From: Steele, Kirk A (SteeleKA@nafm.misawa.af.mil)
Date: Sat Mar 02 2002 - 16:19:33 MST
mm.......................
dead on the mark.
yes
Thank you. formalisation of language is paramount to forwarding the
discussion.
Religious ideations fall into that metacognative domain of culture known as
belief. Self efficacy likewise resides in the socio-cultural matrix in the
same location, belief. Under the headings in the sociocultural matrix of
Ideas, Norms and Artifacts. Down each heading are continuum of expression,
each with three major entries. Under the heading Ideas, are the entries
Knowledge-Values-Belief. It is this continua of culture that defenders of
the faith diacritically decompose against all odds. And the latter domain of
the ideation continuum contains at it's southern most teological telomere
the nom de guerre 'belief'. "Ah, there in lies the rub"...
people are member of a society. as such they espouse the collective
dimensions of the culture of that society. But not all dimensions equally do
they evidence. this platter is a la carte. the subjective nature of the
human condition affords that each person espouse only those aspects of the
culture that are likewise aspects of that same person. If a person lives in
a society that forwards the beliefs of the collective as precedent over the
beliefs of the person, then the person may forward that the beliefs of the
person are precedent over the beliefs of another person. if the society
forwards a disavowal of knowledge, is society diminishes the currency of
knowledge in the making of guiding policy then the person may forward that
the persons beliefs have more currency than knowledge.
>From Kant we began to fully see the possibility of the subjective nature of
reality, in that each person constructs there own private reality. What is
breaking down in the fabric of ameriKan society is this tendency of groups
of people to assert their subjective personal beliefs about reality onto the
body politic, vis a vis others in society, without even the slightest
conception of the nature of their subjectivity. And how does this come to
pass.
Interpersonal relationships have always had a major modality of dysfunction.
Co-dependent behavior is as old as Adam and Eve. How else do you think those
two would have stayed together if they had properly functioning ego's and
socialisation skills. They each had some part of their ego that they needed
the other to compliment. I don't want to go into the full breadth of
psychodynamics here, but I will touch on some of the points of
relationships.
Rogers & France (1975; Analysis in Relational Communication in Dyads) gave
us a, to date, very durable extantiation of the major modalities of
relationships. The relationship model forwards that the participants can
either be similar to the point of having symmetry, or disparate to the point
of being complimentary. In this manner, complimentary is used in the
mathematical sense, in that what one is lacking, the other provides. Neither
in and of itself is whole and needs the other to actualise this wholeness.
This is true in communication theory as well as personality theory.
The relationship in this case is between that of a person and a collective.
The person is finite, the collective is infinite in that it transcends the
existence of any one participant. The person, the self is mortal, will die.
This is a major source of anxiety for living beings, ALL living beings.
Death is forever and to surrender our ego to this 'possibility' for a lot of
people in western society disavows all of the emotional investment they have
made in striving to gain success. Gain success in the material realm, for
that is the nature of the predicate for the dilemma that causes most people
in western society to have this heartache.
A priori emphasis is placed on judging our existence by comparing ourselves
against others on a material scale. The 'more' we have the more we are
successful. This sets us up for the 'big need'. Which we use to accept the
'big lie' The big need comes we associate our physical sense of being, our
'material' physical self with our being successful. The problem with that is
we intrinsically recognise our mortality as a potential source of failure.
So we seek to circumvent or preclude this potential failure by attributing
the possibility of existence beyond the physical self. This
'transubstantiation' of the self into an existence beyond our physical self
needs a cognitive framework into which it can co exist with a collective so
as to achieve the necessary currency to become acceptable at the conscious
level. We see that others have the same need and therefore [propound the
same solution, whatever that may be, and we accept this. So, through a
purported consensus of need, a consensus of belief has erupted. Religion.
In short, you're born, you live, you die. Get your freak on while you can,
cuz it's a short ride. Enjoy it.
Kirk Steele
-----Original Message-----
From: No name given [mailto:vampier@mac.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:42 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: "self-reliance " We don't need no stinking
self-reliance.
Thank you for your reference.
Having read the overview, I conjecture we can summarize it as "Belief in
one's ability to do things successfully." To what extent am I off the
mark?
It appears that self-efficacy has a large number of factors contributing
to it. Am I correct in the assumption that this forum is/can be used for
the promotion of factors contributing to self-efficacy?
Thanks.
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 07:21 PM, Steele, Kirk A wrote:
> "self-reliance"
>
> hm.............................. someone is trying to make inroads
> into a
> formalisation of some form of knowledge.....
>
> It already exists. Let's not re-invent the wheel. Psychology has this
> concept already.
> "Self Efficacy" and "Learned Helplessness"
> Look up a guy by the name of Albert Banduras.
>
> I urge you to read his theories as a starting point for further
> discussion.
> Here is an overview:
> http://www.cc.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html
>
> lest we forget our roots as social scientists folks.......
>
> memetics is an amalgam of social/cognitive psychology and information
> systems theory. These are our source domains. Don't waste your wet-ware
> recreating your own personal genesis of thought. Other folks have done
> the
> grunt work. Read em.
>
> Work smarter. Not harder!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT