Worldview

From Anthroposophy

A worldview is the set of beliefs about the world at large, that a person or society uses as the basis for its functioning and position in life and the cosmos, and which forms the foundation for decisions and actions. Because of this it therefore has a moral impact.

One can use the metaphor or compass or a gyroscope with a map, used for navigating life and helping to decide how to steer and where to go.

A worldview is fundamental to who we are individually and as a society:

  • it organizes reality and gives everything its place and reason, provides answers to people's questions (and doing so - by necessity - also constricts reality to give some illusion of control)
  • it holds the psyche together, organizes our sense of self
  • makes us feel part of the group that shares this worldview
  • is the foundation for our secure and safe functioning by providing a feeling of control

.

Hence, when a worldview is challenged by anything that might affects it causes great fears (and also subconscious terror) and all forms of resistance, as Man and society will hold on to it and do anything to preserve a worldview, sacrificing lives in wars to defend it.

The worldview, that provides the cosmogeny and teleology for Man and society, is based on the state of thinking in science and philosophy, and how these (try to) provide answers on Man's most important questions about Man, life and the cosmos. See also Schema FMC00.275 below which details these fundamental questions to be answered. One of today's key 'battlefields' is the explanation of human consciousness. For a short description of cosmogeny and teleology, see also Discussion area on Meaning of life

In the 20th and 21st centuries, one could distinguish the following main worldviews:

  • the materialistic or mineral worldview, dominant worldwide, built on the foundations of mineral science (incl. all the modern theoretical and applied sciences: physics, astronomy, medicine, etc) .. with as its 'militant spearpoint' atheism. It reduces reality to the physical material world and puts Man on the top of the intellectual hierarchy (eliminating spirit and soul)
  • the spiritual worldview, based on spiritual science (incl. anthroposophy, theosophy, hermetics, esoteric christianity, and many other streams)
  • the 'fundamentalistic religious' worldview (eg in islamitic or hindu countries where religion still has the upper hand influence on society over science, but also creatonism in the US could be suggested as an example)

.

The worldview question is much interlinked to the question of beliefs and aspects of religion, state and practical life, and there are no hard separations as people may find themselves in a mix of views. For example: the materialistic worldview may lead, or leads to, atheism, however certainly not all people adhering to this worldview are militant or convinced atheists. People may adhere both the spiritual worldview but to a degree remain in the mineral worldview, without therefore being very materialistic. And so on.

The difference in worldview and belief system is, of all ages, polarizing and historically underlying prosecution and wars - see worldview wars.

See also: There's a crack in everything and Top five problems with current science

Aspects

  • popular contemporary acronym VABE, stands for 'Values Assumptions Beliefs Expectations' and relates to what is called worldview. It describes the values, assumptions, beliefs and expectations that develop within people as a result of their upbringing, education, work experiences and hundreds of other life experiences. It is used oa in psychology, leadership, coaching, etc.
  • politics and control of worldview management (ontology of reality)
    • "how a society organizes itself - particularly through elite groups - to determine for the rest of that society what is real" (John E. Mack). This is governed by the established powers that be, through control of government groups and mainstream media, and by this governance of ideas a smallgroup decides on the prevailing worldview (and hence the nature of reality, what is taken in scope, the moral implications, etc).
    • See also worldview wars and contemporary worldview war
  • key elements that are central to worldview debates: see Schema FMC00.275)
  • angles of perspective
    • dogmas (the imposing of beliefs, eg in religion)
    • mysteries (accepting and living the awe of non-knowing)
    • philosophy and science (intellectual-rational building of systems using thought, and experiment)
  • Rudolf Steiner's twelve worldviews (1914-01-21/22-GA151, see Schema FMC00.648)

Illustrations

Schema FMC00.275 is a comparative overview by the DL (author/editor of this site) of the key questions that a worldview must answer, based on Apostel's work on worldviews in 1994 (second column). These are related to the 'seven riddles' by du Bois - Raymond's speech in 1880 (often referenced by Rudolf Steiner), and more recently Rupert Sheldrake's challenge of the dogmas of science in 2012 (see TED movie and his books).

