I think individuals, like societies, construct their own realities. Society’s construct is the foundation from which the individual creates a unique worldview. The paradigm we build for ourselves then becomes the looking glass with which we view everything we perceive as “other” than, or separate from, ourselves. Our worldview, shaped by nurture (social relationships), and nature (genetic inheritance) is the tool we use to evaluate all individuals, groups, concepts, and the concrete; as well as ourselves. It can be our prison or our release.
I believe humankind’s greatest undeveloped and active potential lives within the possible communication between unique paradigms existing in a symphony of interdependent relatedness. This exchange of information flows via physical and nonphysical senses, verbally and intuitively, at least between human animals. Personally, I believe communication is possible between all sentient beings. I recognize this is not a widely shared construct for “modern” societies. My paradigm has some flexibility. Presentations of other worldviews could be opportunities for learning, growth, restructuring a limited construct, or reevaluating my present paradigm.
My mind meandered to these thoughts after classmates and DKJ very effectively communicated their constructs on the nature of curiosity. Because I found being curious as natural and essential as breathing, I was completely unable to understand how it could be that some people are not particularly curious, or might even dislike being curious. It was impossible for me to frame incuriousness in a manner that would allow me to relate to that concept, and then reframe it so I could integrate it into my paradigm. I could not understand how a life without curiousness would be worth living. I found it literally unimaginable, my life devoid of curiosity created a visual picture of my mind permanently imprisoned.
Sharing life experiences, classmates supplied concrete examples of incurious, but happy, passionate, people, who were capable of co-creative expression. Born from this free exchange of wisdom-based worldviews, I was able to reframe my beliefs, alter my worldview, and reconstruct reality.
Having said that, I still do not understand why DKJ said curiosity is dangerous. The claim that “curiosity killed the cat,” is completed by, “but satisfaction brought him back.”
Within each construct, potential limitlessness and imprisonment coexist in various states of latency.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think the reference to curiosity's danger was in the context of its danger to established conventions, rules, or power-relations. Of course, curiosity may often kill us, too.
Notice that your fist paragraph makes two distinct claims: that we create "realities" (worlds); and that we create "worldviews" (views of reality). I'm inclined to support, and find support in your words for, the latter only.
Our society of origin teaches us what is their acceptable worldview. Nature can provide individuals with divergent aspects of a society’s construct. We quickly learn which of our beliefs are incompatible with our society’s construct. As an individual, I may choose to live in a manner that reflects my society’s construct. I may exhibit its characteristics. I may choose to limit myself temporarily, and function in the world as if it is my true worldview.
I have a deeply held, infrequently practiced worldview, which, while it is at odds with my current society's constructs, resonates harmoniously with the constructs of many indigenous societies. When in the society of indigenous peoples, I have, at times, restricted my commonly practiced, or "normal" society’s paradigm; and freed myself to practice my individual cosmology, which is more akin to their cosmology.
I interpret “reality” as expressions of the limitations imposed on the individual by society. I believe that individuals, and by extension societies, exist by expressing multiple, and often, incompatible, realities concurrently.
I view “worldview” as the true cosmology of an individual. Within that cosmology, an individual might choose to exercise different paradigms, according to what they believe might best facilitate their evolution within changing environments, without losing connection to their worldview, their global “reality.”
Perhaps our difference is a matter of semantics, or perhaps one of concepts.
Nice, detailed post.
You write:
"I interpret “reality” as expressions of the limitations imposed on the individual by society. I believe that individuals, and by extension societies, exist by expressing multiple, and often, incompatible, realities concurrently."
I have no problem accepting, for the moment, that stipulative definition.
"I view “worldview” as the true cosmology of an individual. Within that cosmology, an individual might choose to exercise different paradigms, according to what they believe might best facilitate their evolution within changing environments, without losing connection to their worldview, their global “reality.”"
But here it seems to me, especially in the final phrase (though the added reference to "true cosmology" doesn't help), that you again conflate "reality" and "worldview" in a way that I can't quite fathom. Please explain; perhaps in standard form?
Good point. This could be the result of a misperception on my end. Or being deliberately obtuse as a protective mechanism. I’ll try again.
I think Americans (and most western societies), generally connate “reality” with an empirically based concept, confined to humankind’s five physical senses – extended through inventions that enhance these senses. When I speak of reality, I am using the language of the western paradigm. I acknowledge the existence of constructs/realities grounded in empiricism, but I choose to live within a metaphysical reality.
For me, and my indigenous friends, an empirically based concept of “reality,” is by definition, antithetical to our metaphysical concept of reality. I have watched us relate/communicate with people who hold an empirical reality. I have watched us live among them, dine with, travel with, exist beside them. To do so, we act as if, communicate as if we share the west’s reality. We do this without severing our connection to our worldview, our metaphysical reality. We discussed what it is like to reconfigure our expression of self, in order to pass within an empirical society. I have no awareness of a person, with an empirically based reality, holding my reality within his or her own. The last paragraph from my previous blog was created from personal experience, and
couched within deliberate obtuseness. Perhaps therein lies the source of my confusing writing.
I hope this helps; I cannot begin to conceptualize how to put these antithetical concepts into standard form.
Post a Comment