Does World View Directly Impact the World?

[Rift Zone]

So I'm toying with a concept. I'm curious about world view and how much it actually matters to the world. My impression is that it can have quite a significant impact. My reasoning is that world view defines a set of operating parameters, and operating within those parameters can effectively narrow focus (and experience) toward chosen goal. What's your take on all that?

 

[John K]

Some musings ...

It hinges on what you mean by 'world', and 'matters' I think. One response is the old Indian parable of the blind men:

Clearly the world view of each of the blind men matters to himself, and to those he interacts with. Looking back at history over the last thousand years, it seems that something happened which changed world views in an integrative and objective way. That led to the Renaissance, and onwards to the scientific, engineering and industrial revolutions that give us the modern world - a world that would be incomprehensible to people who came before us. Incomprehensible not only in the sense of understanding the nuts and bolts of it, but in the ways of looking at the world that we all take for granted now without being aware of it.

But can anything matter to a world? To matter is something that normally applies to an agent with judgement - does a world have such judgement. Maybe, but that starts to sound mystical. I think that it does, but that's because I find that the world is saturated with the Holy Spirit, and it's really there that such judgement lies, rather than in the world in itself.

 

[TomasM]

When I hear the term “world view” it has always felt like a top down perspective that is being propagated from centralized agendas. The opposite would be a cultural or sovereign view where people look upward and outward at the rest of the world from a shared set of regional values.

Have there been large centralized efforts that have “impacted” the world? Yes.

It often seems like the media wants to apply a context of world view onto regional groups which seems really backwards to me.

 

[Wyote]

I don't know exactly what level you are on here but
Obviously your world view is going to have direct reflections upon your personal orientation and actions
Which in turn will reverberate back onto the world itself in some kind of way

 

[Rift Zone]

I don't know exactly what level you are on here

Research. Writing a book. Fishing for arguments, examples, and whatever else I might not have considered. Think I'm finding supporting this particular argument is gonna be easier than I imagined.

• expand conversation from teachings and subsequent relationship to include how such teachings could impact world view and subsequently how world view can impact the world at large. We need to make those separate realms one realm; one large living breathing system. Probably won’t be pretty but we’re gonna patch in causality on that as best we can. Relationship to existence in many ways literally defines some aspects of existence while supporting others; crap in = crap out.

 

[Wyote]

I would tangentially do some deep dives on how culture/cultural behavior is formed and propagated.
As well as language formation and its impact on thoughts/ideologies.
Best of luck to you.

 

[Rift Zone]

I would tangentially do some deep dives on how culture/cultural behavior is formed and propagated.

Yea, that's already on my horizon.

Language formation? hmm... now you got me thinking of Australian Aboriginals and how they don't do left or right, they reference relative location via cardinal direction. That'll fundamentally change your perceptions of the world... Might just find a use for that. Thanks! Appreciate the inspiration.

 

[John K]

Research. Writing a book. Fishing for arguments, examples, and whatever else I might not have considered. Think I'm finding supporting this particular argument is gonna be easier than I imagined.

Cool!

I think your thread on black holes relates to a whole set of examples from science - such as the assumption before Einstein that time is universal and the same for everyone, and after Einstein that it isn't. That has had profound implications not just for scientific theory but for philosophy too. Maybe that hasn't had a big social impact yet, but I guess the materialistic / deterministic view of the world that rose alongside science back in the 18th and 19th centuries has had a profound social impact on the modern world. This has moved us away from religions towards atheism and a kind of deification of science in the popular mind because it is a 'god' that delivers in social terms - but with this perspective comes the risk of an ethical relativism that maybe poses existential challenges to society.

You can see some of the practical consequences of world views in research - I read somewhere that (at least at one time) it was almost impossible to get research funding in climatology if you query the canons of global warming for example, or in cosmology if you doubt the value of string theory - this seems to me to be an example of world views having a major consequence on the world of objective research.

But there must surely be plenty of examples from the world of politics as well - communism v liberal democracy v capitalism v fascism, etc. These all have world views that are taken as self-evident by most ordinary people who live within them, but embody quite differing world perspectives, and each of them leads to differing social orders which easily fall into conflict with each other. It's fascinating to try out a thought experiment by attempting to see the world through the eyes of both of the opposing political perspectives in the USA for example. My feeling is that no-one should be allowed to run a government if they cannot give a reasoned and plausible presentation of the opposing viewpoint, with what it's potential advantages might be, instead of simply attacking it by any means, fair or foul.

Are these the kind of things you have in mind to target? They may well be things you already have in mind.

 

[Rift Zone]

Are these the kind of things you have in mind to target? They may well be things you already have in mind.

Thanks.

