Holism is what I am but what are you?
Holism or Reductionism? And the history behind Holism vs Reductionism. Which one are you? You decide for yourself.
Since I became a v/blogger I've noticed how oddly people would stare at me for my opinions and views as if I was some kind of oddball that did not suit ASL powerhouse or deaf powerhouse society. What were you thinking? They asked. Are you trying to drag us down or are you trying to tell us something? After seeing this again and again I made a decision to share the real me and the theory behind much of my v/blogs and point of views.
Holism is exactly what I am even though I'm still a student of Holism theory. Even after fifteen years of learning and practicing it I am still learning but I find myself teaching it more than ever before. It must have something to do with confidence, knowing I'm able to defend the term, Holism now than ever before. Regardless, Holism has proven to be very fruitful and effective for me including but not limited to how I manage and operate my business, investment strategies, family affairs, community and such.
In order to understand Holism it's necessary to compare wholeness with reductionism, that of parts and specialties. Over 2,300 years ago Aristotles said, "The whole is more than the sums of its parts". It was when he discovered holism theory but the term "Holism" was not born until 1926 when Jan Smuts gave the theory a name. He went on to publish a book called "Holism and Evolution". In 1983, Culcom, a research team from a University in England discovered that the modern studies (Universities and such) have moved too far in the direction of specialization. Henrik Sinding-Larsen of Culcom Research said, "Holism has been abandoned in studies of modern society".
The opposite of Holism is known as Reductionism. Reductionism is what we frequently witness coming from specialists such as professors, educators and such. They find Holism too difficult to comprehend and digest because they were trained in the studies of modern society, that of reductionism.
I know for a fact that Holism is what I am but what are you? It's a worthy question to ask in order to help us understand each other.
If Aristotle lived today, he might say this "The whole (ultimate reality) equally consists of both holism and reductionism."
ReplyDeleteBarry, its good to see you blogging once again as I cannot comment on DVTV.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're saying here makes absolute sense and holism is what is needed to unite the deaf community because the simple fact is that it is reductionism that divides it.
Hope this also means you are back to blogging a bit more often. I do enjoy watching your vlogs on DVTV too but the problem is that they do not allow text comments there.
It isn't that I can't sign cuz I do feel I can sign fluently but the thing is I do not have the time to watch every single one of those video comments and for me reading the text version of comments is significantly faster. Sixty comments that are lets say at least 2 minutes each would take me 2 hours whereas I could read 60 comments in a matter of minutes. Its the only reason why I do not want to register at DVTV.
But all in all, its good to see ya back in the blogosphere where I can actually comment ;)
It bugs me to no end when the suffix of the word holism and reductionism is not changed when the context of the sentence is changed.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you sign, " I am holism."? Should you sign "I am a holist."
It is a holistic perspective.
I practice reductionism and this is a redictionist view, etc.
The slight kink in grammar is bothersome. Me wrong?
Hi Barry.
ReplyDeleteCan you expand more on the definitions of holism, reductionism or specialization? Give an example or two? I'm not clear from your post. You say you are holism, but you have not clearly defined it other than quoting Aristotle. To better understand your sotry here, I would need more examples or references for those terms.
Thanks.
~ LaRonda
Hi Cnkatz,
ReplyDeleteIn fact Aristotle already considered reductionism to be part of the wholeness picture when he stated that the wholeness is greater than the parts. In short he's stating that even reductionism (parts) is part of the whole. This much was discussed in my vlog at deafvideo.tv.
Hey Valhallian! Great hearing from you again. I know I've been absent in deafread. It's largely because I've invested most of my time at deafvideo.tv where I felt I was most effective. And naturally I've been forced into semi-retirement at DVTV by Tayler who asked me to refrain from discussing DBC / AFA. But he says I'm allowed to talk about it here at DeafRead. With the new screen name I'm planning on (not promising anything here) including DeafRead with my upcoming vlogs. Looking forward to seeing your comments again. I've always enjoyed them.
ReplyDeleteI completely understand your reason for not using DVTV. It's perfectly reasonable so don't worry about it.
Regarding reductionism, I found it rather interesting to point out that reductionism is just by itself and has no value if Holism is not used. And yet, Holism represents the "whole" which tells me it includes reductionism. So, tell me which one is greater. Can't beat this argument.
Cheers!
Barry
NACPAC,
ReplyDeleteYou raised a valid question / argument. Should I have stated myself as holistic instead of holism?
In reality, I did not ask who I was but rather what I was. I picked my choice of words carefully in order to encourage people to keep their focus on the "theory" itself rather than "theory in action". It's important for the viewers to stay focused on the meaning of the theory in order to comprehend the logistic reasons for putting the theory into action. If I spoke of theory in action before I spoke of the theory itself first then it's my observation / opinion that the vlog would generate greater confusion. As it is evident in my vlog at DVTV it has generated great source of interest and healthy discussion. In short, my choice of words (purely tactical approach) worked. My goal has been accomplished. During the discussion we had under my vlog we discussed the difference between holism and holistic. People now understood the difference. I am Holism because I believe in the theory. I am holistic when I practice it and put the theory into action. Huge difference.
Barry
Hi LaRonda,
ReplyDeleteI sure can and will be glad to. Having been involved with holism theory for the past fifteen years I find it very difficult to summarize the theory into a 10 minutes video. In short, impossible! So you'll have to forgive me for not elaborating this theory further. Please understand that it was not done by choice.
The definition of holism is found in pretty much any dictionary so I'll leave it at that. After you read the dictionary's definition you will understand that reductionism has been declared as the opposition of Holism, which is the only reason I brought it up. It gave me something to compare with. The opposite of wholism is reductionism. The funny part is reductionism is only a part of the whole and yet the whole includes reductionism. The ultimate question here is, which is greater?