The right column adds five key issues with the 'mineral science worldview' (by myself in 2014, without knowing the three others then). The goal here was to try and point out in the most condensed way possible where mineral science goes in error versus the more holistic meta-representation offered by spiritual science (see also Goethean science).

FMC00.275.jpg

Schema FMC00.648: Twelve worldviews, seven soul moods, three soul tones, one anthropomorphism.

The world discloses itself only to someone who knows that one must look at it from all sides. The schema is structured around the 1914-GA151 four lecture cycle, in which all possible worldviews are decomposed into the exhaustive 12+7+3 set of elementary conceptions, whose already existing combinations make up the history of Western philosophy, and yet unrealized combinations its future potentialities. While the matter is framed philosophically, the schema is valid for any human being capable of developing a worldview. The lecture cycle suggests the possibility of thinking about worldviews dynamically. For descriptions and examples, see Schema FMC00.648A.

Despite the brevity with which the cycle addresses the right part of the schema — the so-called anthropomorphism — it is more difficult than the previous parts; and careful study of the references is recommended, as even the term itself could be misleading if understood habitually.

Twelve worldviews, seven soul moods, three soul tones, one anthropomorphism. The world discloses itself only to someone who knows that one must look at it from all sides. The schema is structured around the 1914-GA151 four lecture cycle, in which all possible worldviews are decomposed into the exhaustive 12+7+3 set of elementary conceptions, whose already existing combinations make up the history of Western philosophy, and yet unrealized combinations its future potentialities. While the matter is framed philosophically, the schema is valid for any human being capable of developing a worldview. The lecture cycle suggests the possibility of thinking about worldviews dynamically. For descriptions and examples, see Schema FMC00.648A. Despite the brevity with which the cycle addresses the right part of the schema — the so-called anthropomorphism — it is more difficult than the previous parts; and careful study of the references is recommended, as even the term itself could be misleading if understood habitually.

Schema FMC00.648A: provides a tabular overview with descriptions of the twelve worldviews and seven soul moods given by Rudolf Steiner, along with examples on the right.

All twelve perspectives or conceptions of the world are equally and fully justifiable .. and each may act illuminating in its own field. It is possible for the human soul to pass through a mental circle which embraces twelve world-pictures. Also for each worldview different soul moods are possible.

The four highlighted worldviews provide an X-Y axis materialism-spirit(ual)ism (Y) and idealism-realism (X), see Schema FMC00.648, whereby people with perspectives above the X-axis are typically more rigid or stubborn and those below the X-axis more flexible to switch or adopt another view.

Rudolf Steiner gives the example of Nietzsche to show one should use this framework rigidly to 'box in' philosophers or scientists, as one's soul evolves throughout life also (as in his example from A to C).

provides a tabular overview with descriptions of the twelve worldviews and seven soul moods given by Rudolf Steiner, along with examples on the right. All twelve perspectives or conceptions of the world are equally and fully justifiable .. and each may act illuminating in its own field. It is possible for the human soul to pass through a mental circle which embraces twelve world-pictures. Also for each worldview different soul moods are possible. The four highlighted worldviews provide an X-Y axis materialism-spirit(ual)ism (Y) and idealism-realism (X), see Schema FMC00.648, whereby people with perspectives above the X-axis are typically more rigid or stubborn and those below the X-axis more flexible to switch or adopt another view. Rudolf Steiner gives the example of Nietzsche to show one should use this framework rigidly to 'box in' philosophers or scientists, as one's soul evolves throughout life also (as in his example from A to C).


Lecture coverage and references

Emil du Bois-Reymond (1818-1896) - "Ignorabimus"

was a German physician and physiologist

The two lectures 1905-10-05-GA054 and 1920-09-27-GA232 refer to du Bois-Reymond’s talk

from wikipedia [see also Schema FMC00.275]

In 1880 du Bois-Reymond delivered a speech to the Berlin Academy of Sciences enumerating seven "world riddles" or "shortcomings" of science:

  1. the ultimate nature of matter and force;
  2. the origin of motion;
  3. the origin of life;
  4. the "apparently teleological arrangements of nature" (not an "absolutely transcendent riddle");
  5. the origin of simple sensations ("a quite transcendent" question);
  6. the origin of intelligent thought and language (which might be known if the origin of sensations could be known); and
  7. the question of free will.Concerning numbers 1, 2 and 5 he proclaimed "Ignorabimus" ("we will never know"). Concerning number 7 he proclaimed "Dubitemus" ("we doubt it')
1913-11-06-GA063

However, Pythagoras believed to express something particular, namely that one finds the impulse to immerse oneself in the forever imperishable in that what does not deliver anything useful in the development of the human soul in the outer use but in himself; and that one must develop something in the soul that can be applied not in the outer life directly, but that the human soul develops due an inner desire. The recognition of such a pursuit is found with Pythagoras in olden times.

