[2] The following list is not in order by importance. It reflects an attempt to cluster assumptions by (relatively) related groups. Given my understanding of the conundrums of self-reference, it will always be incomplete.My attempt at revealing them is intended to provide you an opportunity to gain some sense of how my research is informed by (and arises from) my experience and motivation. In return, I believe that you have an obligation - which I can name, not enforce - to acknowledge these positions as my starting point, but not as reasons for dismissing my work. I welcome challenges to these positions, yet I have to admit that I hold some of them rather dearly (reasonably or not) and might require some convincing. Nonetheless, challenges - as well as suggestions for additions - are welcome: beth@civics.ca.
[3] The question of ultimate causality or acausality seems moot. There do, however, appear to be some causal influences operating at the human scale and may be others at much grander scales. Such influences seem only determinable in retrospect: Causality is a forensic affair.
[4] Even if there is a direct correlation between cause and effect, futures are unknowable without a precise understanding of initial conditions, intermediate influences and mechanisms. I do not believe these can be known with certainty or precision. There is subsequently a distinction between deterministic and determinable. Outcomes may be determined (i.e. effects arising from causes) yet indeterminable (i.e. unknowable). This leads to the above point.
[5] Regardless of whether outcomes are acausal or simply unknowable, surprise occurs - although its degree and depth arise in the mind of the observer. Surprise is not necessarily overwhelming.
[6] If cause exists, there is not necessarily a correlation between the size of the cause and the size of effect. Small change can lead to big change (the chaotically flapping butterfly), but can also lead to small change or to no change. And big change can lead to small change or to no change or to big change...
[7] I do not necessarily see determinism and free will as contradictory. [note]
[8] I do not believe in determinism if it is defined as: 'everything planned out before hand by some greater being'. This does not mean that I do not believe in the existence of some 'greater' presence or being.
[9] The foregoing comments are primarily predicated on a rational-scientific logic. I believe others are possible. on reason
[10] I generally consider myself to be an agnostic; also, an atheist - although this may depend on the definition attributed to the "the" part.
[11] I think absolute "knowing" is impossible but I don't know this and I think there are different definitions or understandings of "knowing" that may make this statement a little more complicated.
[12] Causing harm is not okay. Causing harm to stop greater harm is okay, but very difficult and challenging and must be evaluated carefully: harm to one may not be harm to another, delusions are possible. Who should evaluate what 'harm' is, is a big question...
[13] I tend to believe that people are inherently good. Those whose actions are not-good have likely been abused or poorly encultured or have somekind of biochemical(?) misconnection - such as a psychopath. I do not intend this position to be patronizing or self-righteous, but rather an admission of how I think I behave in the world - even though I'm not sure I can - or do - agree with this poistion philosopically. - Obviously something to think about here...
[14] I respect the positions of those who feel the foregoing position arises from a mistaken sense of the world on my part - especially when their position arises from their own experience, and especially when this experience involves some degee of discrimination or power disadvantage. I try to be open to hearing their stories and to subsequently re-evaluate my own position, but have not yet decided to alter my belief.
[15] I believe that I should give people the benefit of the doubt - especially those who appear to be disadvantaged by circumstance or position (agreeably, hard to determine). This arises from some attempt to re-balance imbalances.
[16] I respect (and in some cases support) actions on the part of others who do not want to give people the benefit of the doubt - especially when this arises from their own experience, and especially when the person is in a position of lesser power.
[17] I believe that learning about the range and diversity of motivations, reasons and values behind the behaviours of individuals and/or groups may lead to broader understanding and more tolerance for 'other' positions.
[18] Power imbalances are rife. The set of circumstances and capacities each of us are born into/with (whether 'chosen', 'given' or chance) are so far from equitable that any approach that fails to at least honestly attempt redress and/or compensation is unethical. However, this does not suggest or condone patronizing attempts to 'help' others without their consent and equal participation...
[19] Despite imbalances of power, I do not believe that the responsibility for current conditions arises only from the actions of a few special individuals and/or policies - although they may have considerable and definitely unequal influence. Rather, I believe that much arises from small, seemingly inconsequential actions of the not-particularly-influential multitudes. Multiplied synergistically the actions can manifest as traffic congestion, discrimination, water pollution, climate change... Unfortunately resolution is not as simple as demanding cessation of those small, inconsequential actions - for a variety of reasons. First, we lack the understanding about what to change and to what - too often, such presumptions have led to further problems. Second, the small, inconsequential actions are seldom such to the persons making them. Third, actions become systematized into concrete structures [that resist, or at least] make change difficult. My sense is that changing the latter requires deeper changes in convictions and values. While 'education' may facilitate such changes, it seems limited in its ability to manifest change, especially without context - such as a putting a personal 'face' on inequities - and support - such as from others who struggle with similar challenges and who subsequently have shared experiences and the potential for developing a collaborative front.
[20] I do not believe the simplistic notion that improved understanding and education will lead to more appropriate behaviour. Actions are also motivated by deeper convictions and values, as well the array of opportunities that exist. While I hold onto some hope that understanding and education will lead to change, I believe this must go hand-in-hand with deeper exploration of motivations, choices, opportunities.
[21] Discussion about what a 'better' world might be is a critical aspect of moving toward it. In particular, inquiry with respect to this question may provide a means for empowering, balancing, and/or re-balancing distributions of power, resources and opportunities among people - including actors and non-actors - in society.
[22] Actions are always ethical. I believe the potential to know the 'right' decision in most (if not all) circumstances is limited. This is especially the case in situations involving diverse values, complex interactions, and high risks. Potential for knowing what is right is limited by understanding and uncertainty, but also by lack of clarity regarding whose values should be applied in any particular circumstance.
[23] Respect begets respect and even if not, it is still the most appropriate means of interacting with others.
[24] It is important to facilitate fairness. In particular, there is a need for greater inclusion in, and more egalitarian approaches to research and inquiry as a means for empowering, balancing and/or re-balancing distributions of power, resources and opportunities among people.
[25] I tend to draw attention to similarities rather than differences. [note]
[26] I tend to play 'devil's advocate' often. I generally see this as a way of re-balancing imbalances - with regards to ideas and philosophies as well as with choices and actions.
most recent substantive revisions: 2005.12.11 (v.v. minor)
previoius substantive revisions: 2003.12.08
page created: 2003.11.30
2003 - 2007