Yea, actually! Particularly as this topic relates to religion, science, and society. You've pointed out a few significant points of interest I'm working on. Most significant among them might be gaining a better understanding of opposing political viewpoints and how they're inspired.
Talking about the deification of science is almost prophetic! Given my less than common views on physics I have gained a decent view of where the secular hold such beliefs...and it's the same place for the religious. Good call on that.

 

[aeon]

I would say that world view, or conception of sociophysical existence and associated principles, resulting from socialization and further learning, results in behaviors which are shaped and modulated by those conceptions.

That said, it is perhaps prudent to remember that “world” only exists for any one of us as an idea with some modicum of associated experience.

So do said behaviors directly affect the world? No, because actions may affect ideas, but do not act directly upon them.

Said behaviors certainly can have effect on those things within individual and collective understanding of the “world,” but the world only exists moment-to-moment in the human imagination. It is always necessarily a shorthand, and a subset of a larger process which cannot be understood in wholeness, even if it can be known.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Rift Zone]

Said behaviors certainly can have effect on those things within individual and collective understanding of the “world,” but the world only exists moment-to-moment in the human imagination. It is always necessarily a shorthand, and a subset of a larger process which cannot be understood in wholeness, even if it can be known.

Cheers,
Ian

Still think I see some causality in that. Fair points, but even if said behaviors only affect their present, then an effect is present. The world naturally unfolds to us all as subsequent iterations of now (present), but I don't think our awareness of what's going is pertinent here. What we think is going on, however, is pertinent. For impacting subsequent presents and impacting the world are seemingly indistinguishable.

 

[aeon]

Still think I see some causality in that. Fair points, but even if said behaviors only affect their present, then an effect is present. The world naturally unfolds to us all as subsequent iterations of now (present), but I don't think our awareness of what's going is pertinent here. What we think is going on, however, is pertinent. For impacting subsequent presents and impacting the world are seemingly indistinguishable.

Agreed, if one believes the world exists.

I use the word in speech and word because it is generally understood.

That said, I do not know for sure if the world exists. I accept that I exist as a creature in some reality of which I see but a sliver, but I only know the world as an idea, so I treat it as such, and in general, I do not believe that which I cannot know/be certain of. Which is most everything.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Rift Zone]

Agreed, if one believes the world exists.

I use the word in speech and word because it is generally understood.

That said, I do not know for sure if the world exists. I accept that I exist as a creature in some reality of which I see but a sliver, but I only know the world as an idea, so I treat it as such, and in general, I do not believe that which I cannot know/be certain of. Which is most everything.

Wow. We live in very different universes. And it think it shows in our approach to it. Yours may find little relevance in the general theme around here, but mine thinks we're collectively a case study in it.

 

[John K]

Fascinating - I go back to asking what is meant by ‘world’ and ‘matters’.

Thinking about what @aeon said, our access to any aspect of an external reality is always mediated by our mental matrix - what we experience is a virtual reality completely contained within our heads. We can only hope that it bears sufficient congruence with any objective external reality to allow us to sustain ourselves at many different levels of our subjective existence. But there seem to be countless ways that our subjective reality can do this, because ‘sufficient’ seems to allow very many different subjective realities.

But is there an actual, concrete external reality? In my own worldview there’s no way of telling from my subjective inside. My ongoing existence seems to confirm inductively that an external reality is highly plausible, but the understanding of science suggests that it is very different to what I experience subjectively.

And then I could be deluded. Maybe we live in an objective virtual reality - that would explain apparent breakdowns in the order of things. For example, ghosts and miracles could be explained as programming ‘cheats’ in a VR. But it opens the possibility too that we could access the ‘code’ from the inside - so we could travel the universe instantaneously by just altering the code rather than seeking esoteric physics to do it.

What does it mean to say that I can affect the world rather than only affecting a world view? Well the modern synthesis of current human world views seems to be leading to a mass extinction along the scale of that which killed off the dinosaurs. But the only way I can perceive, process and act on that is through a world view. My personal philosophy is that I am free to choose out of several different world views because none of them can model everything that matters. It’s better for me to switch between them and see from all their different angles. But does that start to shape out a better view of a possible external world - a reality - for me? Or does it simply shape out a subjective meta-world view?

In the end, I think that my actions based on my world views do impact on an external reality - both a physical one, and also the subjective world views of others. But I don’t know this - for me it’s an act of faith which is in a sense the same in kind as whether I believe in God.

But these musings suggest there are many layers to the issue.

And then I start to evaporate when I realise that the idea of an objective world is itself dependent completely on those world views that contain such a thing. Maybe the universe in itself cannot be objectified like that.