We glance now at a phenomenon of the modern time which I do not mention in order to mention philosophical oddities, but because it is typical for the way of the cultural life of our time.

A worldview has spread from America to Europe that one calls pragmatism. This worldview appears rather weird compared with that what Pythagoras demands from a worldview. Whether something that the human soul expresses as its knowledge is true or wrong for others, this worldview of pragmatism does not ask at all, but only whether a thought that the human being develops as a worldview is fertile and useful for life. Pragmatism does not ask whether something is true or wrong in any objective sense, but, for example, it asks for the following. We immediately take one of the most significant concepts of the human being: should the human being think that a uniform self is in him? He does not perceive this uniform self. He perceives the succession of sensations, mental pictures, and ideas and so on. But it is useful to understand the succession of the sensations, mental pictures and ideas in such a way as if a common self exists; the internal conception is arranged thereby, the human being thereby accomplishes what he accomplishes from the soul like from a downpour; life is not fragmented thereby. We go to the highest idea. For pragmatism, it does not depend on the truth content of the God concept at all, but it asks, should one conceive the thought of a divine being? It answers, it is good that one has the thought of a divine being, if one did not believe the thought that the world is ruled by a divine old being, the soul would remain hopeless; it is good for the soul accepting this thought.— There one interprets the value of the worldview in a quite contrary sense as Pythagoras did. With him, the worldview should interpret what is not for the benefit of life. However, presently a worldview spreads out, and one can expect that it will seize many heads, which almost says — and in practice it has already done it: valuable is what is thought as if it exists, so that life proceeds most profitably for the human being!

We realise that the human development took place in such a way that one almost considers the opposite of a worldview as correct that one regarded as right, so to speak, at the beginning of the European philosophy.

The human attitude developed from the Pythagorean theosophy to the modern pragmatic antisophy.

Since this pragmatism is absolutely antisophy because it considers mental pictures of something supersensible under the viewpoint of practical value and benefit for the sensory world. It is significant that towards our time the antisophical mood penetrates the human souls. That is widespread today what once Du Bois-Reymond, a brilliant representative of natural sciences, explained on a naturalists' meeting in Leipzig (1872) in his ignorabimus speech! Du Bois-Reymond (Emil Heinrich Du B. R., 1818-1896) admits explaining it brilliantly that science has only to deal with the principles of the outer world of space and time, and never even with the slightest element of the soul life as such. Later Du Bois-Reymond even spoke of “seven world riddles” —the nature of matter and energy, the origin of motion, the origin of life, the apparently teleological arrangements of nature, the origin of simple sensations, the origin of intelligent thought and language, and the question of freewill. He says that science cannot grasp them because it must rely on “naturalism.” At that time, Du Bois-Reymond finished his explanations quite typically, while he meant that one would have to penetrate into something else if one even wanted to understand the slightest element of the soul life: may they attempt it with the only way out, with that of supra-naturalism. He added the meaningful words, not as an argument, but as something that he asserts out of his mood quite dogmatically: save that science ends where supra-naturalism begins.

1914-GA018

this volume focuses on world conceptions and their link to cultures and evolution through the ages

1914-01-21-GA151

The Possibility of contemplating the World from twelve different Standpoints through twelve equally justified World-Outlooks.

1914-01-22-GA151

Relations of the seven World-Outlook-Moods (Planets) to the twelve Shades of World-Outlook (Zodiac). The threefold Tone in World-Outlooks (Sun, Moon and Earth). The special case of Anthropomorphism (Earth).

1914-03-26-GA063

That is why we deal in particular in spiritual-scientific fields with the opposition of that worldview which believes to stand firmly on the ground of modern science, and which must - I say expressly “must” - regard spiritual science from its point of view as fantasy and daydreaming. I choose a form of worldview that believes to stand strictly on the firm ground of scientific methodology.

