Context Defines A Relational World View

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

boagie
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 07:00 pm
@nameless,
Nameless,Smile

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.:eek:
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 07:06 pm
@Billy phil,
Billy;26972 wrote:
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
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 07:17 pm
@boagie,
boagie;26975 wrote:
Nameless,Smile

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.

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

That is what I said, existence is contextual.

Quote:
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
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 07:23 pm
@nameless,
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
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 07:31 pm
@nameless,
Namless,Smile

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 phil
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 08:53 pm
@boagie,
boagie;26974 wrote:
Billy,Smile

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
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 10:47 pm
@boagie,
boagie;26981 wrote:
Namless,Smile
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)

Quote:
is then nothing happening,

No, nothing happens; 'things' are.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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;
boagie;26980 wrote:
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
 
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 10:50 pm
@boagie,
............................
 
Khethil
 
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2008 06:22 am
@nameless,
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
 
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2008 07:15 am
@Khethil,
Khethil;Smile

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.
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2008 07:40 am
@Billy phil,
Hi Billy, Smile

Adressing your first statement, it was stated from the outset that these are both world views very much in operation today, but, they are in conflict, the way I see it.

I am a westerner, and it is not so much a hostility towards the cult, or mythology of the individual it is a realization that it enstranges us from others and alienates us from the environment in which we live. The relational world view is just a more reasonable approach to life. Just as there is no such thing as a closed system so to there is no such thing as an utterly autonomous individual. The implications of context defines along with a relational world view is profound, the relations you have with your environment, your experience, is the stuff of which ones identity is composed, as experience of the relations to context defines you.




Web resources on consciousness, philosophy, and such



BreakingBreaking of U-boat Enigma, saving battle of the Atlantic of U-boat Enigma, saving battle of the Atlantic
 
Billy phil
 
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2008 07:21 pm
@boagie,
boagie;26998 wrote:
Khethil;Smile

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.


Boagie and Khethil,

I'm not an individualist, but Ayn Rand and her ilk find individualism very fulfilling.

Is it dogma when you claim supremacy of one cultural view over another?
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2008 07:32 pm
@Billy phil,
Billy wrote:
Boagie and Khethil,

I'm not an individualist, but Ayn Rand and her ilk find individualism very fulfilling.

Is it dogma when you claim supremacy of one cultural view over another?


Billy,Smile

I am not up on Aye Rand, however a dogma is a doctrine present as authority without proof. These world views are of a very practical nature and it is up to the individual to discern which of these process is the more intelligent mode to live by. If you chose the mythology of the individual, then you deny the supporting relations of environment and community to a large extent, this is simply not real smart, besides being unhealthy.
 
Billy phil
 
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2008 07:56 pm
@boagie,
boagie;27059 wrote:
Billy,Smile

I am not up on Aye Rand, however a dogma is a doctrine present as authority without proof. These world views are of a very practical nature and it is up to the individual to discern which of these process is the more intelligent mode to live by. If you chose the mythology of the individual, then you deny the supporting relations of environment and community to a large extent, this is simply not real smart, besides being unhealthy.


OK, I'm going to let you have this thread, but a world view is just that, a PERSPECTIVE.
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2008 07:59 pm
@Billy phil,
Billy wrote:
OK, I'm going to let you have this thread, but a world view is just that, a PERSPECTIVE.


Billy,

Of course it is a perspective, as I said it is up to the individual to decide which is the most intelligent perspective to live by.
 
Billy phil
 
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 12:31 am
@boagie,
boagie;26999 wrote:
Hi Billy, Smile

Adressing your first statement, it was stated from the outset that these are both world views very much in operation today, but, they are in conflict, the way I see it.

I am a westerner, and it is not so much a hostility towards the cult, or mythology of the individual it is a realization that it enstranges us from others and alienates us from the environment in which we live. The relational world view is just a more reasonable approach to life. Just as there is no such thing as a closed system so to there is no such thing as an utterly autonomous individual. The implications of context defines along with a relational world view is profound, the relations you have with your environment, your experience, is the stuff of which ones identity is composed, as experience of the relations to context defines you.




Web resources on consciousness, philosophy, and such



BreakingBreaking of U-boat Enigma, saving battle of the Atlantic of U-boat Enigma, saving battle of the Atlantic


both world views very much in operation today, but, they are in conflict: AGREED

enstranges us from others and alienates us from the environment in which we live: I don't buy this. Prove it.

