Beneath the World of Logic

Post image for Beneath the World of Logic

In my previous post, The meaning of values, I differentiated between 3 types of values and I wanted to see how they relate to the basic model that I use on this blog.

But because I already was trying to make my point about the relation between the meaning of life and the meaning of values, the post was getting a bit cluttered and I lost my view on that.

Now here,  in this post, I want to see how they fit into that model. The 3 types of values from the previous post are the following:

  • The cultural background that makes values look like facts
  • Experiences that make certain values very personal
  • The amounts of time you had to defend those values

So I will go over each one of them to see where they can be placed in that model. The model that is a combination of the zodiac and the quadrants from integral theory.
Beneath the world of matter and logic

I will place each one of them at the transition from one phase of life into another. A transition that is not actually visible and plays its role beneath the world of matter and logic.

The matter and logic that I call in the context of this blog structure. Structure as opposed to potential.

The concept of potential is what I use here for a place that can hold the different types of values.

Three types that are placed at the three essential transitions in life. From universal into primordial, from primordial into individual, from individual into universal. And finally again from universal into primordial, where a new cycle starts.

The primordial can be seen as the cultural background of where a child is born. And what is called universal is the world as a whole at a certain moment in time.

And in between is the development of the individual.

It is a cycle that is constantly repeating itself. On all kind of levels. But it is a cycle in the form of a spiral. Every time it starts with the beginning again but on another level.

  • The cultural background that makes values look like facts

The first set of values can not so much be called values. It has not much to do with the individual, not even with the family. It is the cultural background a person is born in.

It is what I call here, the transition from the universal phase into the primordial phase. The universal phase is culture that is built over time. Our western culture has certain values that most people will agree upon.

But those values are not the same as they where 400 years ago, not even the same as 40 years ago. They evolve over time and are defined by events and laws.

Because of the effects that peoples actions have on others, there have to be certain rules to let people live together in relative peace. Some might call them values, others laws. And some might just call them common sense.

But because they are common sense to us, does not mean they are common sense to everyone. Other cultures have other laws and values that they see as common sense. But what we see as offensive or rude or just plain wrong.

  • Experiences that make certain values very personal

The second set of values are those that are very personal. Those experiences in our youth that have a huge impact. Where something happens that shapes our vision of the world.

Growing up in a family that is violent gives you a different perspective of the world than growing up in a family that is loving and caring, even in the same society with the same cultural background of values.  Here also, you might not be aware that they are actually values.

It just is what it is.

But in this transition from primordial into individual, the person has to start an individual life. Independent of his family and cultural background.

To actually start with this and actually make decisions, you need a set of values. You need a context to know what to do and what to avoid.

In order to live an authentic life and build upon your own values, you have to choose. Every day you have to make decisions. And if there were no guidelines that you can more or less hold on to, it would be almost impossible to choose.

At the start that set of guidelines might not be so very strict. But the further you go, the more it becomes clear that they are not the same as those of others. In many cases it is not that obvious, just a minor disagreement. But as time goes by, your own set of guidelines increases.

You said ‘no’ to something and ‘yes’ to something else. And because you acted in some way, the next time it is easier to go that way.

You start to build a personality, an identity, an ego. Or like in business, you build a brand. Something others will recognise and relate to (or not). Something that provides room for major improvement and development in a certain direction.

Some of the values will be removed because they get in the way of your own development.

But some of them get stronger, much stronger. Especially those that are a combination of cultural background and personal experience that are used to build your personal identity on.

And the stronger the personal identity gets, the stronger you have to defend the values the identity is actually based upon.  And these become the third set of values.

  • The amounts of time you had to defend those values

The third set of values are a combination of unconscious values (cultural background and personal values) and conscious values (chosen to build our identity) which together make you who you are.

Your personality that is unique to you, that what sets you apart from all the others. It is how you want to be known. It is how others will easy recognise you. It is where you are proud of. What you achieved in life.

But the more strong that identity is, the more unique, the more successful, the more you might have to defend yourself against attacks. Which might be not that bad, it only improves your skills. The more you have to defend yourself, the more clear it all becomes to yourself.

But the real problems set in if those core values get attacked, those that are the foundation of who you are, that what made you capable of building your identity. And if that happens, your emotional reactions might get very strong. And make those values even stronger. A vicious circle.