1921-08-06-GA206

is about the concept of world conception, also linking it to the functioning of Man as a threefold being

Below follow only a few passages

Let us simply observe the fact that, on the one hand, we have before us what people thought to win through a careful study of material processes, rising as far as the human being. To begin with, this was to be the only contents of a world-conception; people believed that only this enabled them to stand upon a firm ground. It was something completely new in comparison with what was contained, for instance, in the medieval world-conception.

During the past three, four, five centuries, something entirely new had been gained in regard to a knowledge of Nature, and nothing had been gained in regard to the spiritual world. In regard to the spiritual world, a philosophy had finally been reached, which saw its chief task, as I have expressed myself yesterday, in justifying its existence, at least to a certain extent. Theories of knowledge were written, with the aim of stating that it was still possible to make philosophical statements, at least in regard to some distant point, and that perhaps it could be stated that a super-sensible world existed, but that it could not be recognised; the existence of a super-sensible world could, at the most, be assumed.

...

The modern civilisation, which began in the fifteenth century and reached its climax in the nineteenth century, merely lays claim on one third of the threefold human being: the thinking part of man, the head of man. And we must ask: What occurs within the dreaming, feeling part of the human being, within the sleeping, willing part of the human being, and what occurs from the time of falling asleep to the time of waking up? Indeed, as human beings, we may be soundly materialistic within our life of thoughts. This is possible, for the nineteenth century has proved it. The nineteenth century has also proved the justification of materialism; for it has led to a positive knowledge of the material world, which is an image of the spiritual world. We may be materialists with our head ... but in that case we do not control our dreaming life of feeling, nor our sleeping life of the will. These become spiritually inclined, particularly the life of the will.

...

You see, I must continually call attention to the difference between real logic, a logic of reality, and the merely abstract logic of the intellect. .. a living logic is something quite different from an abstract logic. What may be deduced logically, need not really take place; the very opposite can take place. For this reason, there is such a great difference between the things to which we gradually learn to swear in the materialistic epoch, between the abstract thinking logic, which merely takes hold of the head, and the sense of reality, which is alone able at the present time to lead us to welfare and security.

At the present time, people are satisfied if an un-contradicted logic can be adduced for a world-conception. But, in reality, this is of no importance whatever. It is not only essential to bear in mind whether or not a conception may be logically proved, for, in reality, both a radical materialism and a radical spiritualism, with everything which lies in between, may be proved through logic.

The essential point today is to realise that something need not be merely logical, but that it must correspond with the reality, as well as being logical. It must correspond with reality. And this corresponding with reality can only be reached by living together with reality. This life in common with reality can be reached through spiritual science.

...

One might say: Well, spiritual science is also a science which merely speaks of other worlds, instead of the materialistic worlds. But this is not so. What is taken up through spiritual science, even if we ourselves are not endowed with spiritual vision, is something which educates the human being. Above all, it does not educate the head of man, but it educates the whole of man, it has a real influence upon the whole of man. It corrects particularly the harm done by the spiritual opponent who lives within the sensualists and materialists, the opponent who has always lived within them.

...

The evolution of humanity needs a conscious spiritual impulse in order to live. For we should always make a distinction between the value which a particular wisdom, or anything else in life, may possess in itself, and its value for the evolution of humanity. The intellectualism which forms part of materialism has furthered human development in such a way that the life of thoughts has reached its highest point.

To begin with, we have the technique of thinking contained in Scholasticism, which constituted the first freeing deed; and then, in more recent times, we have the second freeing deed in natural science. But what was meanwhile raging in the subconsciousness, was the element which made the human being the slave of his instincts. He must again be set free. He can only be freed through a science, a knowledge, a spiritual world-conception, which becomes just as widely popular as the materialistic science: he can only be set at liberty through a spiritual world-conception, which constitutes the opposite pole of what has developed under the influence of a science dependent solely upon the head.

...

In regard to the historical development of our civilisation, we are not only living within a slow process of illness, but at the present time we are living within an acute illness of our civilisation.

