What's Your Worldview?

[Randall]

What's Your Worldview?

This thread is all about you, what you think, how you think, why you think it, how you see the world, and how you relate to other people. Not much gets across unless you can related to other people, but it's not as easy with some people as it is with others, and I began to wonder why this varies so much? Some people like to delve into the details. Others don't, preferring things short and to the point. If it's beyond that they see it as verbose, whereas those who prefer the details find less to be insufficient, especially when it comes to why someone sees the world the way they do. Here's a short intro:

​

A little more in-depth here: PDF | What is a worldview?

One of the points made in the PDF above is the importance of a universal language. But how do we achieve that when language itself is translated by different people in different ways that lead to a completely different pictures? Sometimes there's no picture at all. This seems like a rather radical statement, but apparently this is the situation. Some people simply don't visualize, or don't do very well when it comes to imagining what someone is trying to get across, and for those of us who tend to think a lot in pictures and images, it's hard to imagine a worldview of someone who doesn't.

Aphantasia and Perception

PDF | "Visual imagery is, for most of us, a conspicuous ingredient of everyday experience, playing a prominent role in memory, daydreaming and creativity. Galton, who pioneered the quantitative study of visual imagery with his famous ‘breakfast-table survey’, reported a wide variation in its subjective vividness (Galton, 1880). Indeed, some participants described ‘no power of visualising’ ... " ( Source )​

Consciousness includes perceptions resulting from real-time external stimuli. For most people it also includes perceptions that are imagined, but apparently, for some people, visualizing things isn't easy or doesn't happen at all, and the ability to imagine perceptions varies widely between individuals. This is fairly new to me. I had always assumed that everyone without any special problems experienced the world in pretty much the same way, and differences were largely due to personal preferences and tastes. However it goes much deeper than that.

It turns out that when we communicate to a number of different people at the same time, the receivers experiences of what is being communicated can vary widely, not simply because of their mood, or the possibility of a double meaning, or some assumption that isn't accurate, but because they lack the mental ability to reconstruct it similarly to way the sender had envisioned it. So if the communication involves a lot of written imagery, those who have a hard time visualizing imagery, literally won't get the picture.

So for those who are interested, don't be afraid to share your worldviews and how you communicate with others. Do you think a lot in pictures and if not, how do you best relate to the world and communicate ideas to others? What experiences have you had where something you've said has been misinterpreted and you later identified the point where it had gone off the rails? If you do nothing else, please take the poll at the top of the page!

BTW: When I say "Red Tomatoes" I see red tomatoes like the ones I picked from the garden just the other day

 

[Burnt State]

I'm not happy with your limits on only selecting two. Sometimes i rely exclusively on language, or images or sounds. But if I had to pick two I choose feelings and my intuition that is well steeped in learned past experience informed by language, logic and associated sensory elements. So I'd like to see a broader approach to this whole world view thing. What about irrational thinking or anti-logic as I find that to be a very important way to be creatively informed about interpreting reality?

Life is very situational as well. Interacting with people is also based on their approach to communicating themeselves. Some are physical communicators and some communication and experience of the world only happens in intimate ways that defy language and redefine emotion. I find that my approahes to interacting with and perceiving reality is very dependent on the nature of the external or internal stimulus.

 

[Randall]

I'm not happy with your limits on only selecting two. Sometimes i rely exclusively on language, or images or sounds. But if I had to pick two I choose feelings and my intuition that is well steeped in learned past experience informed by language, logic and associated sensory elements.

You know how these things are. They're geared toward a specific question. In this case which mode seems to prevail most often, but I added the option to pick whether or not participants find it fairly easy to switch modes, which I see you selected. So you're covered pretty well there with all your options. I see you tend to go with your instincts and intuition more than anything else. Cool. Thanks for participating .

So I'd like to see a broader approach to this whole world view thing.

Me too, which is why it's a whole thread for people to expand as much as they'd like about their own unique way of seeing things.

What about irrational thinking or anti-logic as I find that to be a very important way to be creatively informed about interpreting reality?

