I think it’s possible to incorporate a biological imperative model into a pluralistic ontology

 I think it’s possible to incorporate a biological imperative model into a pluralistic ontologt : if one takes a view from the present – a teleological view – similar to a manifest destiny view of American influence over world affairs or a technocratic (my new word of the day) view of politics – a great temptation until you see who wields the technocracy (and why it’s ultimately a capitalist scam).
Take all of that and remove the politics from the technocracy (dial it down a little), tone down the biological imperative and shift it into an affordances view (things survive when they are within a survivable configuration / capability range), and allow room for the experiential (a perspective shift from the outside in to the inside out), and while each won’t incorporate all of the others (it won’t and can’t map cleanly because there are some fundamental differences in kind), – nevertheless it can be functionally equivalent.
Power dynamics among children can get really tricky.
As adults we tend to see “bully vs victim” but in kid-world it’s often far more complex, even in kindergarten and 1st grade.
My ne when he was in second grade went from being bullied to befriending the bully and adopting a few of the bully’s ways but also being an odd kind mixed-peacemaker, simultaneously enabling bullying but also protecting other against excessive bullying.
It was like a light switch change too. Name of same kid suddenly was friend instead of feared and so I listened to the stories as the year progressed which is how I saw this shape form.
Now at age 16, he’s basically the same in that way. Friends with anybody, tends to defend the bully, will take sides but will also break from alliances if they are toxic
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

− five = 0

Leave a Reply