What arises in the form of a world-conception should be a true remedy; it should be a truly medical science, a cure. We should be permeated by the conviction that such a world-conception should be really significant for what rises out of our modern civilisation and culture; we should be filled with the conviction that this world-conception really has a true meaning, that it is not merely something formal, something through which we gain knowledge, through which we acquire the concepts of the things which exist outside, or through which we learn to know the laws of Nature and to apply them technically. No, in every true world-conception there should be this inner character intimately connected with man's being, namely, that out of this true world-conception we may obtain the remedies against illness, even against the process of death; the remedies which should always be there.

So long as we do not speak in this manner and so long as this is not grasped, we shall only speak in a superficial way of the evils of our time, and we shall not speak of what is really needed.

1945 - Karl Popper

in his book 'The open society and its enemies'

Closed systems, immunised against all criticism, are incapable of progress, smother all intellectual independence and creativity and eventually perish through their own inflexibility. pen systems, by contrast, which are willing to risk the refutation of even the most seemingly indispensable truths are not only more humane, but prove to be more productive and successful. Scientific as well as political systems are not acceptable unless they are capable of learning and self-correction

1995-09-16 - John E. Mack

'Studying Intrusions from the Subtle Realm' (youtube)

transcript, edited

introduced as speaker with:

"The hallmarks of history are not found in the keening of the crowds nor in the thunder of the conquerors, but in the heartbeats of the handful who skirmish into the lonely unknown."

I want to talk with you about what I've been finding over the past now nearly six years in studying this alien abduction phenomena but - particularly in the context of this meeting - to talk with you about ways that we know.

[epistemology - scientific method - scope - worldview]

How do we know? What's the appropriate epistemology for a particular subject?

Seems to all science all knowledge reall,y is about the discovery of patterns, and that includes the patterns of meaning.

But how we know? The approach that we use depends on what the matter at hand happens to be.

Now for the sake of clarity here, I would divide the Realms that we're considering here between

  • what's been called the gross material world on the one hand and
  • the subtle realm on the other or in Stan Grof's language the holotropic world, or in David Bohm's terms the explicate (or manifest) order and the implicate (or the hidden) order and pattern of of structure and meaning in the universe.

.

Now by and large science as is traditionally spoken of, has addressed and its methodology has been appropriate to, the gross material world, the physical world, the manifest world ... and the approach has been largely dualistic: a separate observer studying phenomena outside of that person. We know that the best scientists don't use that approach, but that's the one that's the standard, that we often think and mean by the scientific method.

I might add that in the focus on that realm to the exclusion of the subtle realm, we have virtually rid the cosmos of nature ... rid nature of spirit, and in a sense of all life other than that which is physically observable here on Earth.

Now what do we mean by the subtle realm? ... and this is not so easy to to to pin down. It has to do with phenomena that seem to 'Come From Another Dimension': telepathy, clairvoyance, the whole realm out-of-body experiences, near-death- experiences, telekinesis, and the alien abduction phenomenon itself ... That is: phenomena where, they may manifest in the physical world, but they seem to originate in some other dimension, something unseen. Something which is not readily observable under ordinary separatist dualistic scientific or methodological conditions.

Now one of the fundamental tenants of the mechanistic or the dualistic approach is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the human brain, so one of the assumptions we have to challenge is that one ... if we're we're going to study these subtle Realms which involve Consciousness, and as we've heard the relationship of Consciousness to the material world .. we have to recognize that consciousness, spirit, self, soul all those Realms have a life have an existence separate from the physical body.

That for me was a very great leap, and I had to do my own self-exploration .. and a great deal of challenging of my own kind of materialist scientific upbringing clinical upbringing, to come to appreciate that fundamental kind of parting of the ways between the materialist scientific approach and one which can begin to allow us to study more profoundly these subtle Realms.

[7'00 in movie of this talk]

The Western worldview of what Michael Zimmerman calls anthropomorphic humanism, which is a worldview that

  • has reduced reality to the manifest or physical world and
  • puts the human mind the human being at the top of the intellectual hierarchy .. eliminating not only God but all Spirit from the cosmos

Now the phenomena that really shake up that worldview are the phenomena that seem to cross over from The Unseen World and manifest in the physical world. ... that's why people that study phenomena that seem to challenge that Great Divide we've created between the Unseen realm and the physical world.

