Relationism

[Deleted member 16771]

In-itself versus no in-itself?

Substance versus no substance. I guess insubstantiality would have been less confusing ^^

Gotcha, you need to explain your terms, dude. This is a lay audience.

 

[Daustus]

I make up my own terms all the time and I wonder why no one gets my humor.

 

[jn56uytrx]

I think the debate is more about substantiality vs asubstantiality.

Yes, for me at least, I think this is the perceptual transition I am wrestling with.

There is a seeming "me." Yet, is that a thing of substance? In either case, nature vs. nurture may be concepts to be explored, because that seems to be one way of understanding a reflective nature of existence. Yet, it definitely seems to be a "yes" to both, in a way, if one goes with a oneness perspective...or maybe it's actually more of a "not relevant?"

Back to wrestling....

Carry on.

Every contribution adds to the reflection. (<-----see what I did there?), so thank you for the thoughts.

 

[Ifur]

What the fuck is that?

Not sure if I can help, but as a corrolary, antisocial and asocial can be differentiated by anti having a hostile attiude and not having a social need outside of the imediately personal.
The asocial in contrast is not hostile, but rather indifferent outside of personal concerns, whereby antisocial have a low treshold to do long term harm and hurting more than one other person for personal gain.
Narcisim and antisocial can sometimes be difficult to distinguish due to extroverted and introverted attitudes!

In the latter cases, I can't help outside of sayinf that either technical standards and laws being things they can enforce well.

Be careful what you ask for, that is all.

 

[Ren]

There is a seeming "me." Yet, is that a thing of substance? In either case, nature vs. nurture may be concepts to be explored, because that seems to be one way of understanding a reflective nature of existence. Yet, it definitely seems to be a "yes" to both, in a way, if one goes with a oneness perspective...or maybe it's actually more of a "not relevant?"

What exactly do you mean by "reflective nature of existence"? — Just trying to grasp your thought process

I think you are right to point out this "seeming me" as one of the core issues here. If it is only seeming but not real, then it is not (or at least not necessarily) substantial; but if it is real, then I see no way out of its being substantial outside of a radical re-conceptualization of terms like substance, essence, etc. (which incidentally, I propose in open monism with the concept of openground or open essence). Interestingly, it can be seen, I think, why so many monistic philosophies — including Buddhism but also the philosophy of the Stoics, Spinoza, etc. — tend to conceive of themselves as quietist: since there is no real, tangible self, things that happen to us are not really about us (i.e. about a me that doesn't really exist) and thus we should not feel emotionally invested in them as if they were "about us", i.e. egoistically in some sense.

 

[jn56uytrx]

What exactly do you mean by "reflective nature of existence"? — Just trying to grasp your thought process

If you figure out my thought process, fill me in.

At the moment it is mostly resting on the Indra's Net metaphor and trying to understand what this would mean practically if I saw the world this way.

If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring.

Thoughts on your words:

1) I clearly need to read more about open monism and specifically open essence.

2)

If it is only seeming but not real, then it is not (or at least not necessarily) substantial;

I like that you said not necessarily substantial. There may be other meanings to substantial, but I am using it as being of substance (the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence.) What I play with most is that there is a substance (of some sort - cells, atoms, light waves, brain waves, something not understood or defined?) that is perceived as me, but what that is exactly is perhaps more, or different, than we tend to attribute to a thing. Maybe there is a "me" that is substantial (made of substance), but what I am is a constantly changing formation of substance that in a lifetime looks enough like "me" in the past moment that we keep calling it "me," until we pass some threshold where we stop calling it "me." However, really "I" have just been a shifting formation of "stuff" performing certain things in a big mess of other constantly shifting differentiated forms of stuff that we label and call "x" until it changes enough and we (whatever we are) decide it's not that anymore. I think this is essentially what I have thought since I was a young adult. I've looked for others who described what I thought I saw and indra's net captures that thought and moves me further. The stuff "I" and all "things" are made of, contain everything. In everything, everything else is reflected.

3)

but if it is real, then I see no way out of its being substantial outside of a radical re-conceptualization of terms like substance, essence, etc. (which incidentally, I propose in open monism with the concept of openground or open essence).

So, if there is a "me," I have to be a substance. Unless terms are redefined. Again, I need to read more. I have left what substance means very undefined in my own conceptualization, so perhaps open essence relates? Could you direct me to where I could most efficiently explore this concept?

4)

Interestingly, it can be seen, I think, why so many monistic philosophies — including Buddhism but also the philosophy of the Stoics, Spinoza, etc. — tend to conceive of themselves as quietist:

Quietist. New word. I think I am moving further in this direction. I still think, though, my current conceptualization allows for a role of influence of each configuration of thing - maybe even demands it. Everything in its form impacting the form of every other thing... Each thing contains and reflects every other thing.

5)

since there is no real, tangible self, things that happen to us are not really about us (i.e. about a me that doesn't really exist) and thus we should not feel emotionally invested in them as if they were "about us", i.e. egoistically in some sense.

This is a direction I have been feeling pulled to reflect on. Thus far I have allowed for an individuated formation of things that have a place and force as that thing while they exist as that form (though always changing and shifting in form). I have not gotten to a no self, exactly, but rather a very lightly held sense of self that eventually disintegrates and becomes some other thing.

There, some thoughts of my thoughts. Any thoughts?