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

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,..

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

you really do have to inclued function or forget about dialogue

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

Hi Billy,

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

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,

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.