It works okay as long as you give the theologians and the spiritual people, maybe the psychologists, the mandate over that subtle realm, that Unseen World ... and let the scientists worry about the physical world, the material world. But if a phenomenon crosses over if it won't obey those characterizations ... that raises all hell in the culture - in this culture

Now the phenomenon that I'm studying is just such a phenomenon. There are others: the near-death experience, the free energy phenomenon, telekinesis ... but this is the one that I've studied and I think it's one that by its very nature kind of grabs us where we are. Because it crosses over, and manifests in the language that we understand stand in this culture. You know: spaceships, abductions, implants, instruments, surgery, hybrids, babies, reproduction ... all that ... seems very physical very material ... ought to be reducible, studyable -by the methods of dualism, of traditional science .. but it won't yield it's secrets. Not only that, but it commits a deeper crime: it challenges that very sacred divide that we've created between the Unseen World and the material world. It challenges the fundamental worldview of the western mind.

Now a whole new frontier - which I'm not going to get into much, but just refer to - has to do with our attachments to a worldview. Why do we cling so tightly to a worldview? what makes it so fundamental?

I don't think it's just that there are huge huge economic attachments (which there are of course) to a worldview. I mean the whole marketplace mentality of technology and of science as we as we know it, is challenged by a worldview that says that there are vast subtle Realms unavailable to our direct observation ... and that in fact the worldview in which we are embedded is destroying its own playground, destroying the Earth itself.

But there's more to it than that, because a worldview organizes our sense of self, it gives us the illusion that we have some control: of ourselves, of nature ... that we're in charge, that we're safe.

Never mind that we all die and perhaps die lonely deaths in this particular worldview, because we've rid the cosmos of all consciousness of all spirit of God itself of God him or herself ... that we we never come to grips with the notion of death itself ... and so there's a terrible loneliness in this worldview. The fact is though, that it organizes our sense of self, it organizes reality for us, and constricts reality so that we have some illusion of control.

So when a worldview is challenged and shattered it creates a terror, and I think that the resistance which I've encountered - which naively I rather underestimated - people say: "well didn't you know if you started? ... saying that little green men were taking men women and children and ... there are spirits and funny beings coming and ... didn't you realize that you would run into this resistance? and I guess I'm a little like that frog that, you know, where you heat the water slowly and he finally boils. I think it kind of snuck up on me, because I've been at this for so many years and I didn't say anything public till I kind of felt I was pretty clear what I was doing I had hundreds of hours with these individuals.

But I'm interested in the resistance because I've had to deal with it as I think you realize. One of the most powerful expressions of this resistance has been within my own university where I've undergone a kind of investigation of my work which surprised me, I must say, that it stirred that much. But now I think I do appreciate that if a institution like Harvard Medical School or a church or any deep institution that's deeply connected with a worldview has that worldview basically challenged - and I think contemporary medicine is based largely on a materialist mechanistic worldview - then 'the Empire will strike back' I mean ... it will ... [applause] you all know what I'm talking about ..

So again I guess you have to be a little naive to wander off into those 'insecure' Realms, you won't go there if you know what you're going to encounter, right? If it's true what Betrand Russell said about resistance being proportional to the square of the importance of what you're studying, I must to be studying something very very important ... so that kind of has encouraged me ...

So anyway we've come to a kind of amicable agreement at Harvard .. I mean: they don't they don't necessarily buy what I'm finding, and they don't buy my methods, but there hasn't been any charges really. I go about what I do as conscientiously as I can, and there is a respect for the right to do that ... and so we kind of are at a sort of 'amicable juncture of agreeing to differ' but I've committed no crime really, other than the ideological one of of doing something which fundamentally challenges a worldview upon which so much is invested.

so I appreciate in a sense what I've encountered in this resistance, and I think it's maybe a useful thing for all of us in a way to know something more deeply about what we're encountering in the way of resistance to what we're doing, because if we can embrace that polarity, perhaps we can go to a deeper level instead of always - as we tend to do - finding ourselves in opposition against those people that won't take in what we're trying to do.

