false, how and why?

Discuss.

If you change the way you look at things the things you look at change. ~ Dr Wayne Dyer

The eye altering alters all. ~ William Blake
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:03:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 1:47:06 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/12/2015 11:47:54 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
I don't think we can label the statement as true nor false, but we can observe that there are a multitude of worldviews each containing a unique perspective stemming from an individual or a collection of indivduals.

If different people inhabit different realities, then reality is contingent upon our state of mind,
Now I must ask; what do you mean by reality?
It follows that we can change our reality by changing the way we think.

^ See previous question.
ironslippers
Posts: 513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 3:33:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 10:44:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
"A change in worldview changes the world viewed." - Joseph Chilton Pearce

What do you think of this statement, true, false, how and why?

Discuss.

"Perception is reality"?
False
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 8:28:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 10:44:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
"A change in worldview changes the world viewed." - Joseph Chilton Pearce

What do you think of this statement, true, false, how and why?

Discuss.

It means when once changes their perspective...they change the world around them.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 10:25:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 8:32:58 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/13/2015 1:47:06 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/12/2015 11:47:54 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
I don't think we can label the statement as true nor false, but we can observe that there are a multitude of worldviews each containing a unique perspective stemming from an individual or a collection of indivduals.

If different people inhabit different realities, then reality is contingent upon our state of mind,

It follows that we can change our reality by changing the way we think.

How would you define reality? Is reality "what is real" or individual perceptions of existence?

Kant's primary underlying insight was that the mind is constructive, reality s experiential, the only reality we can know is a matter of our perceptions.

Any and all knowledge of "reality" begins with experience, the physical world is a logical construct out of sensory data. We do not have direct access to the physical world. It is a sort of postulate, for correlating all our sensory data in ways we can understand. Our only evidence that there even is a universe, or reality, comes from a "presumption" of sorts. What we take as the reality outside of us, the so-called objective reality, is a construct that is the presumed cause of our sensations. Something is "out there" causing these sensations that we are having "in here". The only knowledge that is immediate is "in here", in our consciousness, that is the only thing we know directly. All other knowledge is mediate; everything else is a projection, we only know it by our sensations, reality is the thing we presume to be "out there", beyond us; causing our sensations.

Sensory experience presents us with visual, tactile, auditory, and olfactory data which are fused together into the apprehension of one experienced world in which we exist.

It's a question of materialism vs idealism.

Oh pulease, materialism and idealism are reductionist fallacies, we certainly need not be forced to select between those two conceptually inadequate choices. They are both inadequate because they make either subjects or objects fundamental, but we don"t exist in either external contexts or internal contexts, objective and subjective are not separated or opposed, and they certainly are not mutually exclusive, they are transactional, they constitute a whole. A more true representation of reality can occur if both subject and object contribute to a coherent worldview elaborated in a comprehensive metaphysics.

Our experiential universe is deeper, with more dimensions , and much vaster than any of our materialist or idealist descriptions can do justice to, those designations are limited aspects of a far greater reality in which we live and move and have our being.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 10:35:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 11:45:21 AM, kp98 wrote:
A change in worldview changes the world viewed.
Pearce isn't a philosopher, so I don't think the quote should be taken as a formal ontological proposition - it's an nice aphorism about attitude.

Apparently you don't know who Pearce is, he most certainly is a philosopher, a very influential philosopher to my generation. He wrote a best selling philosophical work in 1971 called "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg" that helped define the philosophical thought of a generation.

I would take it this way: Say you wake up with a left-wing outlook having gone to bed a right-winger. That means that yesterday - for example - welfare recipients were lazy good-for-nothings, parasites on society who should be sterilised forthwith, but today those same people are the victims of capitalism who need more help to escape the trap society has pushed them into.

Obviously the people on welfare haven't really changed overnight, but it is as if did. I'm pretty sure that's the sort of thing he meant (but probably not about welfare) and I think he has a good point, even thought it is obviously not strictly true if you over-think it.

No, what Pearce was speaking to is the power of mind to actually alter physical reality.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 11:27:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 10:25:13 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/13/2015 8:32:58 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/13/2015 1:47:06 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/12/2015 11:47:54 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
I don't think we can label the statement as true nor false, but we can observe that there are a multitude of worldviews each containing a unique perspective stemming from an individual or a collection of indivduals.

If different people inhabit different realities, then reality is contingent upon our state of mind,

It follows that we can change our reality by changing the way we think.

How would you define reality? Is reality "what is real" or individual perceptions of existence?

Kant's primary underlying insight was that the mind is constructive, reality s experiential, the only reality we can know is a matter of our perceptions.

Any and all knowledge of "reality" begins with experience, the physical world is a logical construct out of sensory data. We do not have direct access to the physical world. It is a sort of postulate, for correlating all our sensory data in ways we can understand. Our only evidence that there even is a universe, or reality, comes from a "presumption" of sorts. What we take as the reality outside of us, the so-called objective reality, is a construct that is the presumed cause of our sensations. Something is "out there" causing these sensations that we are having "in here". The only knowledge that is immediate is "in here", in our consciousness, that is the only thing we know directly. All other knowledge is mediate; everything else is a projection, we only know it by our sensations, reality is the thing we presume to be "out there", beyond us; causing our sensations.

Sensory experience presents us with visual, tactile, auditory, and olfactory data which are fused together into the apprehension of one experienced world in which we exist.

It's a question of materialism vs idealism.

Oh pulease, materialism and idealism are reductionist fallacies, we certainly need not be forced to select between those two conceptually inadequate choices. They are both inadequate because they make either subjects or objects fundamental, but we don"t exist in either external contexts or internal contexts, objective and subjective are not separated or opposed, and they certainly are not mutually exclusive, they are transactional, they constitute a whole. A more true representation of reality can occur if both subject and object contribute to a coherent worldview elaborated in a comprehensive metaphysics.

Our experiential universe is deeper, with more dimensions , and much vaster than any of our materialist or idealist descriptions can do justice to, those designations are limited aspects of a far greater reality in which we live and move and have our being.

So basically dualism. I wasn't prescribing either extreme, but reality is either material, as in "what is real regardless of human experience" or ideal "what human perceives to be real", you may argue that they are not mutually exclusive, which I would agree with, but it is necessary to distinguish the two to clarify contexts. You may prescribe to Kant's view, which is fine, but not everyone functions under the same definition.