CLICK BELOW TO REDISCOVER HUMANITY

A DECADE+ OF STORYTELLING POWERED BY THE BEST WRITERS ON THE PLANET

Reductionism

Asking top to bottom inquiries and breaking down them in the radiance of reductionism leads, in addition to other things, to a deconstruction of the possibility of oneself, and, in this manner, a reductionist outlook is contradictory with day to day existence….

Do you concur???

My response is No. – It may not be correct though!

Why?

Since there is no proof for the self as numerous Buddhists appreciate and hell they are correct! (On the off chance that you differ could you at any point try and characterize what a ‘self’ is without basically involving a different way to say a similar thought like ‘me’ or no big deal either way?)

Reduction is compatible with everyday life. So long as like any other style of thinker, the reductionist can tell between a satisfactory explanation and one that is only partial, that has gaps. As none of us can see all causes, know all ends, or determine all states and positions between, we are all perforce familiar with the everyday fact that we cannot explain it all.

Buddhists’ lives aren’t contradictory to daily existence since they don’t get excessively found the technicalities of how much physical “stuff” they end up purchasing. That is not what’s going on with Buddhism, right?

The abuse or maltreatment of reductionism is no contention against reductionism. It is a contention against its abuse or misuse.

It’s tied in with freeing oneself from common connections which is the reason they will generally be undeniably more content with the hurly-brawny of 21st century living than substantially more materialistic people who will quite often anticipate that the world should be about me.  In the event that you can see the value in that oneself is a deception (fallacy -not ‘daydream’) the more prominent reality comes into the center and a clearer image of the truth is achieved thus and a quiet relationship with its outcomes.

A conviction – Reductionism to skeptical realism, tries to eliminate meaning so that individuals don’t need to be responsible for their own decisions.

Christian Philosopher, Ravi Zacharias, outlined – what Huxley was essentially saying, “I want this world not to have meaning because it frees me to my own passions and to my own sensually-driven life.”

Divulgence: I am anyway a nitwit. However, generally for affection. In any case, that covers a considerable amount…

Do you concur? Your thoughts?

CLICK HERE TO GET TODAY'S BEST WRITING ON THE PLANET DELIVERED TONIGHT

Farooq Omar
Farooq Omarhttps://www.prudsol.com/our-company/our-team/
Farooq is an expert in key arranging and execution and framework controls – Guiding and coordinating an endeavor through considerable change the board in corporate and business esteem chains, improving, upgrading the current and future Industrial, Corporate, and Business using solid and powerful key initiative. Breaking the Marketspace serious brand boundaries through 'Cycle Innovations-in hierarchical brand agreeableness and promoting key qualities – meeting or outperforming the changed partner's desires. This includes being a mastery of change, engaging in strategic board-level discussions (60%), setting and enforcing robust operational controls, designing and implementing the organization’s operational model proficiency in identifying and extracting efficiencies, deep industry, and market knowledge, finding a multicultural management approach. Breaking the Marketspace competitive brand barriers through ‘Process Innovations- in organizational brand acceptability and marketing strategic values – meeting or surpassing the varied stakeholder’s Financial, operational and economic health expectations.

SOLD OUT! JOIN OUR WAITING LIST! It's not a virtual event. It's not a conference. It's not a seminar, a meeting, or a symposium. It's not about attracting a big crowd. It's not about making a profit, but rather about making a real difference. LEARN MORE HERE


   

6 CONVERSATIONS

  1. Thank you, you have summed it up so brilliantly, dear, Alan….”To subject such self-relection entirely to reductionism seems to me to miss the ether, consciousness, the invisible media or matrix of life -the spirit, perhaps – that exists in us and that we exist within – Oneness in Pirsig’s terms. When reflecting on ourselves it seems to me the proper attitude or methodology may not be reductionism -analysis of causes and effects and parts, bur one of atonement” _ This doctrine is simplification bit at what cost or risk. Most likely, situations and scenarios dictates. Thank you very much for youe insightfulness. Much obliged!

  2. The matter is a bit tricky for me. I read something because I was interested in the idea of complexity in relation to business organizations.
    In the end, I was convinced of the greater effectiveness of the systemic vision in this field. The company is a living system and the systemic vision allows, in my opinion, to broaden the perspective and analyze the nature and management dynamics of the company within the context in which it operates. The rules of living systems thus become the key to re-reading the forms of managerial organization and the determinants of entrepreneurial success.

