Personal - #501- #02 - How many different “World Views” are there and how to cope?

How different the “World View” must seem to the naked natives running around in the Brazilian rain forest with a sharp stick in his hand looking for a green frog. His “World View” is as far as he can walk in the deep forest. He believes in the power of birds, clouds, and spirits. He’s never seen concrete structures, “running water”, “bathrooms” or “schools”!!

Compare his “World View” with a man who is getting paid in money and regular food to “destroy “ the enemy. He has no skill except as a warrior. His “world” is flat, with his enemies just over the horizon or closer. He doesn’t care about “terror”, “prisoners” or nations. He’s simply paid to “destroy”. What’s his “World View”?

And compare the “World View” of an ordinary citizen of an industrial country that has things like “welfare”, politics, schools, neighborhoods, religions, etc. How different are his views? His experiences are entirely different from jungles or mercenaries.

How many different “World Views” are there? Can there be only one approach to living, one approach to survival, one selection of morals, rules, and behavior?
And yet we hear of “total solutions”, “better ways”, elimination of “poverty, violence and terror”. Whose definitions do we use for these words? Which “World View” is a guide to what we are supposed to follow?

It is not enough to say “civilized”! By what standard are we to use? What’s right or wrong with the “other” “World View”?

And so it seems that any thinking person would first define the world he’s talking about before trying to suggest what path or ideals he suggests we follow. Just to “decry” the deficiencies or “lacks” of a particular situation without describing the “World” you are referencing to, is meaningless.

What is more…. Just to light fires of discontent without a plan to offer a “successful alternative”, is not only stupid but can be very harmful. Which “World” are you discussing? What is helpful in one “World” may be very damaging in another! ….Better be Careful!!!!

So “coping” with “Worlds” is possible if you attempt to first describe the “World” you’re using as a reference. You might find that just a discussion of the so-called “World” you are referring too will be very difficult. It may be very difficult to come to a “mutual” agreement, a “mutual definition”! What’s the sense in trying to suggest an improvement or a deficiency in a “World” of which you can’t even first reach a “mutual” definition? ….. This is more “oral static”!

(Bill T.’s definition of “oral static” is… “The proper placement of proper English words, in a proper English sentence, which means nothing!!!” … another word for “noise”!)


Beware of the “fire lighters”!!! They cause nothing but discontent!.
Look for the “definers” …the people who first try to have a “mutually agreed upon” frame of reference!!!