 

[TomasM]

Wow. We live in very different universes. And it think it shows in our approach to it. Yours may find little relevance in the general theme around here, but mine thinks we're collectively a case study in it.

I knew where the conversation between @aeon and @Rift Zone was headed because I'm half way between the INTJ and the ENFP. The ENFP world view is the one that I want to believe and experience, and even though the worlds rules don't seem to be tolerant of it, I still feel like we would have a better world if we found a way to be more unified in that condition. The INTJ is the side that I'm probably a bit closer to and it has pulled me back towards the rules and logic of the world. It has told me that I HAVE TO be constrained [through some level of logic], and by accepting that constraint I will be rewarded (it's a double edge sword). I don't want to be constrained, but I don't want the hardship that comes with not being rewarded.

Having a unified "world view," seems like an impossibility to me because there are so many different temperaments and cultures at our core that prohibit it. The sad part, is that the push towards this centralized world view, which believe it is making the world better and ruling it at the same time, is probably going to end up creating mass destruction. I say this because I honestly believe that a world of rules (especially that of a digital nature with 1's and 0's) is fundamentally counter to the analog fluid state that our world is built. For someone who has spent their entire life in information technology, that's a hard pill to swallow.

 

[Rift Zone]

But does that start to shape out a better view of a possible external world - a reality - for me? Or does it simply shape out a subjective meta-world view?

In the end, I think that my actions based on my world views do impact on an external reality - both a physical one, and also the subjective world views of others. But I don’t know this - for me it’s an act of faith which is in a sense the same in kind as whether I believe in God.

Having a unified "world view," seems like an impossibility to me because there are so many different temperaments and cultures at our core that prohibit it.

Nice...Now it seems we have a case study on how type affects not only world view, but its acquisition as well. I must confess being a bit out of my league here. While I can relate to your experiences, they are very different from my own. I guess I always took what my senses gave me at face-value... I'm in here, there's a big world out there, and the properties I observe are legit. I never struggled with an external reality, that was always a given for me.

The sad part... is probably going to end up creating mass destruction.

This is the reality I struggle with. Happy to report I think I can help improve the situation. Definitely gonna test that theory.

My personal philosophy is that I am free to choose out of several different world views because none of them can model everything that matters. It’s better for me to switch between them and see from all their different angles. But does that start to shape out a better view of a possible external world - a reality - for me? Or does it simply shape out a subjective meta-world view?

I'm gonna go with that could go either way. There is certainly tons of wisdom in trying on different world views...I mean just ask spectroscopy about the value of changing lenses/wavelengths. A narrow band yields a narrow view. But like piecing together any model, it's is only as accurate as the elements allow. I'm inclined to believe that you are achieving a greater view of a real world, but that depends heavily on the tenets used to build it. Of course, I think this is a game of chasing the infinite; always having room for improvement is in its nature.

 

[John K]

Nice...Now it seems we have a case study on how type affects not only world view, but its acquisition as well. I must confess being a bit out of my league here. While I can relate to your experiences, they are very different from my own. I guess I always took what my senses gave me at face-value... I'm in here, there's a big world out there, and the properties I observe are legit. I never struggled with an external reality, that was always a given for me.


This is the reality I struggle with. Happy to report I think I can help improve the situation. Definitely gonna test that theory.

That sounds good, because it sets the scope and boundary of what you are aiming at.

Am I right in thinking that you aren't intending to explore the philosophical aspects of whether and how subjective world views relate to an a possible objective world, and whether such an objective world exists?

It sounds like the scope of what you are focusing on includes the way that we form our individual and collective subjective world views, the dialectic between them, and how we might improve society and avoid conflicts by transcending their differences into something that synthesises a greater integrated whole. A fundamental assumption is that there is a real, hard edged world out there, that it is intelligible to us, and that it is both possible and practical for us to relate to it - and that it is possible to relate subjective world views ever more closely to it through the evolution of such syntheses. I've extrapolated here, and you may well express or emphasise things differently, but it's where it feels like you are heading. It feels like a worthy aim to me.

 

[Rift Zone]

Am I right in thinking that you aren't intending to explore the philosophical aspects of whether and how subjective world views relate to an a possible objective world, and whether such an objective world exists?

Yes, you are right about that.
The ways of the world is the general focus. The case I'm trying to make is how certain factors in our world contribute to a a questionable world view, which then contributes to a questionable world. So yea, "fundamental assumption is that there is a real, hard edged world out there" is alive and present in the argument.

Spoiler: Incidentally

I don't mean to be so evasive with what I'm up to. Parts of it are contentious, however. ...and I'm not trying to diminish things some are certain to value. Not out in the open, anyway. Maybe if I found a quiet little corner with a good disclaimer I'd be more inclined to shed some light on the project.