Context Defines A Relational World View

[boagie]

Nameless,

Yes I do think in your philosophy you have left function out, the difference between a relational world view and that of a world view based upon the rights and privilages of the individual are striking, they are both systems formed from a general mythology but this mythology of the individual is in my opinion, not a healthy worth while functional mythology. It is much like trying to insist that a closed system is a reasonable premise, there is nothing in the world that does not have its being through its relations. Consider what you might, consider it in isolation and it is NOT. I think we can all agree the ultimate reality is beyond us, that is why it is called the ultimate reality as apposed to apparent reality. So we use our knowledge of apparent reality to deal with apparent reality, there really is no other choice fellows, at the days end you really do have to inclued function or forget about dialogue.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Billy

I know nameless refuses to accept he ever is in any position, and never holds a philosophical position, has no momentary perspecitve.

You "know" no such thing. You make assertions from your imagination (ignorance), and you 'project'! What is your hardon for getting personal about? Are you in love with me? Are you unable to deal with (examine critically) the words/concepts as offered? Is 'getting personal' your default position for lack of critical thought on the subject at hand? If you want to get personal, why not find a 'soulmate/dating/personal' forum/site. Philosophy is not about personalities and ad-hom assumptions, it is about critical thought on specific concepts/topics.
In case you have not been paying attention, as I have clearly stated many times, I am Perspective ('I' do not 'have' Perspective, that 'I' would be ego); we all are Perspective. But, here, with you, I'm probably pi$$ing into the wind... so...
Happy trails

[nameless]

Originally Posted by boagie

Nameless,

Yes I do think in your philosophy you have left function out, the difference between a relational world view and that of a world view based upon the rights and privilages of the individual are striking,..

I'm sorry, but as from this Perspective, "rights" are fantasy, and it would pointless for me to discuss what, for me, does not exist.

there is nothing in the world that does not have its being through its relations.

That is what I said, existence is contextual.

you really do have to inclued function or forget about dialogue

Really? What is 'function' when/if there is no possible 'motion' (other than as a trick of Perspective)? We can no longer discuss? There are mathematicians and physicists who find 'motion' to be impossible. They, somehow, also, are able to discuss things. They, also, dialogue. Although 'operating from a 'temporal' Perspective, they/we do not 'believe' the sensory illusions. The evidence speaks louder to us, perhaps.
We 'function' in dreams, yet the 'lucid' know, nontheless, that it is a 'dream'.
Happy trails

[boagie]

Nameless,

I think you need to lighten up, so someone does not understand your position, it is a rather rare one, one that inhibits dialogue to many topics. As I have said in another post, I think your philosophy has not considered the problem of function. At anyrate, it does not matter what I think or do not think, just keep it civil. I do not believe that Billy meant any disrespect.

[boagie]

Namless,

So what is the ultimate conclusion from this philosophy of yours, is then nothing happening, if so, there is nothing to talk about is there. If you can clarify how one is to dialogue on the topic instead of your philosophic process I would be most greatful.

[Billy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Billy,

I sometimes wonder how you guys find your way home at night, in posting this topic I intended to speak of the relations between people that compose community and the lack of the recognition of those necessary relations in a world view focused upon the individual. The typical western hero has no relations, no sign of mother, father, brothers or sisters he is a loner, perhaps hatched, an ill conceived role model that spells alienation, an unhealthy world view.

Perhaps you mistake me for an individualist simply because I recognize both as PERSPECTIVES or worldviews.

While the Western hero has no relations, the typical Westerner does have relations. ALbeit, like the worldview of the individual therapist, focusing on things they imagine to be "inside" themselves and others rather than BETWEEN me and you.

The Western individualist worldview is associated with eudaimonism, a focus on SELF-actualization, whereas the Eastern relational worldview is associated with deontology, or putting the good of the group ahead of the individual.

There was a good NYTimes Op-Ed about this very topic while the Olympics were happening, hopefully I can find it.

Your revulsion for the individualist worldview (and Ayn Rand?) is admirable. If you are in fact a Westerner, how do you explain your outcome as countercultural?

