What Is Relationship?

[Sevi]

Oh, thank you very much for your advice!

 

4 minutes ago, username said:

@Sevi

In that quote, I was just noting how it's interesting that relationships are about connection but require , by definition, distinction or separateness.

I like it a lot! ? yeah.. how interesting?

[Sevi]

So ironically it is the embracement of separateness and connection?

Kind of nothingness and existence comes together and forms non-duality? May be? Or saying this, is just demogogy?

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Sevi

[Leo Gura]

Here's some food for thought for ya guys:

• Are there any things which are unrelated to anything else?
• What is selecting out the objects which are said to be related?
• Why those two objects and not others?
• Are relationships only between sentient beings, or other things too?
• What does it mean to be in relationship with another thing?

[NorseMythology]

2 hours ago, username said:

@Sevi Whenever I hit a block in the road, I just think hard. I focus really, really hard. Sometimes I step away and process is subconsciously and come back.

 

In that quote, I was just noting how it's interesting that relationships are about connection but require , by definition, distinction or separateness.

You are on it!

This belief I practice in my life. My girlfriend can no longer work due to health/back problems. Though I am younger, able bodied and it would certainly be an easier life with another income, I choose to stay with her because she is a beautiful being and if the roles were reversed, I cannot imagine a more selfless act of love, so that is the path that I chose.

Sounds like the golden rule... Because it pretty much is! I think the wisdom of that rule is that in some way we are all one.

Anyway, I am not sure if you posed the question for the purpose of philosophy, personal relationship or more of a group collaberation in mind.

 

As far as philosophy, i think Leo posed some good questions and boil down to the notion that ultimately everything is in some sort of relationship, whether at a consciousness level or even going back to the Infinite, the true origin of all, i.e. perfect unity.

 

[LetTheNewDayBegin]

@username I like how you moderate your topic. It's effective.

Summing up the previous posts we've broken down the relationship to a kind of connection/separation either between two things or just one thing sensing a conection and separation with itself. There is also some structure to the relationship. I believe the structure is required to maintain a connection in dual world.

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Here's some food for thought for ya guys:

• Are there any things which are unrelated to anything else?
• What is selecting out the objects which are said to be related?
• Why those two objects and not others?
• Are relationships only between sentient beings, or other things too?
• What does it mean to be in relationship with another thing?

Leo's questions guide us towards pondering relativity of the dual world (and maybe non-relativity of the non-dual world?). Things are always related to something else. They also point towards unity - everything is in relatioship with everything (because a thing is always in relation to the other thing).

What I'd like to encourage everybody is to take the next step after seeing that everything is one (through the infinite amount of relationships). Start contemplating what relationship is for you personally. What is the nature of your relationships? What do you like about them? What is the way you form relationships? What are the most important relationships in your life? What is their purpose? What do you dislike about them? What is the ideal relationship? Everything is connected, don't separate yourself from the object of contemplation.

[Leo Gura]

Another good question to ponder is: What are the components of a successful intimate relationship?

Yeah, there are a lot of different angles you could come at this question from. Some angles are more metaphysical, others are more practical. Both are good. They feed into each other. So there's plenty to contemplate.

I like this idea of collective contemplation. It's a good use of this forum. If you guys are interested, what we could do is create a set of contemplation threads for the specific purpose of collective contemplation. For example: What is creativity? What is love? What is science? etc. These threads would have some ground rules so that people actually contribute contemplative answers, and not just speculation or talking-shit. And then we could have one master sticky thread which links to all the different contemplation sub-threads.

Is that something ya'll would be interested in?

[Hero in progress]

@Leo Gura That is a very good idea, let's do it!

[Sevi]

@Leo Gura

Although this is an out off topic question? yes I think it's a very good idea.

[Guest username]

@Leo Gura  Yeah, I was hoping to make this more of a trend, assuming it went well. I'd like to see in implemented formally with your guidance though, much easier than having all of us do it haphazardly.

[NorseMythology]

Sounds good!

 

Id also like to see the Infinity thread cleaned up (it went down the 5meo path) and drawn into this collective contemplation theme.

 

@username

Did you get what you wanted out of this thread or was there anything more general or more specific you'd like to discuss regarding relationships?

[Guest username]

@NorseMythology We haven't gone nearly deep enough, imo. Real contemplation is hard work though, so I'm not surprised most people aren't really motivated by some forum to really put in the work.

Isaac Newton used to study 18 hours a day, sometimes forgetting to eat or go to the restroom because he was so absorbed in thought. I don't expect people here to just start doing the same,but I guess I'd call it a success since it got people thinking and we were able to get a variety of perspectives.

