I think that the assumption here that differing worldviews must necessarily exist in conflict and competition could be flawed. Perhaps some insights gleaned from Robert Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation" should be applied here.
At Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:49:40 EST, you wrote:
>
><< Prof. Tim asks :
>
> Worldview A works best for achieving result A'.
> Worldview B works best for achieving result B'.
> Worldviews A and B are completely inconsistent with one another.
> You desire both result A' _and_ result B'.
> Can you get both results? If so, how?
> >>
>
>The desiring for a particular result does not happen in a worldview vaccuum.
>This scenario leaves out important information without which, any answer would
>be meaningless.
>
>stephen fleming:
>>>Ignoring the point as to whether it is possible for two worldviews to be
>completely inconsistent, . . .<<
>
>That is a VERY profound point to be ignoring. Without addressing it as well,
>the "answer" would be likewise meaningless. Despite your disclaimer, your
>answer didn't "ignore it", as you chose to concentrate on individual beliefs,
>as opposed to "completely inconsistent worldviews". I wise decision IMO.
>
>>>For example, the two worldview components (beliefs)<<
>
>conclusion.
>
>>>The supposed level 3 thinker may hold worldviews that appear
>inconsistent on the surface that are resolved on a deeper level.
>Or something :)<<
>
>I think the word "supposed" is crucial to this conclusion. Some wish to
>maintain here that that they genuinely, and in fact intentionally, hold
>"inconsistent worldviews." If this is genuine, then I have no respect for it.
>If this is an extension of theater, perhaps a magician's performance, then I
>applaud it. Just don't expect me to attribute honesty to it.
>
>-Jake
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher