Saturday, November 14, 2009

Truth Systems and The Value Validity of…

Ohhh… The many ways different people think… How many have actually considered all the different possible world views that actually make up our overly-confused planet…? What would be the best possible method to sort all these different and divergent views…? All through the years I’ve given this a tremendous amount of thought, but only recently realized a very important aspect, I wasn’t even aware of, as it’s that very different method, I myself use most. It’s the major general difference of how one uses his/her mind, from its ground source of vision…

I recently talked to my wife, son and daughter about this very topic, and found that within my own immediate family, we had the two major differences of minds. To make this short, it’s the difference of whether one uses their mind from the particular perspective position, to the universal perspective position; or whether one uses their mind from the universal perspective position, to the particular perspective position. I found that my son was the odd one out, and that my wife, daughter and I use our minds from the universal perspective position first, then work our way down to particulars, and my son uses his individual particular perspective position first, and works his way out to the universal perspective positions. This came as quite a shock to me, as I’d studied such mentalities’ histories all my life, but hadn’t really realized its importance of being able to communicate successfully…

When these two mind states are attempting to communicate, they will always be at count-cross purposes of visions. Every time one uses the universal, the other will use the particular instance, and vice versa, so this makes for an almost eternal conflict, until both realize the trouble and openly discuss it. Of course, my problem was always with my son’s communication most, but when the family was together and trying to discuss global issues, there’d always be the conflict of every member taking different sides, at different times. We resolved this by just simply talking about it, and now we address the global perspective position first, to establish sound ground for our conversations, as all four of us are usually talking quite deep about all aspects of the global problems…

I see this same personal family problem at all levels of society, and it goes clear back to the differences between Socrates/Plato verses Aristotle, and they did not resolve it, so it’s traveled all through history’s mentalities, to the present day of being a very important unsettled issue. It’s that same old problem I’ve mentioned before about the battle of universals and particulars, and how one basically founds and grounds their minds. The universalist grounds his/her mind in the logical/geometric mechanics of the universe and nature, while the particularist grounds his/her mind in the personal experiences of life, and what one has experienced of nature. So, it’s actually the difference between observation and experience. This is nothing new, but the realization of opposing grounds in all conversations is new, I would think, as I’ve not seen it stated directly. Oh, it’s been stated as the difference between idealism and realism, etc., on and on, but no-one has directly made the connection to direct communication grounds, being the giant problem that actually transpires…

Just take SteveA and I as an example. Everyone, including ourselves, recognizes drastic differences in our views, yet many see valid points in both, because we are all of the particular/universal states of minds. It’s just we all use these two major different bases. So, no matter what base one uses, there will be points made by both sides that seem valid to our varied natures, so how does one sort these differences? This goes back to the issues of clarity I’ve often mentioned about keeping the differences of subjects and views in their own categories, which I’ve mentioned about C.S.Peirce’s categories’ lists. Now, this would cover the basic of discussing science as science, and emotions as emotions, etc., on and on, but I hadn’t realized that even by categorizing topics and subjects, that we haven’t dealt with the basic groundings of personalities__Between the universally grounded, and the particularistically grounded states of mind, and herein lies all the problems of the truth systems discussed, as to their true value validities…

Truth systems can not be successfully discussed by minds who are grounded in the opposite states of grounding, unless these groundings are thoroughly understood first. Just as SteveA and many may use the particularistic state of ground, when talking to me, which would be idealism, while I use the universalistic state of ground. Now, what this means is that SteveA generally interprets the world from the individualistic idealistic out to the whole or universalistic states, and I generally interpret the world from the whole or universalistic states of systems’ realities, down to the individualistic particular states of idealisms and that state of reality. The problem arises between the cross-disciplinary inter-communication states of how we place priorities of importances. SteveA places his importances of priorities in the individual, and I place my importances of priorities in the universal systems’ control over the individual states of thoughts.

These two systems of thinking and acting have been at cross-purposes since the dawn of organized societies and thoughts. It’s not that either is wrong, it’s just that each thinks itself more important to world events than the other, and I do not see a way of resolving this dilemma of differing viewpoints, unless explanations of this type may be able to lead in that direction. SteveA is much more an idealist than I, and I am much more an ideal realist than he, which will continually put us at odds. This is simply the same as stating he is more a particularist and I am more a universalist than he. So, anyone that may have a solution to this dilemma is welcome to add their comments to the situation… I more than welcome it…

No comments: