- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particularism — Wiki
- Epistemological particularism, one of the answers to the problem of the criterion in epistemology
- Historical particularism, an approach in anthropology
- Moral particularism, the view that there are no universal moral principles
- Multicultural particularism, the belief that a common culture for all people is either undesirable or impossible
- Political particularism, the politics of group identity that trumps universal rights
- Religious particularism, name given to the phenomenon of Americanism in the apostolic letter Testem benevolentiae nostrae
Although particularists are types of ‘people’ in the politically described (masses) in politics itself, they have zero power against the elite educated power brokers – BUT each individual carries the ultimate power and powerlessness.
Logic spells Lodge IC (I See), if you are confused about where your HOME is you could be using logic to look toward the “wrong home”, as in not your true home.
Political particularists are ‘quite’ specific on their politics.
Think if you looked at your car, house or body that way – you would have trouble moving around or assembling your projects. If you focus on a specific of your car you will not be able to use it as a ‘car. Same with your house or body.
As a larger group of people sharing space and desire for peace – we can focus on particularism but it will cause the focus on our true or overall nature to fade and suffer.
Mirrored from: Ethics Explainer: Particularism
ARTICLE BIG THINKERS + EXPLAINERS
BY THE ETHICS CENTRE 25 MAY 2021
“This methodology has led to the development of many grand unifying ethical systems; frameworks that offer answers to the zoomed-out question “what is it right to do everywhere?”. Some emphasize maximizing value; others doing your duty, perfecting your virtue, or acting with love and care. Despite their different answers, all these approaches start from the same question: what is the correct system of ethics?
One striking feature of this mode of ethical enquiry is how little it has agreed on over 4,000 years. Great thinkers have been wondering about ethics for at least as long as they have wondered about mathematics or physics, but unlike mathematicians or natural scientists, ethicists do not count many more principles as ‘solid fact’ now than their counterparts did in Ancient Greece.
Particularists say this shows where ethics has been going wrong. The hunt for the correct system of ethics was doomed before it set out: by the time we ask “what’s the right thing to do everywhere?”, we have already made a mistake.
According to a particularist, the reason we cannot settle which moral system is best is that these grand unifying moral principles simply do not exist.
There is no such thing as a rule or a set of principles that will get the right answer in all situations. What would such an ethical system be – what would it look like; what is its function? So that when choosing between this theory or that theory we could ask ‘how well does it match what we expect of an ethical system?’. ”
Mutualism is not possible here – only the attempt of it.
Specificity and Particularism – Rule the Day with the Mind
Experiences as Human/Earth/Life are about agreements on particularism and specificity and is set to lean away from and ignore the true nature in all things. No Minds are independent as all share one group mind shared by people and the Earth itself. Each individual has the capacity to prove he is All and Nothing, at once – pure wisdom and total awareness without time or movement.
All mutual agreements agree to conflict continuing therefor bring us back to conflict and never ending cycles of death and rebirth. The fact Earth-Thera-Heart is a challenge is self fulfilling and evidenced, moment by moment and era by era. Time to wake up and turn toward our true nature and away from specificity and particularism.
Ultimately all the various ‘particular’ and ‘logic for everyone’ camps have found all the proof, evidence and testimony/witness they comfortably need, to hold their positions steadfastly. This means to the larger group that – this constructed system of decision making is either wrong or wrong in it’s format.
Since we have between 4,000 and 20,000 years of experience trying – we can objectively reason that the format is designed to be a challenge and conflict based. Logic would lend that is is for a purpose and that Humanity and individual human beings are intimately and most focusedly engaged and obligated to lean forward toward what the prize is – total awareness, wisdom and all and nothing, at once.