The Phenomenology of Perception (Merleau-Ponty) (https://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/?get_group_doc=26/1357000136-PhenomenologyofPerception.pdf) is not easy reading. If one is interested in the phenomena of consciousness, worldviews and ‘being’ then give it a go. Here is an introductory quote for interest (p. xxi)
‘Should the starting point for the understanding of history be ideology, or politics, or religion, or economics? Should we try to understand a doctrine from its overt content, or from the psychological make-up and the biography of its author? We must seek an understanding from all these angles simultaneously, everything has meaning, and we shall find this same structure of being underlying all relationships’.
A wonderful statement about the nature of transdisciplinarity (https://safetyrisk.net/transdisciplinarity-and-worldviews-in-risk/ ).
The reason why we differ in views from each other is because of starting points and origins, not because someone intentionally adopts some contrary view just to piss you off. The many undeclared assumptions driven by origins determine difference. And so this leads us to the way we understand risk, safety and methodology in tackling problems, especially wicked problems. I demonstrate these differences in my table of Schools of Safety (https://safetyrisk.net/a-great-comparison-of-risk-and-safety-schools-of-thought/ ).
In so much of what we discuss we rarely seek definitions or common understandings about origins. Then when we project that the other is stupid or lacks common sense (https://safetyrisk.net/the-common-sense-fallacy/ ) what we really mean is that the other doesn’t match our worldview.
Everything we do is historical and will be understood differently because of our worldview, even though we have all experienced the same event eg. coronavirus. How we retell and recall that event will vary according to our worldview and our phenomenology of perception.
If we wish to understand or create a transdisciplinary understanding then we need to ‘walk a mile in someone else’s shoes’, study their ideas/discipline or have experienced similar origins. To step out of one’s discipline requires a transdisciplinary approach. This can only come about when one wishes to learn or engage another and learn of the other intentionally and phenomenology of perception. All perception is constructed, there is no objective position.
I did not come into the industry of safety through safety rather, I engaged with the world of safety through disciplines of: Education, Learning, Teaching, Social Work, Theology, Ministry, Community Work, Counselling, Corrections, Building and Construction, Public Service and, Not-for-profit organisations. I grew up in a fundamentalist religious denomination in a clergy household and so from these origins that I construct my worldview, just as you construct yours from your history. I entered the world of safety in both study and experience in 2003. Undertaking a Masters in OHS was a painful experience and compared to all previous study seemed so backward. As Rob Sams rightly states, OHS is ‘a study in objects’. It is from this worldview that I developed the Social Psychology of Risk (SPoR).
If you want to learn about the SPoR worldview, practical outworking’s and how SPoR affects risk and safety then, you can register for the free online module offered here: https://safetyrisk.net/off-to-a-flying-start-in-learning-with-cllr/