We approach issues in a manner which I would label as "reductionist". The alternative is a holistic approach. A holistic approach recognizes that compartmentalizing issues destroys something. In complexity theory we believe that the whole is more than the mere sum of its parts. If this is true then reducing things to their parts destroys something. Reducing political discussion to an issue oriented mode definitely destroys something. The interconnections between topics is the key to the way issues relate to world views. In this diary I am going to focus on the way world views and issues are related and try to bring us to a better understanding of our current political dillema.
Let us go back to Lakoff. He was critiqued here and much of that critique was very useful. It was incomplete, however, and this incompleteness leaves us where we miss some crucial insights. In review, Lakoff deals with a number of interrelated issues. Let us list some for a basis of further discussion:
- Direct cause vs systemic cause(I will call the later "complex cause"since I am a complexity scientist)
- The Strong Father vs the Nuturing mother models
- The embodied mind
- The need for metaphor to introduce new ideas
These are useful, but incomplete ideas. In the Kos critique, the "monkey morality" metaphor was used. This again added something yet was, in a sense, a straw man.
Where I intend to go is to put Lakoff's ideas and the monkey metaphor into a broader context that weaves together religion, science, and politics into a broader world view. The strategy is to examine people's public statements from the framework of what worlview they are representing. The ability to do this automatically and irreversibly requires that we step out of our own precious world view and try to see where the other is coming from. I maintain that this is the only way to grow personally. It can be very boring to those who do not wish to grow personally.
The central analytical tool here has do do with causality. Aristotle gave us the best basis to date for dealing with causality and, unfortunately, the biggest weakness in Lakoff's use of causality is in missing the framework provided by Aristotle.
I also want to assure everyone that I come to this with very well developed predjudices. However, I come to this not to convert anyone, but to continue my own personal growth. Can the dialogue begin?