08-25-2016, 01:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-25-2016, 01:04 AM by Eric the Green.)
(08-24-2016, 11:17 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(08-24-2016, 08:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What Bob leaves out of course is the mystical world view. It is not based on holy texts, but on observation. But it includes observation of the observer, rather than leaving him/her out. The mystical world view joins with aspects of the scientific worldview and the religious worldview, but is free from their limitations and old fashioned dogmas.
Deliberately leaving out the mystical world view is the big taboo in traditional Western culture. But it can scarcely be ignored anymore, and it is now available to all rather than to a few initiates.
Politics is not a world view. It is an application of worldviews, ethics, needs, ambitions, various ideologies, etc.; a necessary application in any civilization. But economics contains a number of ideologies, as do other social "sciences." They are not worldviews per se, but can be based on them. Science and religion too of course have many variations, ideologies and paradigms. A scientific revolution can introduce a new paradigm, and an awakening can introduce a new religion.
In my experience, and I've walked the mystical path a little ways, meditation is akin to self hypnosis. It is a good way to convince one's self of things one wants to believe. "Every day, in every way, you are getting better and better." Knowledge gained by immersing one's self in such programs isn't objective or repeatable, but depending on the system one embraces can lead to real self improvement. The self conditioning done by mystics isn't altogether unrelated with what some more traditional religions do through prayer. While meditation can be a fine tool for embracing beneficial beliefs, it can also become a way of making one feel good about dogmas, of making one's self fixed and inflexible while maintaining delusions of freedom and openness.
I consider most such systems of self improvement to be more akin to religion than science. However, they are distinct enough from religions that I don't object to their being categorized differently. I threw up three of the more common ways of looking at the world -- science, politics and religion -- and suggest that there are many many variations on the three. I don't claim that there are only three, that it can't ever be meaningful to break off some group of world views and talk about them as distinct from other groups.
Certainly, I don't think to change Eric's mind on such things.
I'll mention philosophy as another possible broad category of world views. Again, there are often morale premises and guidance involved. Supernatural inspiration and heavy involvement in government are generally less prominent. There is an emphasis on observable premises (though these premises are often not provable to the standards expected by science) manipulated through logic to derive hopefully meaningful Truths. I'd also suggest that the borders between the various broad categories of world views shouldn't be seen as hard and clear. One can talk of theocracies, political science or political philosophy.
Politics is a field of human endeavor. People who intensely focus their view of the world through the red, blue, green, marxist, libertarian or similar patterns have political world views. There is, of course, a difference. Eric is neither Noah Webster or Humpty Dumpty. He can proclaim that there is a mystical world view but no political world views all he likes. This does not make things so save in his closed world.
Usually those who have not had a certain basic mystical insight, or have only walked the path "a little ways," can't understand or agree with that worldview. However, that's no excuse today for not even mentioning it. It is well-known to exist, and to be highly respected and venerated by substantial folks. To ignore it, is just to be subject to the Western taboo. You certainly can't lump it with religion, since most religious folks have no clue about it, and are often quite eager to denounce it.
Politics is a mode of action, but it does employ ideologies, which I suppose one could call worldviews, even though they are shallow ones, not having a metaphysical component, one might say. I suppose if one says that politics is the only thing or the primary thing that humans need to do or think about, that would be a "worldview." Philosophy is not necessarily a world view; it is a study of worldviews. Science is not necessarily a worldview either; it is a method of study, but has certain assumptions that tend toward a physicalist worldview. But not necessarily. Only if someone has the view that science is the best or only way to truth, does it become a world view. Philosophy or religion could become worldviews on that basis as well.