204 sats \ 1 reply \ @SilkyNinja 12 Jun \ on: Thinking about lenses through which we see the world meta
When anthropology had an intellectual evolution at the start of the 20th century, it became necessary for ethnographers to recognize their "lenses" in order to more objectively study other peoples1. One anthropologist I read said something along the lines of there is nothing inherently more moral about believing the universe is built on order rather than chaos - that is the degree to which she attempted to decouple herself from her known lenses in order to understand other people better.
Typically, this is regarded as recognizing your own subjectivity; however, it's become a bit bastardized into guilting other people on the grounds of born privilege.
A very cool lens to look into is the development of the belief of some inherent worth of the individual (I think this starts in a secular sense with Kant), and how (I think) our culture has probably only halfway transitioned away from the belief of birthright to earned/ing merit.
A lens which I find interesting is whether or not a person believes in something like destiny.

Footnotes
  1. It is recognized, however, that it is impossible to view other people objectively as we are always looking through our lenses, our subjectivity. ↩
write
preview
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryotosensei 13 Jun
My eyes perked up when I read destiny. So I’m a great believer of destiny. I believe that the Law of Attraction is governed by the Universe/God (depends on how spiritual you are).
When I wrote about it, didiplaywell alerted me to the phenomenon of spontaneous synchronisation. So what I assumed to be the workings of the Universe may just actually be the laws of physics in motion
reply