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but I do know that once in a while I like to let my analytical left brain take a break. Is that sort of what you're talking about?

Life is very situational as well. Interacting with people is also based on their approach to communicating themeselves. Some are physical communicators and some communication and experience of the world only happens in intimate ways that defy language and redefine emotion. I find that my approahes to interacting with and perceiving reality is very dependent on the nature of the external or internal stimulus.

You sound as though you tend to approach the world in a very dynamic way based on what you feel is right at the time, and are good at switching modes. So in your worldview, how different do you think the average person's worldview is from the next? Do you think that people who seem pretty much the same as you are, are on the inside radically different, or that they are actually pretty much like you are?

 

[Wade]

I don't think I have a default mode, if I really put my mind to it I think I can honestly say I've employed all of the choices in a singular calendar day. I suppose it comes down to what resources I have (or don't have) at my disposal at the time.

 

[Wade]

i wonder though if any of us really "know ourselves" well enough to make that determination. In a way the choices given...while necessary....to me sort of comes across as leading us into a certain conclusions.

It's sort of like assinging a number of attributes to a speciific astrological sign. We all know what sign we are so when we see a certain sign is like this or that arguably more often than not that person will say to themselves "Yeah, that's me in spades" even if it is not and even if it is, it could very well be because of enviornment.

If there is any way to tell i would probably look at a person's profession, for i think their default world view would led them to a certain profession as that profession would require a specific way of looking at things or determine how you approach things but obviously a secondary attribute could be lurking in the background, one that may even be at odds with the default.

 

[Burnt State]

i wonder though if any of us really "know ourselves" well enough to make that determination. In a way the choices given...while necessary....to me sort of comes across as leading us into a certain conclusions.

It's sort of like assinging a number of attributes to a speciific astrological sign. We all know what sign we are so when we see a certain sign is like this or that arguably more often than not that person will say to themselves "Yeah that's me in spades" even if it is not and even if it is it could very be because of enviornment.

If there is any way to tell i wpuld probably look at a person's profession for i think their default world view would led them to a certain proffession as that profession would require a specific way of looking at things or determin how you approach things but obviously a secondary attribute could be lurking in the background, one that may even be at odds with the default.

anything we turn our mind to becomes our lens for how we see and interact with the universe be it dwelling on the past or what we work at. We are always framing the experience and usually unconsciously.

 

[Bob Watson]

this shows my world views.. thank you Mr chaplin...

 

[Randall]

I don't think I have a default mode, if I really put my mind to it I think I can honestly say I've employed all of the choices in a singular calendar day. I suppose it comes down to what resources I have (or don't have) at my disposal at the time.

You're very ambidextrous in the way you think! For me, I'm definitely an imaginer, mostly visual, but I can imagine audio about as well. Audio sort of translates to language and I can switch to language mode fairly easily, but that still often gets translated to pictures. I have a real hard time switching to other modes sometimes. For example, if I can't imagine how the math in a physics problem is supposed to be applied, I just don't get it. If I'm told to just follow the rules, it doesn't make any sense to me. Kepler's Laws are a perfect example. The formula alone is just pictures of symbols to me, but they make perfect sense as soon as I imagine something like a moon of a certain size orbiting a planet at a certain distance and speed. Apparently there are those who can do the math just fine, but don't get the picture. I find that bizarre. I think that those are the people who don't get why some math theory just doesn't work in the real world.

 

[Randall]

this shows my world views.. thank you Mr chaplin...

Very powerful. An excellent place to start .

 

[Wade]

The Great Dictator ?

 

[Bob Watson]

Yes the great dictator

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Alle Hagel Killary Brumph...

 

[Randall]

Alle Hagel Killary Brumph...

... and you actually had me convinced you were sick of politics ... LOL

 

[Randall]

This approach seems to make sense for the most part, but it seems like there might be a couple of sticky spots, and it seems to be setting us up for a take on religious worldviews, so my bias started kicking in at the end. But other than that, I liked it because it talked about things I try to apply to my own worldview when searching for truth, like logical consistency, correspondence, and how truth stands apart from everyone's differing personal views.