Billy

Billy

[nameless]

Originally Posted by boagie

Namless,
So what is the ultimate conclusion from this philosophy of yours,

I do not see things the way that you do. My understandings, moment to moment, have no 'conclusions', understanding is different from moment to moment.. 'Death' is the "ultimate conclusion"! (as far as we are concerned, anyway)

is then nothing happening,

No, nothing happens; 'things' are.

if so, there is nothing to talk about is there.

If you have no 'desire' to discuss sommething, why are you wasting our time in this unpleasant fashion. Why not simply ignore me rather than repeat that you have nothing to say, no comment, on what i have offered. No harm, no foul. I seem to have plenty to talk about, and there are those who have no problem discussing what I present. As it is so 'unusual' they more ask questions in an attempt to understand where i'm comming from, and others, for one reason or another, have no comment. I understand.

If you can clarify how one is to dialogue on the topic instead of your philosophic process I would be most greatful.

"My philosophic process" is critically thoughtful examination applied to the 'interesting' subjects at hand. If I don't find something sufficiently intriguing, I will usually keep my mouth shut.
See? See how "my philosophic process" might enhance, rather than detract from, "dialogueing on the topic".
I don't know what your specific problem is, but if an alternative Perspective disturbs you so, I'm willing to simply leave your thread. I have already said all that I must.
oh, didnt see this;

Originally Posted by boagie

Nameless,

I think you need to lighten up, so someone does not understand your position, it is a rather rare one, one that inhibits dialogue to many topics. As I have said in another post, I think your philosophy has not considered the problem of function. At anyrate, it does not matter what I think or do not think, just keep it civil. I do not believe that Billy meant any disrespect.

Blah, blah.. no personal problem here, obviously.
What you 'think' or 'believe' or not is irrelevent to me.
This whole thing stinks and I'll leave you to it.
Enjoy.
Good day.

[nameless]

............................

[Khethil]

Yea, right, ok...

I saw this thread a long time ago and given the way I read the title, pretty much dismissed it. Then I see this wonderfully-cordial exchange while reading new posts. ... so I went back to see what all the hubbub was about. I read all the links, re-read the replies, got a cup of coffee, referred back to the linked material, tried to draw some correlations, analyzed a few replies, got another cup of coffee, think I've got a hold on it and here I am.

What I read, and within the context of my understanding I can't say I'd disagree with almost any of it. It strikes me much like other things I've learned - wherein one reads, says "Yea, no problem... so?" and I kept looking-for-the beef. Then it occurred to me is not so much how these views or formulated, or upon which they're based (which, again, seems quite reasonable), but the implications therein.

... and now I see, or think I see, the first post and how it relates back to native cultural lifestyles and the dichotomy between said cultures. How might contentment, with one's life, be enhanced with a mindset that acknowledges balance and relation to all things (and people!) within ones' sphere of experience.

To me, the highest-impacting implication of this view lies in our relation to the natural world. Is it (that "thing) an object (S-O) that exists for our befuddlement to control, shape and change, or is that a "thing" that we are related to; shall we both play our roles? Shall we dance or dominate. Are we to see all things as existing FOR us, or WITH us. Further, it strikes a cord of truth that life's interactions are much more a balancing and compensatory flow than linear.

There's much about this I've still to think through. But I sense that herein exists a way of looking at our world that has HUGE potential for peace of mind (read: relations) while potentially relieving frustration (read: conflict).

*puts his thinking cap back on*

Thanks for the post.

EDIT: Ego -vs- Harmony, Dominance -vs- Cooperation, We -vs- The ME. Good stuff maynard!

[boagie]

Khethil;

Not bad Khethil not bad at all --excellent!! When one fully realizes the implications of the differing world views, it seems little wonder that through this individual world view our times are said to be the age of alienation. The focus on the individual however is not all bad, certainly is has lead to a freedom of the movement of the individual within society, probable not available in some other cultures. It is however a saner approach to life this relational world view, and it is unfortunate that we as a people have become so enstranged to the nature of reality, the nature of our own being.