Unless you can take a step away and look at it more objective.

Some day the moment has to come to realise your set of values is not universal. Other cultures have other values. Other people have other values. And they all depend on the context.

But that does not mean it was unnecessary to build upon those values. Actually it was very important. It is what the world needs, strong, unique and powerful individuals that are capable of being a success.

Those individuals that shape the future. That provide a cultural background for future generations.

And so we are back again with the beginning. But this time it is a cultural background we were part of. Either conscious or subconscious. But the way we lived according to our own set of values shapes the future. And makes our values common sense to those who are born again in that future.

Annemieke

Beneath the world of logic

Share

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

Immanuel Ghim

Hi Anne, I’m sorry for posting my reply on your request on the basical thinking of my linguistic view. I’ve just posted in my blog, and you can read it here at :

http://ighim.tistory.com/notice/?page=7

Thanks.
.-= Immanuel Ghim´s last blog ..SOUND AND RECORDINGS; GOULD AND THE CD: MADE FOR EACH OTHER =-.

Reply

Immanuel Ghim

Oops, I mean posting “late”. lol.
.-= Immanuel Ghim´s last blog ..SOUND AND RECORDINGS; GOULD AND THE CD: MADE FOR EACH OTHER =-.

Reply

Immanuel Ghim

My blog just re-newed, try here Anne ^^;;;

http://ighim.tistory.com/notice/?page=9

Thanks^^

Reply

Annemieke

Hi Immanuel, you have some very interesting things to say with which I agree mostly. I also ‘doubt the throne of reason and rational thinking’, not so much because of what is said in ordinary philosophy (because most of that I only know in a superficial way) but more that I feel that words do not ‘cover’ the meaning most of the time.

I think it is interesting that you say ‘there is no such thing as communication’. I think I also agree with that to some extend. That is, if you mean that people often misinterpret each others words.

When you say ‘there is no shared meaning at all’, I also think I kind of agree. Maybe not that extreme, but I also think we are often far off with our interpretation of what the other meant to say.

So I certainly do not think you have ‘a crazy linguistic view’. But maybe that is just because my own views are just as crazy :-)

At the moment I started a book called ‘Wholeness and the implicate order’ from David Bohm. There is a chapter in that book that seems to cover these views. He does an experiment with language and thought, which he calls the ‘rheomode’. The reason for that experiment was that he found that the western language is not suitable to explain certain phenomenon in the physical world, especially those on the quantum level, because our language is to static. So he experiments with a language that is more flowing to describe what is going on.

It is also a way to describe development, and that was what I was looking for. So I just started in that book and want to explore it further on my blog in the coming time. That is, if I can understand it enough to be able to write something understandable about it.

But if so, I would be most interested to hear your views on that.

Reply

Immanuel Ghim

Thanks Anne for you kind reply^^

seems you and I have lots of things to share.
Recently I went through your post on
Bohm and John Car..(what was this Frechman’s name?..)
and it fascinated me.

Definitely D. Bohm is interesting and even more I’m looking forward to read your upcoming post on his book.

Well, in my case, I’m concentrating on ‘Works of Love’ by Soren Kierkegaard, and maybe will post some of my lingu-ethical comments on them.

Hope to see you soon, take care ^^

Reply

Highlander Brown

I happened to view your blog linking from a seach on Bohm´s rheomodes. I find a great deal of insight in your blog and effort to understand. I am wondering, also when I think on myseld, if too much effort to understand and put into words is not afterall, a way to escape from the “lack of understanding”. In other way, searching is asking for finding., and that could be a problem since: we can only find what we already know and what it is known is old and have already proved itself useless…because we are still searching.. Give the mind a quest, a question and he will find an answer. Regarding your post here, I am particularly interested in the last point “the amounts of time you had to defend those values”. Identity, or in other words, the model of our self, is a fiction that could be much convenient to move in the world, have children, work and cooperate…but iit is also source of violence, intolerance and separation. If you have to defend your “map”, your “flag”, your “values” is because other´s “map”, “flag”, “values”, identities are seen as threats. When you grasp to your identify you isolate yourself. The same way some people get stuck with words, we get stuck to identities, ideas, values.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and isnights, cherrio Highlander Brown

Reply

Leave a Comment