I hope the future ones orchestrated by Leo get more serious attention though. They probably will since people get really engaged whenever he participates.

 

The infinity thread was meant to be much more chill, so I don't mind the way that went. It was open to anything, but yeah, I wish we did more than turn it into a 5-Meo thread.

Edited March 15, 2017 by username

[Guest username]

5 hours ago, LetTheNewDayBegin said:

@username I like how you moderate your topic. It's effective.

Summing up the previous posts we've broken down the relationship to a kind of connection/separation either between two things or just one thing sensing a conection and separation with itself. There is also some structure to the relationship. I believe the structure is required to maintain a connection in dual world.

Leo's questions guide us towards pondering relativity of the dual world (and maybe non-relativity of the non-dual world?). Things are always related to something else. They also point towards unity - everything is in relatioship with everything (because a thing is always in relation to the other thing).

What I'd like to encourage everybody is to take the next step after seeing that everything is one (through the infinite amount of relationships). Start contemplating what relationship is for you personally. What is the nature of your relationships? What do you like about them? What is the way you form relationships? What are the most important relationships in your life? What is their purpose? What do you dislike about them? What is the ideal relationship? Everything is connected, don't separate yourself from the object of contemplation.

Are you suggesting that "seeing everything as one (through an infinite amount of relationships" resolves the matter in metaphysical/ existential terms?

I agree that those personal questions are good to ponder. My intention was to go the reductive route and get to the essence of what relationships are on the most fundamental level rather than expanding and exploring the nuances and relevance in other facets of life which are operating on more established paradigms with hidden assumptions. 

 

I'm not dismissing your sentiment at all though. Those are very good questions to ask.

Edited March 15, 2017 by username

[NorseMythology]

1 hour ago, username said:

@NorseMythology We haven't gone nearly deep enough, imo. Real contemplation is hard work though, so I'm not surprised most people aren't really motivated by some forum to really put in the work.

Isaac Newton used to study 18 hours a day, sometimes forgetting to eat or go to the restroom because he was so absorbed in thought. I don't expect people here to just start doing the same,but I guess I'd call it a success since it got people thinking and we were able to get a variety of perspectives.

I hope the future ones orchestrated by Leo get more serious attention though. They probably will since people get really engaged whenever he participates.

 

The infinity thread was meant to be much more chill, so I don't mind the way that went. It was open to anything, but yeah, I wish we did more than turn it into a 5-Meo thread.

Well lets go deeper!

 

I think the holographic principle very aptly applies here.

As above, so below, as below, so above.

If we take a holographic plate and cut it into 4 quarters, we have 4 plates that are able to recreate the whole, but with less resolution.

If we view the individual and in fact all of creation to be a tiny fraction of the Infinite Being, relationships are the means to gain an understanding of the Infinite Being with a greater resolution.

That explanation isnt logically consistent, but I have found logic breaks down as you approach the Infinite or the Infinite Being, or even the act of creation, so that is my best attempt at getting the concept into text form lol.

[Guest username]

@NorseMythology Are you sure it's your best attempt though?  

 

Also, I wonder how you know what you're saying has merit, or if it's just hogwash. I'm not saying everything has to be justified rationally, but I wonder how we resolve insights that can't be grounded in a logical system from those that are just non-sense.

[NorseMythology]

43 minutes ago, username said:

@NorseMythology Are you sure it's your best attempt though?  

 

Also, I wonder how you know what you're saying has merit, or if it's just hogwash. I'm not saying everything has to be justified rationally, but I wonder how we resolve insights that can't be grounded in a logical system from those that are just non-sense.

No, not my best, but forum guidelines proclude deep abstract philosophy it seems. Im toeing the line as a newb.

 

Logic itself assumes, necessarily, the law of non-condradiction and law of cause and effect. And ultimately, all methods of inquiry are unjustifiable because they are founded upon logic which as i pointed out has what are called properly basic beliefs/assumptions i.e. unjustifiable

 

The Infinite and creation are at some point either acausal or past infinite.

 

The finite mind cannot encompass the Infinite. I appreciate what Hegal said, essentially that the Infinite is more 'real' than the finite

Having said that, I believe that relationships only bring us closer to the truth but can never reach the end of ultimate truth (again because it is Infinite and we are finite).

[Guest username]

1 minute ago, NorseMythology said:

No, not my best, but forum guidelines proclude deep abstract philosophy it seems. Im toeing the line as a newb.

