Forgive me Boagie, I'm struggling to try and grasp what you're saying. After reading this through twice, I think I've got another piece of the puzzle (as to the extent of your original post).
Science has for sometime searched for that substance from which all things are made, ony to find that, under their microscopes what they see is form without substance, meaning I think that it is all energy. I doubt however for our purposes you could point to something in being and claim it is made out of a single substance, and then you have to consider the conditions under which it is in being, its context, just as there is no such thing as a closed system, so to there is no object/thing which is not supported by its context, a fish out of water is quite another thing than the fish in water.
Agree on the point of "form without substance" as well as considering all things within its own context. But I'll admit, I'm not sure I see how this supports "Everything is Relative".
Certainly if you wish to deny the relational nature of all things as entities, you cannot deny the relational nature of all things to their context. If indeed things were not relational, there would be no science of physics, for there would be nothing to decern.
Surely. All things, for whatever they're are
or whatever we define them to be
, are context-sensitive. Form changes, compositions mix, elements combine, interactions occur, environment influences and so on. With ya all the way here.
By defination there is no such thing as a closed system, thus comes the principle of relationalism, you could claim that all is one with the cosmos, but, the universe itself has not proved itself to be a closed system, it is still up for grabs.
I think I caught something here, let me rephrase and see if I've got what you're saying: Since all things (state, form, etc.) are dependent on context, it is in this way that all things can be considered to be relational <?>
I think the above weighs heavily in favour of a realtional worldview. What is the principle you would put forward in support of independant existence?
I'm not sure that'd be necessary. Can not some "thing" have an absolute form, content, composition, etc. as it really is, absent of our perceptions
-and- defined as is in its current context
? I couldn't, and don't think I would, try to say that anything has existence independent of its context. Again, I'm trying to see that connection you're drawing.
Thinking all this over, perhaps the postulate could be more accurately stated as: All things are relative to their context
. This is a statement I'd easily defend (and inspires important insights). But "All Things are Relative" is, to me, quite a bit more wide-ranging and says (to me, anyway) that "There is nothing that is
, everything is relative to whims, ideas, my wife's pot-roast, and anything else one could come up with."
I hope this makes some sense; it did to me when I wrote it