 

[Wade]

Alle Hagel Killary Brumph...

My worldview on this is that you are pledging allegiance to Hillary Trump ?

 

[Wade]

Now this is a little more clear to me, given your poll and Burnt's initial response I thought you were angling for something different here but given the inclusion of the two videos it seems to be more of what I thought a worldview was; why we believe in what we believe and (maybe) the lengths we go to justify to ourselves that belief regardless on the lack of evidence to support that belief or any evidence we have to the contrary, is this the discussion you were looking to engage in ?


I saw your post in another thread about your idea of Jesus who was, sort of an amalgamation of various philosophers (or was it ideas) from various societies over the centuries before the time of Christ. Did I get that right? I do realize your belief wasn't just based on biblical discrepancies but I forgot what thread it was and what you read to come to this conclusion.

Given the nature of the Bible as we know it today, altered as it is and thought to be filled with allegorical stories to keep a society in line, I don't blame one for thinking this way but in this case I'm fully willing to accept (believe? ) that a man was harshly punished, tortured and murdered because of his beliefs and the threat of sedition and I have nothing to go out but a collection of various letters compiled together and from a source that is not beyond reproach. I can say I haven't read anything to the contrary although I haven't taken time to look for them. I can't honestly say why I haven't taken that step, I do know I'm not threatened by anything revelatory as I'm not invested in any believe system surrounding Christ. In the end as I see it it really doesn't matter if he was a singular human being or not, two thousand plus years of belief is a large hurdle to overcome...not that 's anyone's intent....one might as well be p***ing in the wind.


I don't know if logic or mathematics can be attributed in this case, photographs and videos are out of the question. I'd say feelings and to a lesser extent language would have something to do with my acceptance .

There is a lot of additional beliefs associated with this man that have been added on over the millennia that some see as unwieldy and comprising and more so, inconvenient and because of this they may choose to separate themselves from a man and his ideas and from the baggage he brings with accepting that belief he existed (I guess I'm in this camp) and then there are those that question his existence possibly because of this baggage, which arguably was pushed upon him after his death. I am to willing to admit that Christ existed and he had a heartfelt message to people and was harshly dealt with because of his chosen lifestyle and I wonder if people would question his existence if he DIDNT have such a philosophy built around him. I do admit to some discomfort regarding the circumstances of his disappearance from the crypt. It could be a fantasy or it could be someone trying to imprint upon us a standard to the way we choose to act our life.

@ufology if before you left earth there was some contact from an advanced civilization and this civilization had a message similar to the teachings of Christ or spoke of him specificity how do you think you would absorb this information? Would you be more open to his singular physical existence and /or the philosophy he espoused including the possibility of life after this existence? What if these beings spoke of such a person but it was slightly different that that what we've been taught ? Would you think that they weren't different having their own deity, or maybe something they picked up this philosophy maybe from a previous trip here?

As far as life after death, for whatever reason that whole idea there must be life after death otherwise what is the meaning of our existence thought (as self serving as it is) really strikes a chord with me and probably would at some point in my life even if i had never been in a position to be aware of the early philosophers or biblical stories. I have no doubt it's innate and not tied into a particular belief system, i wonder if the earliest man thought of this. Do you think this concept is a byproduct of merely having a consciousness? If that consciousness was piped in from an outside source (which sounds intriguing to me ) then maybe this concept of life after death is food for thought on how to live out our life in harmony.

 

[Burnt State]

Religion is primarily a control system of the patriarch to define women and the rest of the culture in a very male way. I'm sure it wasnt always this way, nor is it at the root of all cultures, but the menfolk historically are very big on stoning the Prostitute, burning the Witch and controlling the Virgin. They don't call it The Chalice and the Blade for nothing.

The idea of spirituality has been lost in that morass which is really sad and has nothing to do with Christ's message at all. So as far as a worldview goes it is one of the most criminal ones for its degree of control and violence it promotes in the name of men's rights to power, while totally denying the power of women whose internal and more reflective worldviews seem to contradict male concepts. Their fear of women has left the world in a sorry state of distrust.