  3. my dear 🙏 “soul-friend” 🙏 Insight-full as always 🙏
    “Reductionism” makes me think of reducing .. to less .. to SIMPLIFY .. to better understand (though I know that’s not the actual definition)
    Simplicity is like brevity. We are forced to reduce to INCREASE insight, purpose, and value. – fem-v

    As to what you say here ..
    The abuse or maltreatment of reductionism is no contention against reductionism. It is a contention against its abuse or misuse.

    We live in a “contentious” world with “contentious” people: “abuse and-or misuse” is as common as dust
    The world is filled to over-flowing with people who wrongly “anticipate that the world should be about me”
    .. yet another deficiency greatly afflicting the world: ME-ism

    You say ..
    “A conviction – Reductionism to skeptical realism, tries to eliminate meaning so that individuals don’t need to be responsible for their own decisions”

    I’ll REDUCE that thought in simple understandable terms: the heart is self-deceived 🙏

    “The heart is deceitful above all things
    and beyond cure.
    Who can understand it?”
    – Jeremiah 17

    You are not a “nitwit” .. all humans need the nurture of affection 💝

    As to this quote by Ravi ..

    “I want this world not to have meaning because it frees me to my own passions and to my own sensually-driven life.” – Ravi Zacharias

    Human beings are slaves to their fleshly, carnal nature.

    .. “free to passions and a sensually driven life” ..

    Until we understand our broken state and are willing & desirous of changing ..

    “But God” (Devine intervention)

    Without the supernatural transformation of heart-soul & spirit our nature does not change .. this is only possible with God

    .. this is NOT wand-waving

    .. we must recognize our broken state .. our fleshly , carnal condition

    & desire to change and be willing to cooperate with God’s Spirit working in us ..

    Jesus Christ calls us to a PARADOXICALLY “abundant life” in this way 🙏

    “Whoever wants to be my disciple must DENY themselves

    .. and take up their cross

    .. and follow me.

    For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.” – Luke 9

    This will “deconstruct” everything one once thought of “self” 🙏

  4. My Brother Farooq – this is such a rich treatise that I fear my Covid-foggy brain will not allow me to engage well, (well, foggier than usual perhaps or just a convenient excuse for inadequacy).

    Reductionism – simple cause and effect -or the dynamic causal loops of a system – or a chaotic or complex system forces so sensitive to initial conditions (butterfly effect) is a way of thinking that fed me as a consultant for many years.

    As a process consultant – some expert consultants mocked my “analytic ability” because I also left openings for the organic unseen relationships and phenomena that exist in “people systems” – emotions and “irrational behavior”, flashes of insight, gut feel, and the general warping of actions and outcomes by power. Even as a change guy,” I was ruled by reductionism.

    Still in my private reading (Alan Watts, Robert Pirsig, Deepak Chpra) I was guided by writers who demonstrated the limits of reductionism. I remember a wonderful passge In “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” where Pirsig having completely disassembled his bike and spread all of the parts on a hill of grass, steps back and wonders aloud,
    “Where is Motorcycle?” The oneness of the concept was lost in the sum of the parts.

    “reductionism leads . . . to a deconstruction of the possibility of oneself . . .there is no proof for the self ”
    To me a robust sense of self is both a requirement for functionality in daily life and a sticky flytrap that leads to self-smothering ego. A sense of self may be attained by reflection, but only after interaction with others. One does not build character alone. I don’t mean comparison with others -“why can’t I have black straight hair or easy ability with the bassoon” – but the observation of one’s own values, emotions, and responses when interacting with others – what to accept about myself and what to have the courage to improve.

    To subject such self-relection entirely to reductionism seems to me to miss the ether, consciousness, the invisible media or matrix of life -the spirit, perhaps – that exists in us and that we exist within – Oneness in Pirsig’s terms. When reflecting on ourselves it seems to me the proper attitude or methodology may not be reductionism -analysis of causes and effects and parts, bur one of atonement – At-One-ment.

    Thank you for the journey

    Alan.

DAILY INSPIRATION. DELIVERED.