The relational world view is just a more reasonable approach to life. Just as there is no such thing as a closed system so to there is no such thing as an utterly autonomous individual: Might you also agree there is no such thing as an utterly relational individual? Your supremacist attitude shows ["just a more reasonable approach to life."], which may suggest you are not as relational as you'd like to be
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 09:26 am
@Billy phil,
Billy wrote:
both world views very much in operation today, but, they are in conflict: AGREED

enstranges us from others and alienates us from the environment in which we live: I don't buy this. Prove it.

The relational world view is just a more reasonable approach to life. Just as there is no such thing as a closed system so to there is no such thing as an utterly autonomous individual: Might you also agree there is no such thing as an utterly relational individual? Your supremacist attitude shows ["just a more reasonable approach to life."], which may suggest you are not as relational as you'd like to be


Billy,

I am afraid I do not understand your interpretation of my statements, do you honestly believe that there exists an individual or even a thing which has absolutely no relations? "I don't buy this prove it" All right, the world as object, it is the relation between the world as object and you as subject that creates apparent reality, that should give you an idea of just how fundamental this relational concept is. WHITE POWDER ----------- Please!!
 
Billy phil
 
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 02:09 pm
@boagie,
boagie;27102 wrote:
Billy,

I am afraid I do not understand your interpretation of my statements, do you honestly believe that there exists an individual or even a thing which has absolutely no relations? "I don't buy this prove it" All right, the world as object, it is the relation between the world as object and you as subject that creates apparent reality, that should give you an idea of just how fundamental this relational concept is. WHITE POWDER ----------- Please!!


Wow!

The problem with philosophy is that we haven't tacked down our words and concepts. Are you sugggesting all the West (who you see as not relational) have no relations??! Having relationships is not sufficient to give you a relational world view, or everyone would be relational, and there would be no other points on this dimension.

The individualists relate to the world as an object--that's why they abuse it.

The more relational Native peoples and those of the East relate to the world as family, which is why they nurture it.

Just because there is another object in the universe besides Ayn Rand, doesn't make her a relationalist.http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/smilies/poke-eye.gif
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 02:31 pm
@Billy phil,
Billy,

Actually I am not sure we are in disagreement here, certainly everyone has many many relation to the context or environment around them. It is just that the mythologies we entertain tend to structure our mentality and determine our thoughts, actions and beliefs. If the mythology is in conflict with the nature of the world/environment thus structuring society then we are in trouble. I do not know why you insist on interjecting this Ayn Rand, it may be relative to the topic but is little aid seeing as I have never read her. The topic of the thread is, "Context Defines, A Relational World View", the fact that context does define even to the extent of supplying ones identity is a most important point, as to why we should consciously be aware in the form of a relational world view. The sense of adequate relations, of being a part, belonging, is the opposite of that sense of lonelyness which is so profound in this society, alone in a crowd, it is a devastating phenomena.
 
Billy phil
 
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 03:28 pm
@boagie,
boagie;27125 wrote:
Billy,

Actually I am not sure we are in disagreement here, certainly everyone has many many relation to the context or environment around them. It is just that the mythologies we entertain tend to structure our mentality and determine our thoughts, actions and beliefs. If the mythology is in conflict with the nature of the world/environment thus structuring society then we are in trouble. I do not know why you insist on interjecting this Ayn Rand, it may be relative to the topic but is little aid seeing as I have never read her. The topic of the thread is, "Context Defines, A Relational World View", the fact that context does define even to the extent of supplying ones identity is a most important point, as to why we should consciously be aware in the form of a relational world view. The sense of adequate relations, of being a part, belonging, is the opposite of that sense of lonelyness which is so profound in this society, alone in a crowd, it is a devastating phenomena.


You are a suprematist or orthodox because you beleive your mythology is the one which is NOT in conflict wiht the NATURE of the world/environment. That conflicts with the whole idea of world view, which is an acknowledgement that wv is a PERSPECTIVE, none more accurate than another.

The relational wv acknowledges context defines our identity. This morning my friend was telling his dog to stop digging, and the dog kept digging. I (non-relationally) said "your dog doesn't listen." a more relational person said "his owner is unpersuasive." a still more relational person would actually look at the relational space rather than at either my friend or the dog, and make a statement about that. This is the foundation of systems family therapy, wherein there is no problem inside a person, only between.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/28/2024 at 12:08:31