Boagie, did you know that the word 'religion' stems from re-'legare', to 'connect/join/bind/unite' (Latin) i.e. to relate?
Think of the world as content. Content is meaningless without context. The interplay between the two for an individual is the relation of one being to the world.
Context Defines A Relational World View
Context defines existence (all worlds).
Existence without context is not possible.
For anything to exist, there must be 'other' to compare/define it.
nameless;24662 wrote:For anything to exist, there must be 'other' to compare/define it.
while of course true,
nameless holds a linear worldview and an individualist philosophical position.
The S-O worldview is not more true nor more false than the relational worldview.
No, nameless does not. Incorrect on both counts. (If you had read any three of my posts you'd have known.)
My actual view of existence is that all moments of existence, ever, are synchronously arising, Now! (And immediately self-anihilate.)
Every universe in Complete in and of itself, One; every apparent 'part' is essentially one and the same as the perceived universe. I and that perceived by this Perspective are One.
I hold no 'philosophical position', but at the moment of disclosure. There might be another Perspective in another moment, in relation to the new universe perceived in/as that new moment. That does not qualify as a 'position'.
Perhaps before making such a presumptuous (and erroneous) assertion, if you are interested what I might think, feel free to ask me.
No Perspective is more true or false than another, but to the 'local' egoPerspective.
All Perspectives are 'correct'/true/reality within the context of that Perspective.
All Perspectives are unique.
Sorry. I should have said: At the moment of this disclosure, you held that position [if i read you correctly]
I hold no positions. To 'hold a position', one must 'choose' to do so, despite all odds and further 'information'. If I see something one way one moment, and see it similarly, another, there is no 'me' 'holding' onto anything. The 'me' to whom you refer would have to be ego, which holds onto things desperately. I think and evaluate often. New moments bring new universes which bring new data that brings, sometimes, a completely different 'world-view', a completely different universe (the one you are in at the moment).
Have you never declared that 'everything that you have believed is a lie'?
It (a position) is a 'posture', something to defend.
Looking back at my previous posts, one can see a complete reversal of some concepts. I enjoy 'transformation'. There is uniquely different universe every moment. To "hold a position" well might be to 'miss it'!
So, if we can deal with concepts here, rather than 'perceived personalities', i would appreciate it. If you wish to know how I feel about something, at the moment, just ask; assumptions will be overwhelmingly incorrect, guaranteed.
(Unless you wish to define "holding a position" as 'anything that you might be thinking at the moment'... But that would not be any definition that works in 'this' world.)
I hold no positions, have nothing to defend, am selling nothing, I am member of no 'club', espouse no one's thoughts but my own, and they are all tentative and and change with the universes.
"To imagine 'relations' one must first imagine 'seperation'. Simple 'definition' precludes all that."
Nameless, for all practicality upon your own definations, why are you not silent?
(I'm assuming that you are not hinting that I should 'shut-up'! *__- )
I am not silent, 'because' I speak/write. There is no 'why'.
As "In Silence, Truth!", I never claimed to speak 'truth', I never claimed to 'know' ("...who knows doesn't speak") either, I just offer honest words.
Sometimes a reply might actually 'inspire' thought. There is no 'why', it is just, at the moment, how I am, this nature...
If I had any 'choice' in the matter, I would most definitely be silent! Maybe... Sometimes... Perhaps...
Well the dialogue has gotten a little abstract and personal I think, not that it is invalid. My intent in posting a topic of a relational world view is to clearify that it is a much saner approach to living ones life. The present world view in north america is of the individual, it has its positive as well as negative side. Mostly the individual world view I think is one of alienation, the strong silent type hero that comes out of nowhere to save the day, he arrives on the scene without any relational support whatsoever, and this we are supposed to use as a model of how we should be. :No man is an island unto himself", yet, this is exactly what modern society is telling you to be. There is some logic here I think, for the individual in this society is told the he lives in a community when indeed what he lives in is an impersonal conglomerate. Just as there is no such thing as a closed system, so to there is nothing, including the individual, the can survive utterly alone. The nature of all reality is relational, thus this mythology of the individual is not only unhealthy it is unnatural. Perhaps not unatural, as any and all things in existence are necessarily natural, but, certainly this mythology of the individual is less than desireable, less than a healthy context in which to flourish.
Sorry my intent was not to offend, but often after reading your input one could come to the conclusion that it is quite impossiable to discuss anything, to have all possiable perspectives in a given moment is just not possiable.
The practicality of a relational world view verses that of the individual world view is pretty grounded stuff.
Is it your intention to state that it is pointless to discuss such matters?
I know nameless refuses to accept he ever is in any position, and never holds a philosophical position, has no momentary perspecitve. YOu Boagie, on the other hand, reify your relational "position" as if it were a truth, a reality, rather than a position, perspective. A position/perspective does not diminish anything.
In psychology, individualists see pathology residing "inside" individuals, whereas the collectivist family therapists see problems only related to circular causality, between people rather than inside.