 

Logic itself assumes, necessarily, the law of non-condradiction and law of cause and effect. And ultimately, all methods of inquiry are unjustifiable because they are founded upon logic which as i pointed out has what are called properly basic beliefs/assumptions i.e. unjustifiable

 

The Infinite and creation are at some point either acausal or past infinite.

 

The finite mind cannot encompass the Infinite. I appreciate what Hegal said, essentially that the Infinite is more 'real' than the finite

Having said that, I believe that relationships only bring us closer to the truth but can never reach the end of ultimate truth (again because it is Infinite and we are finite).

I think the forum only restricts academic philosophy in-so-far as it doesn't relate to personal development. Using it as a tool for contemplation with the directive on increasing consciousness should make it justifiable. 

 

I agree with your remarks on the infinite necessarily being beyond logic and ultimately unjustifiable and not bound by causality, but it still leaves my point about the discussion of such matters and discerning nonsense from genuine insight unresolved. Perhaps those things are intrinsically beyond consensus reality, which is why we can only rely on pointers and direct experience, judging the quality of advice more so on the merits of the source ( a clearly highly developed master) than the logical consistency of the advice itself, also using intuition grounded in our own direct experience as a guide for assessing others.

[Guest username]

On a more "practical" note, I've been wondering about relationships being touted as a necessity. The kinds of most people refer to, in Western culture at least would be the mutual exchange of sex and validation.  In the same vein as what @Prabhaker said about love and relationships, my contention is that such relationships are a bastardization of what they are supposed to represent.  They seem to be distractions from existential loneliness and a vehicle for min/maxing pleasure, usually failing due to their unstable nature.

 

Tangential observation: Romantic relationships based on the exchange of base pleasures tend to be unstable. Perhaps this is my own bias, but I've noticed that pretty much any construction for ego-gratification is very unstable and ultimately backfires, forcing greater necessity for more ego-gratifying constructs. I suppose this is the essence of the hedonic treadmill.

Edited March 15, 2017 by username

[NorseMythology]

3 hours ago, username said:

I think the forum only restricts academic philosophy in-so-far as it doesn't relate to personal development. Using it as a tool for contemplation with the directive on increasing consciousness should make it justifiable. 

 

I agree with your remarks on the infinite necessarily being beyond logic and ultimately unjustifiable and not bound by causality, but it still leaves my point about the discussion of such matters and discerning nonsense from genuine insight unresolved. Perhaps those things are intrinsically beyond consensus reality, which is why we can only rely on pointers and direct experience, judging the quality of advice more so on the merits of the source ( a clearly highly developed master) than the logical consistency of the advice itself, also using intuition grounded in our own direct experience as a guide for assessing others.

Okay, thanks for the insight in the guidelines.

 

I have approached my worldview from  'logic', in that I had to be able to reasonably justify whatever i believed. Of course the degree of reasonability (coupled with experience) dictates the strength of X belief.

So no matter how much I wish something was true, I cant seriously believe it until i can justify it fairly well.

 

The downside is, my mind is a bit too 'rational' which has hindered other parts of my being (something I hope to remedy with the help of this community).

Ive never had a profound spiritual experience, but I tend to think it is legitimately possible. My plan is to eventually get ahold of some psychedelics to shake things up and hopefully open some doors.

Having said all that, for me, the things/advice i hear have to fit in to my framework or completely replace it for me to consider, because I am pretty confident in the things I strongly believe. Again, not because I wish they are true, but because I can fairly exhaustively justify them with logical consistency. Though I dont blame people for relying more on experience either, its not how I function, but all the logic in the world probably wont explain a DMT trip yet the experience is, as many report, more real than real life.

 

 

[NorseMythology]

3 hours ago, username said:

On a more "practical" note, I've been wondering about relationships being touted as a necessity. The kinds of most people refer to, in Western culture at least would be the mutual exchange of sex and validation.  In the same vein as what @Prabhaker said about love and relationships, my contention is that such relationships are a bastardization of what they are supposed to represent.  They seem to be distractions from existential loneliness and a vehicle for min/maxing pleasure, usually failing due to their unstable nature.

 

Tangential observation: Romantic relationships based on the exchange of base pleasures tend to be unstable. Perhaps this is my own bias, but I've noticed that pretty much any construction for ego-gratification is very unstable and ultimately backfires, forcing greater necessity for more ego-gratifying constructs. I suppose this is the essence of the hedonic treadmill.

I strongly agree, especially about the bastardizarion.

 

[pluto]

Love it! You guys make me smile