Context Defines A Relational World View

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Billy

Of course! Increasing production of material goods creates greater harmony of peoples and nations, and stabilty of the human psyche.

When people are hungry, their psyche is unstable.

When people see the next nation with lots of material goods while they themselves are lacking, there's less harmony of people and nations.

Billy,

The present ever increasing of production along with an ever increasing population is unsubstainable, thus, the relation of humanity to the earth is not in balance and well lead to disaster. Do you believe there is a balance to nature, that is a relation, a most important one but it is one relation, a healthy individual cannot be heathy without relational support, man is a social animal thus, he requires society, nothing can be considered in isolation, much least an individual, and it is unreasonable to pass judgement on an individual without considering the relational context of his actions. Relations spell health or illness physcial and mental. It is true there is no revolution of the people when they have full stomachs, but all industry is dependent upon the environment, and ones relation to it, it is just irresposible/unrealistic to not consider ones relations to others/commmunity and the physical world in general, thus, a relational world view is a highly rational world view.

[Billy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Billy,

The present ever increasing of production along with an ever increasing population is unsubstainable, thus, the relation of humanity to the earth is not in balance and well lead to disaster. Do you believe there is a balance to nature, that is a relation, a most important one but it is one relation, a healthy individual cannot be heathy without relational support, man is a social animal thus, he requires society, nothing can be considered in isolation, much least an individual, and it is unreasonable to pass judgement on an individual without considering the relational context of his actions. Relations spell health or illness physcial and mental. It is true there is no revolution of the people when they have full stomachs, but all industry is dependent upon the environment, and ones relation to it, it is just irresposible/unrealistic to not consider ones relations to others/commmunity and the physical world in general, thus, a relational world view is a highly rational world view.

Boagie,

Simply considering one's relations to another does not make one relational. Hitler's bad relation with those he genocided was probably a frequent consideration for both Hitler and those about to be genocided. It did neither much good that I can see.

I grew up near a Bethlehem Steel Plant that occupied the town's WHOLE shore of Lake Erie. Houses for a mile could hardly bother to keep cleaning their windows. They literally killed Lake Erie in the 1960s and 1970s, and polluted the air. They paid fines daily for this, which were well worth the price of doing business. That was their relation to the Earth and the Community, which was constantly made a consideration for them. It made little difference that I can tell.

Ralph Nader makes a difference in a thousand ways, the multitude of legislation he spearheaded, still in effect today, is Ralph relational?

You're relational, are you treating the environment any better than me?

As for the environment, Thomas Friedman in today's NYTimes (p. 10 Opinions) quotes Rob Watson, head of EcoTech International: "Mother nature is just chemistry, biology and physics. That's all she is. And because of that, says Rob, you cannot spin Mother Nature. You cannot sweet talk her, and you cannot ignore her. She;s going to do with the climate whatever chemistry, biology and physics dictate. And Mother Nature always bats last, and she always bats a thousand.

So Boagie, do you enjoy tying up your Mother Nature with ashphalt ribbons, raping her for natural resources? Do you drive on those ashphalt ribbons? Use electricity? burn fossil fuels? Is that the relational way?

Billy

[boagie]

Billy,

I have not the remotes idea how you descerned what you have said, out of my previous post. Sorry Billy, again we are just not on the same wave length. good luck!!

[Billy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Billy,

The present ever increasing of production along with an ever increasing population is unsubstainable, thus, the relation of humanity to the earth is not in balance and well lead to disaster. Do you believe there is a balance to nature, that is a relation, a most important one but it is one relation, a healthy individual cannot be heathy without relational support, man is a social animal thus, he requires society, nothing can be considered in isolation, much least an individual, and it is unreasonable to pass judgement on an individual without considering the relational context of his actions. Relations spell health or illness physcial and mental. It is true there is no revolution of the people when they have full stomachs, but all industry is dependent upon the environment, and ones relation to it, it is just irresposible/unrealistic to not consider ones relations to others/commmunity and the physical world in general, thus, a relational world view is a highly rational world view.

OK then, you're just a pessimist about the future, and what you say here has nothing to do with a relational worldview.

On a separate note, when you say: "it is unreasonable to pass judgement on an individual without considering the relational context of his actions," are you suggesting revising the Federal sentencing guidelines on crime to give drug lords a break if, considering the relational context of his actions, it is indicated?

billy

[boagie]

We just are not rationally connecting Billy, as simple as that!

[Billy]

Originally Posted by boagie

We just are not rationally connecting Billy, as simple as that!

You're the one who talked of passing judgement without considering the relational context of his actions, in YOUR thread about the relational worldview.

I might think you'd be able to elaborate on what that comment meant.

Billy

[boagie]

Billy,

It is simply unreasonable to judge someone, in the negative in particular without knowning the context of their actions. Now killing someone is judged generally to be the worst of offenses, but, if the context of that killing is a war, the judgement might be that the subject is heroic and killing the enemy is a virtue.

[Billy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Billy,

It is simply unreasonable to judge someone, in the negative in particular without knowning the context of their actions. Now killing someone is judged generally to be the worst of offenses, but, if the context of that killing is a war, the judgement might be that the subject is heroic and killing the enemy is a virtue.

Excellent.

And as far as can be determined, those with both a relational world view and those without, and the cultures behind each, all consider the context of war in judging killers.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Billy

Excellent.

And as far as can be determined, those with both a relational world view and those without, and the cultures behind each, all consider the context of war in judging killers.

Billy,

Yes it is the degree of the focus of the understanding on the context/environment and a subjects dependence upon the relations that support his life. With the mythology of the individual as the all important, though it has it positive side, its is alienating, denying the need of those supportive relations. Like many western heros that are portrayed in the movies they are not human, and yet they are entirely altruistic, this is not a reasonable role model. To judge anything, anybody, out of context is not reasonable------considered it in isolation and it is NOT.

[Billy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Billy,

Yes it is the degree of the focus of the understanding on the context/environment and a subjects dependence upon the relations that support his life. With the mythology of the individual as the all important, though it has it positive side, its is alienating, denying the need of those supportive relations. Like many western heros that are portrayed in the movies they are not human, and yet they are entirely altruistic, this is not a reasonable role model. To judge anything, anybody, out of context is not reasonable------considered it in isolation and it is NOT.

Most Americans, you'd agree, do not share your relational worldview. Yet we experience no alienation, and we don't deny the need of supportive relations. I'll bet there are more "support groups" per capita in America than anywhere else on Earth.

Western heros certainly are human. Do you insist there's only one way to be human?

And again, even though Americans are not relational, we consider context in judging a person. It seems that in calling Western heros NOT human, you are the one judging without consideration of that heros context. You are the one who is less relational.

Here's a poem by a relational extremist:

Even after all this time
The sun never says to the earth,
"You owe me."

Look what happens
With a love like that -

It lights the whole world.
- Hafiz