Perhaps if we stop indoctrinating the masses with that kind of bullshit, including the bullshit of consumerism and imposed surrender to technology, more fertile and independent worldviews could flourish in our global culture creative a more dynamic and accepting ways of being. I bet you mode switching would be a lot easier then.

 

[Burnt State]

...I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but I do know that once in a while I like to let my analytical left brain take a break. Is that sort of what you're talking about?
...
You sound as though you tend to approach the world in a very dynamic way based on what you feel is right at the time, and are good at switching modes. So in your worldview, how different do you think the average person's worldview is from the next? Do you think that people who seem pretty much the same as you are, are on the inside radically different, or that they are actually pretty much like you are?

irrational creative thinking - yes! we need more of that in our lives and in our culture in order to be more accepting of people's diversity of mental thought. the controlling logical brain that invented religion and authority delineates us all into mental serfs restricting who gets power and who should be incarcerated or set adrift on the ship of fools because they don't "fit."

my experience has taught me that we are all very lonely people who are often prisoners of a very solitudinal reality - usually an imposed one. sharing and true communication happens when we use our sensory and logical tools to seek common ground with others. depending on how open minded the other is communication can be good. but if you are a complete prisoner of your worldview then you might only respond to limited dialogues of fear and scapegoating and then you might only understand Donald Trump and his misogynist, racist messages.

those people whom i find i share a lot in common with do bear many similarities in terms of having an artistic, and open minded way of being in the world. they tend to be more accepting and less judgmental, more interseted in ideas of service than control and are seekers in their own ways - pioneers of both the mind and body.

 

[Randall]

Now this is a little more clear to me, given your poll and Burnt's initial response I thought you were angling for something different here but given the inclusion of the two videos it seems to be more of what I thought a worldview was; why we believe in what we believe and (maybe) the lengths we go to justify to ourselves that belief regardless on the lack of evidence to support that belief or any evidence we have to the contrary, is this the discussion you were looking to engage in ?

Sort of. One of the things that I've discovered in starting this thread is that there seems to be different versions of what a worldview is, which results in a sort of a conundrum, because in theory the idea should apply evenly to everyone. If not, then the very idea itself becomes a component within an individual's worldview, resulting in a sort of paradox. If you see what I'm saying there, then I think we're on the same page.

I saw your post in another thread about your idea of Jesus who was, sort of an amalgamation of various philosophers (or was it ideas) from various societies over the centuries before the time of Christ. Did I get that right? I do realize your belief wasn't just based on biblical discrepancies but I forgot what thread it was and what you read to come to this conclusion.

When I went digging I went into as much history as I could that was separate from the various bibles to see how the bible itself came into being. I also looked for independent historical records and artifacts that were clearly about Jesus or were actual physical things that either he created or had allegedly belonged to him, or been directly associated with him, like the shroud of Turin. I wasn't able to find anything reasonably convincing, but the bits and pieces did seem to add up to an interesting story nevertheless. Since then there have been others who have come out and made a bit of a name for themselves claiming Jesus never existed, and they seem to have traveled along much of the same path as myself. Here's a link to one:

Richard Carrier, PhD. in Ancient History - Did Jesus Exist?: youtu.be/WUYRoYl7i6U​

Given the nature of the Bible as we know it today, altered as it is and thought to be filled with allegorical stories to keep a society in line, I don't blame one for thinking this way but in this case I'm fully willing to accept (believe? ) that a man was harshly punished, tortured and murdered because of his beliefs and the threat of sedition and I have nothing to go out but a collection of various letters compiled together and from a source that is not beyond reproach. I can say I haven't read anything to the contrary although I haven't taken time to look for them. I can't honestly say why I haven't taken that step, I do know I'm not threatened by anything revelatory as I'm not invested in any believe system surrounding Christ. In the end as I see it it really doesn't matter if he was a singular human being or not, two thousand plus years of belief is a large hurdle to overcome...not that 's anyone's intent....one might as well be p***ing in the wind.

