Beyond Good And Evil?

That these two words sound so similar - relativism and relationalism - is confounding to the mind . Even with the root words
as familial synonyms the meanings do not relate .

All my relations may serve to describe the extent of one's mind-space .

Walk in beauty and you are protected there , and may travel far .

The more you love , the more you can know .

Aum . To feel the essence of anything you peacefully wish to . Roots .

 

This guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxrZzNw9Djk

 

I don't know about that since this computer won't run that program . For that matter neither will it allow use of HF's quote function .

After 40 years , I still recall the vision of that wild world clearly ... birds flying above a forested mountain valley and that long-haired
god-man high upon a mountain looking on . Very simple . And I , in observing that , had questions . The movie was silent , the
colors were not . What say you , Violet ?

 

I do agree with you on this post.

I will never forget something that happened years ago when I was living in the Philippines. The Philippine Cardinal, whose name was, ironically, Cardinal Sin, was going to talk at a church near our neighborhood. My wife wanted to go see it so we went. He predicted the end of American dominance, saying that decline was inevitable because America was at zero-populatin growth (this was about 1992). He went on to talk about the evils of birth control. As he spoke I looked about the church and noticed that everywhere were mothers, and very many babies, including babies that were crying, and others that were breast feeding. I lived in a very well to do neighborhood, so there were many who were dressed nice and obviously had money. But there were probably more families and mothers who were clearly struggling to make ends meet. I was actually a bit by how blatantly he spoke against birth control when there were so many babies everywhere in the audience.

I will say this though, you claim that Heidegger was a Nationalist and a racist, and that he enthusiastically backed Hitler. Outside of a brief period of Nationalist thinking in 1933, what proof do you have of that? I disagree, especially on the claims of racism. Heidegger grew up in a rural part of Germany, and wrote about how there were still vestigial remains of the old Germanic pre-Chrsitian beliefs. I seriously do think he longed for the old ways, and I think he was seduced by the use of Runic and other pre-christian symbols and the fascination that certain high ranking Nazis had with the old Germanic beliefs. But Heidegger maintained party leadership for only a very short time, something like only a month. This very brief membership in the Nazi Party certainly hurt his career as a philosopher very severely. He did continue to have a fascination with the swastika, but I think he was more interested in the pre-Christian spiritual tradition of the swastika. He did give a speech while a member of the Nazi Party and in a prestigious position at a prestigious university that the party gave him. It certainly promoted elements of Nationalism, but it was 1933, and I don't recall anything after that where he promoted Nationalism. I don't recall any case of him promoting racism. But I am fairly certain that he never praised Hitler, and that he saw his brief membership in the party as a mistake. If he had supported or believed in the cause he surely would have maintained his membership longer than the very short period he held it. It is very possible that at that early stage, he got caught up in the trends of the times, and joined the party thinking it was something other than what it was. He must have had a reason for very quickly quitting the party. Philosophers, like other humans, are known to change their views on things.

Anyway---back to the overall subject of this post. There is, for example, the sexual mores that the sailors encountered as they explored the Pacific. There was a lot of sexual freedom in the Pacific islands, and sailors quickly took advantage of this. Then the women learned that these sailors were willing to exchange things for sex, so they began demanding iron in exchange for sex. In one case, recorded in a ship's log, the men, including a chief or two, went out to greet the ship as it anchored off shore. Their wives stood naked on the bows of their canoes, ready to exchange sex for iron. So much iron was being taken off the ships that it became a problem, especially after the sailors had to resort to taking the nails out of the boards of the ships, and the ships actually began to start breaking apart. Numerous captains had to resort to searching the sailors for any iron before they were allowed off the ship.

But here is the story I was actually going to relate in connection with this post: It was recorded in one ship's log that the chief of an island had put on a feast for the sailors. At some point right after the dinner, a man took a girl that appeared to be only 11 or 12 to the side of the feast, but where the two were still in full view of everyone present. He then proceeded to deflower the girl, and as this happened, various islanders yelled out what appeared to be pointers and demonstrations for the girl on how to move and be a good lover.