Just one more word about this challenge to worldview that this these crossover phenomena like the alien abduction story represent. If you look at the kind of blows to humankind of collective egocentrism from starting with Copernicus and Galileo and going on to Darwin and then Freud where little by little ... we were not only not at the center in terms of geography of the universe, we were not at the center in terms of being the only God given creatures, and with Freud we weren't really even in charge of our own psychology, and finally we learned - from this - that we're not the smartest guys in the universe after all. In fact we're not even in control in any sense .. that other beings, funny looking ones at that (they're not even good-looking, most of them you know) .. but these little guys with big black guys can come and do what they will with us and and render us helpless ... I mean that is really a fourth blow you know after what Copernicus Darwin Freud to our collective arrogance. And of course - being a bit perverse as a psychiatrist - I'm thinking that anything that can be a big blow to human arrogance can only be a good thing in terms of our development .. something we have no shortage of, right? so I mean: it can help us to to grow.

Now before launching into my specific work, I just want to say another word about: how is a worldview maintained in a culture?

I brought in this notion of what I call the politics of ontology, which is how a society organizes itself - particularly through a certain elite group - to determine for the rest of that society what is real. It's a kind of governance of ideas. And in this culture there may be a very tiny group .. you know, a certain small group of scientists, not all scientists ... not the most rigid people. But there are some people that have declared this .. that people like me and you .. are just like totally irrational. And they decide that, and they control the mainstream media ... and certain government groups decide what's reality. Some people that know a lot more about that and you're going to be hearing more about that, so: a very small elite group decide what is the prevailing worldview, what is the nature of reality.

So the politics around determining the nature of reality, is a a particular politics that we haven't really thought about that much. We think about the politics of economics, and of governance of of communities, of the social order, but not how we are governed around what we're supposed to think is real.

Now an interesting thing is happening though in this culture, and Michael Zimmerman has pointed this out ... with the mass media, with public education being as extensive as it is, everybody's getting kind of smart, right?

People know their experiences, they know they've had experiences that don't fit the the prevailing mechanistic worldview .. not just you guys who were all here, but wherever I go to talk about this 80 to 90 to 95 to 98 % of the people ... they know there's an Unseen World ... they know there's 'hidden dimensions' of reality, they know there are subtle Realms even they may not use this kind of language, but they know their own experiences and they trust their experiences and they're not fooled by NBC, or the New York Times or Time magazine, or those official arbiters of the truth and reality.

So that we have this kind of [...] of reality going on here, this undercurrent of knowledge ... that the world, the universe is not the universe we're being officially told it is. So it's really going to be an interesting thing to see, when the mainstream of the culture, when this 1 or 2% elite that determines what we're supposed to think is real ... suddenly wakes up to the fact that that 'it's not being bought', you know .. it's going to be an interesting moment .. we're getting near that moment, I think.

[19'50]

Let's go back to these subtle realms. Margaret and me wrote this in 1974 in 'red book magazine'. She said:

"people still ask eachother: do you believe in UFOs? I think this is a silly question, born of confusion. Belief has to do with matters of faith, it has nothing to do with a kind of knowledge that is based on scientific inquiry. When we want to understand something strange, something previously unknown to anyone, we have to begin with an entirely different set of questions. What is it? how does it work? are there recurrent regularities?"

.. and I resonate with that, because I'm always being accused of being a 'believer' .. somebody who was kind of going over the edge from rationality to belief .. and: this has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with what I do as a clinician.

I began to see people in the beginning of 1990 - it's now five and a half years - who seemed of sound mind, who were describing experiences which simply did not fit into any kind of psychiatric category that I could conceive of .. child abuse, psychosis, neurosis, organic brain this or that, fantasy prone, on and on ... there were patterns here, we're talking about science .. and I just couldn't find any explanation for any of this.

continued on: Advanced spiritual beings joining Earth development since last century#1995-09-16 - John E. Mack

2002-10-25 - John E. Mack

from talk: 'Anomalous Experiences and Transformation of Consciousness' (youtube)

Worldviews are fundamental to who we are: They hold the psyche together. They make us feel part of the groups that share that worldview, and we hold on to them. We'll give our lives for .. we'll fight Wars for ..  we'll do anything to preserve a worldview

...

an ideology, when it's deeply ingrained, people don't know it's an ideology ... they think it's the truth

Discussion

Note 1 - Worldview debate end 20th century and early 21st century

Worldview perspective

The contemporary debate on worldviews of end 20th century and early 21st century can be sketched with some main viewpoints

  • [1] materialistic atheism, fighting religion, belief in science and the laws of physics alone
  • [2] critique of material reductionism [1] and its limitations and focusing on the importance of teleology, morality, consciousness
  • [3] defending theism and faith against [1]
  • [4] spiritual (scientific) worldview, as in anthroposophy, theosophy, .. with various positioning of the Christ Impulse and existing religions

.

