i have a bit of trouble with the term "relationship." after all, as a term, it organically developed to describe connections between things thought to have objective existence. i realize this is a bucket-o-crabs problem, and that we have to begin untangling the Möbius strip somewhere, but language may become a problem down the line -- as it often does, smuggling in connotations which don't work at extreme levels of zoom. i don't really want to alter the trajectory of your journey -- i'd much rather go along and see where it leads. but i personally approach this matter by attacking individuality, rather than existence. SOMEthing exists. we simply have a hard time describing it. we pretend that this thing of things is separable, composed of discrete parts as an old grandfather clock seems to be. that we, who are in fact a part of it, can remain separate from the the rest of it. such illusions are necessary in order to maintain the conventions of civilization and the conceits of humanity, but when regarded very closely, the idea of separation breaks down, turns out to be entirely artificial. this is all quite pivotal for existence, which, as i have just been reminded, literally (historically, etymologically) means "to stand forth/to stand out." we are thus turned back to the question of the pre-socratics, which is how to reconcile the one with the many, and flux with permanence. excited to see where this thread goes! must continue, among other ways, over cocktails. -cW
Not so much poking fun, because it seems too popular. >i have a bit of trouble with the term "relationship." after all, as a term, it organically developed to describe connections between things thought to have objective existence. i realize this is a bucket-o-crabs problem Therein lies the rub, eh? I am going to take a crack at the root of that in my next essay. What is relationship? Do you have to say that things either objectively exist, or it's turtles all the way down? That's the issue to me. I realize that everything we say is loaded, but maybe if we catch ourselves saying something similar enough, we might reveal something useful, or maybe something even more confounding. :) But, I still have a bit of road in my headlights. The next couple of essays will be backtracking for me. After that, maybe a cliff. >i don't really want to alter the trajectory of your journey -- i'd much rather go along and see where it leads. No worries, but thanks, me too! >but i personally approach this matter by attacking individuality, rather than existence... I believe there is truth there. If everything relates, what is individuality? But then, what does this whole relate to? Can something be defined by its within, and have no without? I think the notions of flux and permanence are actually where consistency might be found. What if there is no without, but only a never-ending, ever-diminishing of the within? What if the within (that we deem to exist) is such, when it is fully understood, that the notion of a without is nonsensical? >excited to see where this thread goes! must continue, among other ways, over cocktails.
Thanks, and yes!