The answer is evidently clear and easy to produce. Next question is why only exercise reductionism if holism also includes it? Can't beat this argument.
And again Holism is strictly a theory, as in a tool. This tool is quite handy and can be applied into just about anything when we approach certain issues. In order to fully evaluate anything that you are interested in you will find it beneficial to use this tool because it'll produce wholeness view of every imaginable ways and help produce identifications on risks / consequences prior to your taking action. With the assistance of holism theory you'll feel very prepared and confident about what you're about to do as opposed to reductionism theory.
Let me know if it does not address your question.
Barry
Hi Barry.
ReplyDeleteWell, with all due respect, I'm not much clearer on the definition of "holism" from your response above either. Basically you have said, "holism" is something you have been practicing for a very long time, but it's too long for you to define in 10 mins and I'd better just go look it up. I can't help but chuckle. :)
Wouldn't the point of making a vlog on a topic be to clearly define the concept? Perhaps providing links or references might assist with the reader's journey if they wish to further explore what you mean. To me, your vlog left me more puzzled than clear.
What I got from it was that you have identified two separate terms in which you feel are oposite of one another, but I still don't know, as a reader/viewer, what they mean, or exactly what you are metaphorically using them to highlight or represent.
What I am able to gleen from your response above is that "reductionism" apparently means focusing only on parts, not the whole, and holism means the seeing the whole, which also includes the parts. Yet, I am no clearer on what or who you are referring to with these terms. What/who are the parts? What/who represents the whole?
As a reader/viewer, I am left to assume an awful lot from this post, which is kind of dangerous if you ask me. Just my 2 cents...
~ LaRonda
From your vlog, I have observed only ingredients for even further contemplation, or even, philosophizing. You have discussed their differences based on definitions that regard tendencies or characteristics of each side. This is merely an identification process. I will invite or acknowledge the fact that this may well be but an introduction to two approaches on ways of thinking, but even so, your delineation has offered only a rudimentary depiction. Here's some basic suggestions & hints to improve:
ReplyDelete1) The counterbalance forces for modes of thought are neither stated nor demonstrated, much less existing. The vlog provides only a basic "Thesis-Antithesis" argument; it does not show any of the "Synthesis" argument in order to make the entirety of the arguments "whole". By intent and wish to express a preference for holistic perspective, you have exhibited the opposite. This can only result in a contradiction with the rationale behind your argument.
2) Holism derives strength not from parts, but the sum of them. Reductionism derives strength not from the sum of parts, but the parts themselves. This is an erroneous line of thinking.
Reasons:
(A) Since, metaphorically to aid readers, a forest is the sum of trees. But the forest itself has a certain form of oneness--the forest is itself a section by and with the explicit nature of being the sum (of parts); it is thereby structured. Therefore, then, we observe this: the sum of the sum of the sum of the sum, and so on. This thinking is called fractal recursivity; this is either productive or unproductive in meaning-making process for any kind of philosophy.
(B) By virtue of the metaphorical analogy provided in (A), trees themselves can neither be of a single entity nor a group of an entity at all. Because the value that we supply a said entity, or entities, is -assigned-. This means we cannot come to fully and accurately determine a defined value on or of any entity, any thing, everywhere. How I picture or see a tree is not how you picture or see a tree. In other example by means of illustration, by virtue of talking about a cat between two individuals, the cat pictured in one's mind cannot be accurately pictured the same in the other's mind. This is one of few interesting phenomena that mathematicians (Riemann, Gauss, Frege) had come to discover that 2 plus 2 equals, in fact, 5. This is not because of the remainder that provides for the number 5, but rather, because of the exact defining of the prime number 2. In essence, the parts themselves can be arguably vague, therefore no sum can be made with a clear value; it would be only assigned.
There are many more methods to treat the line of thinking you presented in your vlog, but I think examples above suffice to warrant further discussion and departure from the expressed comparison.
-Eyefang
Hi LaRonda: Wikipedia also has a very interesting explanation of holism. It has a wide range of applications in the sciences, social as well as "hard" sciences. check it out at:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holistic
you can click the link about Reductionism in the same page. Reductionism also has a place in the sciences, but the trend is more towards systems thinking, e.g., holism.
Barry, thank you for your most interesting posts on this topic. FYI, LaRonda, Barry expands much further and in more detail about holism in his many replies to questions and comments at DeafVideo.tv.
Hi LaRonda: Wikipedia has a good, in-depth explanation of holism. check it out at:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holistic
Holism has many applications in the sciences, social as well as "hard" sciences. Reductionism also has had a place in science, but systems thinking seems to be on the rise.
Barry, thank you for your many interesting posts on this topic. FYI, LaRonda, there are many more comments and questions about holism at DeafVideo.tv.
To be or not to be, that's the question. I'm not quite sure how to define oneself in these two forked road you just laid out. That does not constitute my being as a confused individual. Overall, I welcome to new ideas and I savor the old ones.
ReplyDeleteNeverthesis, it's always good to see you!
-Sean
I discuss how your stance (Holistic versus Reductionist stance) determines how you approach the problem domain of Artificial General Intelligence at my blog http://monicasmind.com .
ReplyDeleteI am new to Holism....I don't have much understanding of Holism, I ask myself, Did Native Americans use this method of Holism?
ReplyDeleteYes David. When making reference to the Native Americans' spirituality or religion the term 'holism' is used. This much was confirmed in a book called "Terminilogy of Native Americans".
ReplyDeleteHolism builds on reductionism and is inclusive. Idealism is more the opposing ideaology.
ReplyDelete