Representatives

The following individuals are put forth here as representatives of the different worldviews, they are merely presented as voices and representative spearpoints of the above viewpoints, with a suggested list of additional people that could be positioned alongside. Note the groups of approx. 10 people obviously are not all of the same opinion on everything, but can be clustered along the worldview perspectives as described.

  • [1] - Daniel Dennett (1942-2024) & Richard Dawkins (1942-) - prominent proponents of atheism as a militant spear point of the materialistic worldview, with fierce critique of religion and rejecting religious morality in favor of a rational, evidence-based ethical system; and advocating scientific naturalism and a universe governed by the laws of physics alone;
    • others: Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens
    • some more: Steven Pinker, Lawrence Krauss, A.C. Grayling, Jerry Coyne, Peter Singer
  • [2] - Thomas Nagel (1937-) offering a (non-theistic) critique of the material reductionist accounts especially in the context of consciousness, mind, and ethics; and the impact of the materialistic worldview for morality. Elements are: teleology, "the hard problem of consciousness" or the difficulty of explaining subjective experience purely in physical terms
    • others: David Chalmers, John Searle, Roger Penrose
    • some more: Galen Strawson, Colin McGinn, Raymond Tallis, Philip Goff
  • [3] - Alvin Plantinga (1932-) .. an example of philosophical integrative positioning of religious belief and contemporary mineral science (god could have used darwinian processes, etc); known for his work on epistemology and defense of theism, particularly Christian theism, and his arguments against naturalism and atheism. This position also emphasizes the limitations of naturalistic worldviews in explaining the origin of the universe and morality; and challenges the notion that science and faith are incompatible.
    • some others: William Lane Craig, Edward Feser, Richard Swinburne, C.S. Lewis, John Polkinghorne, Nicholas Wolterstorff, J.P. Moreland

.

Notes

1/ - Regarding assertive or aggressive atheism and attacks on the spiritual, see also Sorat-people or Sorat-men, see Sorat#1924-09-12-GA346 - other translation

Sorat men will also be recognizable outwardly; they will be those who not only ridicule spiritual things, — they will fight it in the most terrible way and they will want to thrust it down into a cesspool. ...

This is why it is so important that everything which can strive towards spirituality should really do so. Everything which opposes spirituality will be there, for this does not work in accordance with freedom but in accordance with determinism. This determinism is moving in the direction where Sorat will be loose again at the end of this century, when a striving to sweep away everything spiritual will be present in the intentions of a large number of earth souls, whom the Apocalypticer prophetically sees with their bestial faces and their strength of a tiger with respect to the execution of their adversarial deeds against the spiritual.

Outbursts of rage against the spiritual are already here today: but they are only the first seeds. ...

What is striven for by the Soratic spirits who are pressing into the soul of humanity is not the world war, but what followed it; this is terrible and will become ever more terrible ..

Related pages

References and further reading

general

anthroposophical

related to Rudof Steiner's twelve worldviews as per 1914-GA151 (Human and Cosmic Thought)

  • Sigismund von Gleich: Die Wahrheit als Gesamtumfang aller Weltansichten (1957, again 1989)
  • Mario Betti: 'Twelve Ways of Seeing the World' - Philosophies and Archetypal Worldviews for Understanding Human Consciousness (2020, original in DE 2001 as 'Zwölf Wege, die Welt zu verstehen')
  • Corinna Gleide, Ralf Gleide: 'Der Sternhimmel der Vernunft: Über den Weg der zwölf Weltanschauungen' (2008)

internet

Retrieved from "https://anthroposophy.eu/w/index.php?title=Worldview&oldid=28406"
Powered by MediaWiki
Powered by Semantic MediaWiki