Comments for Evolutionary Philosophy

Comment on A World of Sentences, Part 4: Living in a Background of Affirmed Commitment by Gina Hayden

Gina Hayden — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:22:24 +0000

Jeff, I like the way you address the issue that we as coaches and facilitators/trainer in organisations so often bump up against, which is: ‘Can we really change?’ When we are lost inside our story about ourselves then I think change is difficult because you are trying to reprogramme the story from within the language of the story – if that makes sense. If you shift the context to a higher level, to look at the ‘Who am I?’ question, then it is no longer about reprogramming but about about letting go of what I thought I was and deciding how I would like to ‘programme’ or create myself as instead – a higher order level of consciousness.
Thank you for the great work you are doing for all of us.
Appreciation,
Gina

Comment on A World of Sentences, Part 4: Living in a Background of Affirmed Commitment by Stuart

Stuart — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:42:08 +0000

Jeff, I really like this direction. Especially the background of commitments you talk about. It really puts some meat on what Heidegger means by the “background”. Well done!!
-Stuart

Comment on A World of Sentences, Part 3: The Transformative Power of Language by Steven

Steven — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:07:06 +0000

Interesting article. I believe that our understanding of language comes from God creating subtle impressions in feeling within the body/mind. I have written a chapter on Language and Symbols in my forthcoming book release The Philosophy of a Mad Man. I think you would find it interesting and insightful. For extracts from the book please check out my newly launched blog at http://perfectchaos.org. Thanks, and best wishes, Steven.

Comment on A World of Sentences, Part 3: The Transformative Power of Language by Frank Luke

Frank Luke — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:33:40 +0000

I’ve learned it’s really advisable to think about how to say things as cogently as you can to commjunicate clearly so as to avoid misunderstanding. Especially in situations that are emotionaly dicey, I run what I need to say through my mind in several versions to see which I feel may be the best and not be misunderstood or possibly cause more trouble. Red flags like accusing and using “you / I never”or ” you / I always”) is usually going to bring pushbacks. Then there’s “I don’t mean that in a bad way” and a sincere apology when called for.

I think it best not to say anything if you can’t say it politely since there’s always a nice way to say something, in the interest of peaceable dialogue. I strongly recommend the brilliant Socratic technique of using questioning to promote thoughtful exchanges to avoid angry ones. (access online > Socratic method). It instigates thought that helps to coo things down, which is important if any productive exchanges will result. I also find it useful to agree to disagree if all else fails. I think it best to be kind rather than insisting on being right.

All this submitted to promote more peaceable dialoguing. The personal affects the planetary. The Socratic method needs developing to perfect your technique. Discuss and share it with others who may be receptive to it.

Aloha, Namaste!

Comment on A World of Sentences, Part 3: The Transformative Power of Language by Gina Hayden

Gina Hayden — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:55:58 +0000

Hi Jeff
So, if we change our words to the thing we see, we change our relationship to it and therefore our reality, right?
Also, I’m curious about where you see the line between the ‘objective’ reality (rat poison is rat poison and traffic lights are traffic lights) and ‘subjective’ reality (like the things I tell myself). As ever, language is limited and I don’t really mean ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’; what I rather mean is the continuum of manifested reality and where you see the point of our power lying along on it to create reality or merely observe/respond to it.

Comment on Self, Truth, Reality and Language – Part 4: A Model for Human Transformation by Trish

Trish — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:29:03 +0000

Hey. I found this a particular powerful statement what I have personally experienced as well as observed in others. Much of what we think is our identity is a compilation of habituation in response to an incredible array of variables. Habituation that is so strong that we no longer recognize that we are not making choices, no responding spontaneously or authentically at all.

I believe that it is possible to break the habit and develop another. However, such change is difficult because what we really have are complex sets of interlocked habits–paradigmatic habituation. I believe meditation is a core practice to dissolving both the links and the paradigm itself; however, what brings us to the point of recognizing that our paradigm no longer works? My personal experience was a totalizing disruption of my self, life, and world. As I work and interact with others who argue, as you do, for breaking the habit, I find that many of us have had similar experiential breaks. This leads to my question: are there alternative paths to the ‘recognition’ point?

As an educator, i am deeply interested in the answer.

Comment on A World of Sentences, Part 3: The Transformative Power of Language by Jeff Carreira

Jeff Carreira — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:18:26 +0000

Hello Trish,
Thank you for this comment. We are probably in very close agreement. In this particular series of posts I wanted to take some of this philosophical ideas that I have been reading lately about language and try to create posts for people without philosohical background that would help them specifically to see through langauge as an accurate description of reality. Some of the thoughts that have inspired me are the ideas of language as metaphor from Richard Rorty and recent things that I have read from Robert Brandom around language and commitment. You are totally accurate to point out that I am presenting one very narrow slice of a huge pie – I do so not to be misleading, but to give readers some things to think about that might help them live their lives better. I appreciate very much you thoughts on this subject, they are much more complete than what I am presenting and of course inspire me and I hope my other readers to keep minds open as we go.
Thank you,
Jeff

Comment on A World of Sentences, Part 3: The Transformative Power of Language by Trish

Trish — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:07:58 +0000

I am avidly reading this series of posts, but I am having some difficulties. Its worth noting that I teach philosophy, so I am relatively grounded in the classical conversation around this topic. I seriously engage my students in this very line of thinking! I let minor pulses to interject in the first two posts go, but this post is pulling more seriously. I having a little difficulty with the differences between connotative and denotive uses of language. If my conversation partner shares my language and cultural base with me, we aren’t likely to have to much issue about whether its a book. But, If I am speaking to someone whose primary language isn’t English or whose cultural perspective doesn’t include books, I don’t presume that my sentence, “this is a book,” has any value or meaning. Thus, descriptive statements like “that’s rat poison” can be extremely accurate but also totally meaningless. And, it is meaning, I think, from which those behavioral presumptions and commitments stem. I would argue that a statement (particularly one of meaning) is less a commitment to behavior and more a reflection of a particular linguistic/cultural perspective. I feel that most of us presume (within a shared culture) that our partners use and understand most words in the same way, and we often ignore the degree to which our communication is misaligned. We also fail to see how our language is a paradigm for shaping both thought and the reality we experience, so that when reality confronts the paradigm, we tend to rewrite reality rather than the paradigm. Thus, I think we are in broad agreement even while I am arguing that language can provide sufficiently accurate descriptions of reality to be useful (the difference between books and rat poison). The difficulty is, of course, our tendency to treat limited congruity as complete. Thank you for your work!

Comment on A World of Sentences, Part 2: Language and the Reality of Reality by Jeff Carreira

Jeff Carreira — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:04:25 +0000

Gina – I think I have something much better than quantum physics in store for my next post. And thank you for your consitent support and good will.

Comment on Why is Barack Obama the President of the United States? by Jeff Carreira

Jeff Carreira — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:02:45 +0000

Ben, I agree..what could be better!