Great point, and one I sometimes put this way using a quote from Sophocles: "You can kill a man but you can't kill an idea". In a sense, whether physically real or not, Jesus has become immortal as a figure that represents the ideas portrayed in the mythology. And in another sense, being born out of earlier religious cultures, he can be said to be the "Son of God" too. I find this living mythology to even more interesting than had he been physically real, sort of like Vallée's comment that he would be disappointed if it turned out that UFOs are only spacecraft.

I don't know if logic or mathematics can be attributed in this case, photographs and videos are out of the question. I'd say feelings and to a lesser extent language would have something to do with my acceptance .

There is a lot of additional beliefs associated with this man that have been added on over the millennia that some see as unwieldy and comprising and more so, inconvenient and because of this they may choose to separate themselves from a man and his ideas and from the baggage he brings with accepting that belief he existed (I guess I'm in this camp) and then there are those that question his existence possibly because of this baggage, which arguably was pushed upon him after his death. I am to willing to admit that Christ existed and he had a heartfelt message to people and was harshly dealt with because of his chosen lifestyle and I wonder if people would question his existence if he DIDNT have such a philosophy built around him. I do admit to some discomfort regarding the circumstances of his disappearance from the crypt. It could be a fantasy or it could be someone trying to imprint upon us a standard to the way we choose to act our life.

Great points

@ufology if before you left earth there was some contact from an advanced civilization and this civilization had a message similar to the teachings of Christ or spoke of him specificity how do you think you would absorb this information? Would you be more open to his singular physical existence and /or the philosophy he espoused including the possibility of life after this existence? What if these beings spoke of such a person but it was slightly different that that what we've been taught ? Would you think that they weren't different having their own deity, or maybe something they picked up this philosophy maybe from a previous trip here?

Well, Raël claims to have gone to the home planet of Jesus in a UFO and met him, so my query would be with the authenticity and accuracy of the message. Even if the message were authentic, how could we be sure it's accurate? That would be very difficult, perhaps impossible. But in the process we would probably still learn some really fascinating things.

As far as life after death, for whatever reason that whole idea there must be life after death otherwise what is the meaning of our existence thought (as self serving as it is) really strikes a chord with me and probably would at some point in my life even if i had never been in a position to be aware of the early philosophers or biblical stories. I have no doubt it's innate and not tied into a particular belief system, i wonder if the earliest man thought of this. Do you think this concept is a byproduct of merely having a consciousness? If that consciousness was piped in from an outside source (which sounds intriguing to me ) then maybe this concept of life after death is food for thought on how to live out our life in harmony.

So far as I've been able to determine, life after death, in the way we see it commonly portrayed, as some sort of continuance of "you" after "you" die, is not possible, because it's not logically coherent with what we can say with virtual certainty to be true. At best, it may be the case that some residual shadow or copy could exist, but our actual selves, unfortunately no.

 

[Randall]

irrational creative thinking - yes! we need more of that in our lives and in our culture in order to be more accepting of people's diversity of mental thought. the controlling logical brain that invented religion and authority delineates us all into mental serfs restricting who gets power and who should be incarcerated or set adrift on the ship of fools because they don't "fit."

my experience has taught me that we are all very lonely people who are often prisoners of a very solitudinal reality - usually an imposed one. sharing and true communication happens when we use our sensory and logical tools to seek common ground with others. depending on how open minded the other is communication can be good. but if you are a complete prisoner of your worldview then you might only respond to limited dialogues of fear and scapegoating and then you might only understand Donald Trump and his misogynist, racist messages.

those people whom i find i share a lot in common with do bear many similarities in terms of having an artistic, and open minded way of being in the world. they tend to be more accepting and less judgmental, more interseted in ideas of service than control and are seekers in their own ways - pioneers of both the mind and body.

Good points, but I tend to think that it's the logical brain that tries to do away with religion. For example, how many scientists have been persecuted by religion based on religious belief rather than logical deduction? But I like the spirit of your post anyway. I don't think that tolerance necessarily has to be illogical. This idea reminds me of Star Trek where Spock appears before the Vulcan Council.