Part of what we talked about was the notion that worldview is based on the life we live. I see the world in a certain way because that's how I experienced and interpreted it. Different visions (theologies, political systems, etc) make sense if you look at how the person has lived and interpreted life. This is a basic part of systemic thinking. This issue becomes a pimple when we have to make a decision that will affect other people's lives (ie voting on same-sex marriage, or acting within global realities after the Soviet Union dissolves). Then ideas or worldviews come to "compete" in the decisionmaking process. I come to my worldview partly because of the happenstance of my experience and partly because of systems that help me sort and assign value to my experience. Just because someone else has a different worldview doesn't mean we're both wrong. One of us should not dominate (though I might argue that the marginalized worldviews - like those who experience racist oppression, for example - deserve special listening and attention). And one of us is not automatically "wrong" because our experience is different. As humans, we do (especially those of us who have power and benefit from the privilege of non-marginalization) have a responsibility to take in and consider deeply the experiences of others - but it's not a matter of finding the "right" or "true" one, because all of them are true in the system of meaning they occur in. That doesn't mean they must be followed slavishly, or they are not subject to change. But truth and reality exist in multiplicity: people do things for a reason (even if it's not our reasoning!). But then...
EJoye & I both take it for granted that the free market and militarism are not successfully working metaphors when it comes to human relationships. In other words, I didn't meet my partner and then do battle against other options in my life in order to stay in a relationship with him. I didn't quantify my aptitude and ability to trust, measured against the competing demands of time, labor, and productivity in order to make a rational economic decision to exchange trust and friendship with EJoye.
And this part of our conversation came down, for me, into the failure of metaphors for an exchange of ideas. We can talk about "competing" or "battling" political ideologies. That's at the heart of the two-party political system of governing this country. The two "sides" battle for the hearts and minds of voters and then it's assumed that the democratically elected side that "wins" is the best one. Differently (but equally wrong as a metaphor), when it comes to worldviews, we don't trade and make decisions based on rational value and competing "supply" and "demand" of ideas, desires, needs, wants, and solutions. Yet these are both ways that administration (national, state, local, business, nonprofit, family, etc) often assign value and make decisions.
It's about time for a new metaphor for the exchange of ideas. And frankly I don't know what it is. Any thoughts?
I often turn to the ecosystem for metaphors of spirituality, but I don't find anything helpful there. Except perhaps biodiversity. Reality for a saguaro cactus in the desert is significantly different than reality for a giant jellyfish off the coast of Japan. Their ways of survival are rather different. But this metaphor breaks down when it comes to the moment when the jellyfish and the saguaro meet up. Hm...
No comments:
Post a Comment