blog traffic analysis
This is Previous-Essay <== This-Essay ==> Following-Essay Click HERE on this line to find essays via Your-Key-Words. {Most frequent wordstarts of each essay will be put here.} ========================================================== %INTEGRATIVE SCIENTISTS IDEALS VALUES 870101 An integrative understanding of arationally wise and humane behavior can not be based upon a compulsively objective analysis by non-participants in such behavior. Such an integrative understanding will involve a personal awareness of the dynamics of participation which in turn entails an integration of objective, emotional, physiological, rational and spiritual involvement in intimate communal behavior. Any exclusive rule which rules out knowledge through participation in any of these modes of consciousness---promotes ignorance that tends to lead to disintegration rather than to integration. Rules which require ignorance are not as fully integrative as it is possible to be. Knowledge is fundamentally integrative in character and ignorance is the absence of knowledge. Some knowledge is more integrative than other knowledge; some ignorance is more disintegrative than other ignorance. It is difficult to make the case that some knowledge is disintegrative and that some ignorance is integrative, just as it is difficult to make the case that in no case does knowledge lead to disintegration, or that in no case does ignorance lead to integrative behavior. Rules which require emotional detachment as always being essential to the development of reliable knowledge are thus properly open to critical appraisal to see if they really lead to that which they are presumed to lead to. Are those rules to be honored and obeyed even in the critical appraisal of their worth? For what reason? It would seem the height of bias to claim that the critical appraisal of a rule should be presided over by the rule itself! The critical appraisal would better be served by observing whether or not the actual behavior of those who honor the rule promotes both personal and communal integrity in the objective, emotional, physiological, rational and spiritual lives of those affected by the rule being honored. Rules and people who presume to place themselves above being critically appraised in terms of integrative considerations are properly considered as especially appropriate foci for critical appraisal---based upon transcendent integrative ideals, values, concepts and perspectives. Not all statements are true, some are false, even when many people affirm them to be true. Not all true statements can be shown to be true objectively. Some objectively true statements are of little value. Some valuable statements are true even though not objectively grounded. Some statements which people regard as false or as of little value are potentially very valuable because they are true in a profound way. Collusions, taboos, repressions, fears, threats, etc. confuse the differences between true and false statements, between valuable and not so valuable statements. What is the nature of true statements? True statements help people to integrate their personal experiences into a coherent whole which makes sense and has meaning. True statements are tools of integration and are used by people with integrity to promote further integration. True statements help people to promote integration by helping people achieve balance between complementary and conflicting perspectives, assumptions, convictions, paradigms, attitudes, approaches; and are valuable to the extent that they help in these ways. Taboos and collusions may obscure the truth of true statements, but their truth can still be recognized by people who honestly seek and promote integrity. Statements which are not "objectively true" due to the inhibitions of taboos and collusions which block the required consensus, may be powerfully true even so. Often universal consensus is not possible because taboos and collusions stand in the way. Many truths are invisible to objectivists, and they can not find the way to achieve comprehensive integration of all their experiences; and so they tend to devalue those experiences which they can not integrate into a coherent whole under the constraints of their collusions and taboos. The proof of the truth of a statement is not in consensus, for collusions generate false consensuses. The proof of the truth of a statement is in how well it helps honest people to promote personal and communal integrity and balance. False and misleading statements tend to promote disintegration, the breakdown of a coherent sense of what is real and how those things which are real are related. True statements help people develop a coherent sense of what is real and inter-related for people and communities with integrity. (c) 2005 by Paul A. Smith in (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy) ==========================================================