Europeans had the practice of 'First Rights' up until 1963, where a King or a Lord was able to sleep with a bride on her wedding night before her husband. (Ok, it wasn't until 1963---I was joking, it was a feudal tradition). However there were islands in the Pacific where the father and the brothers would have First Rights.

According to one book written in the early 1900's, in a certain Tribe in Greenland, if I recall, before a girl was married she slept with the brothers and the father so that the families magic would not be removed to the other family, and somewhere in Central or South America where a certain indigenous group would live in the valleys but maintain crops or flocks of animals high up in the mountains, when a daughter reaches a certain age, and the father would have to go up in the mountains to tend whatever he was attending for weeks or months on end, he would take the daughter with him who would be his surrogate wife to help him during his absence, including to keep him warm at night. It's been a long time since I've read that book, its buried in my library somewhere. It included quite a few other similar customs----but there was a problem back then with books being written by arm chair anthropologists----so I am not sure about the author, or even remember who it was.

I do know however that there was a tantric sect in India that believed that some of the most powerful enlightening tantric sex one could have was with one's sister or mother.

A !Kung woman in Africa was interviewed and a book written about her life. She relates how as a child she was allowed to experiment sexually with other children. In Europe, in older times, sex education typically occured by example as there was very little modesty by modern standards and sex was far less discrete, even happening in public places.

I could go on and on with such traditions, but anyway, you get the picture. However I would like to relate one well documented case of different cultural values right here in the US:

Down in the deep south, a young man was relating to his Pa about the girl he wanted to marry. "But Pa," he said, "she is a virgin." His father looked at him and responded, "Well son, if'n she aint good enuff fer her own family, how do you know she'd be good enuff fer ours."

(Ok---that last one is not a documented case------yes its a joke, made at the expense of a certain region here in the US and some of the people that live there----but, I'm sure it made many of you laugh-----and if you did, you are not living in an unconscious manner. ...and if you were, it shocked you back to consciousness.)

 

Violet? Well, I don't think set theory can be applied to your vision. What questions?

 

You didn't really address the point I made. I can't think of any culture where child rape is not regarded as bad.It's very hard indeed to see circumstances where it would be.

It's an extreme example perhaps, but does seem to cut through moral relativism between cultural blueprints.

 

Why must this be a curse?

I think that as we break down the context of duality---the us-them mentality---that relativism leads to a greater acceptance of diversity. Consider, for example, how boring the world would be if there were no cultural boundaries. Why even bother traveling?

What you are saying is that there is no authenticity in the individuated self. It is true that labels come and go, but insofar as those labels are true, then that is who you are in the here and now. The implication here, or at least, the ideal world, is that we should all shave our heads, and spend the day in meditation--I assume that our schedules would be the same as that regimented by a temple. In between the meditation we would mindlessly (unconsciously) go through our chores---the problem is, someone somewhere will need to have enough conscious attachments to deal with the physical problems of food production, distribution, and so forth. A monk mindlessly raking patterns in stones in a temple garden doesn't need much attachments to the physical world to achieve his task, but that is very different from someone who is in charge of providing a key service that sustains the viability of a modern day metropolis of millions of people.

I can understand that this is a path that is necessary for some people as they make their way on their spiritual journey in this life. I can especially see how meaningful it would be for people growing up in the crowded populations of Asia, with their strong group ethic.

But for me it, offers nothing. In fact, for me, it would be no different than living in the Hyper-nihilistic techno-dystopia of Jean Baudrillard---everyone simply existing as mindless biological extensions of their computers and electronics in a world of simulation where there is no longer any 'original' (of anything). (And perhaps in such a life, this unconscious mindless being would be the best escape.)

My own philosophy goes through a Derridean deconstruction of the physical, and at its extreme point it demonstrates physical reality is illusion. But the physical realm is our existential reality--illusion or not, we are here, and this is as real to us as any other reality. So after the deconstruction of the physical, it also deconsrtructs the nonphysical.

By denying or marginalizing physical reality, you are simply replacing one dualism with another. Another way to say this is that if the path of unconsciousness is the only path that is right or true, or even just superior, then your conclusions are just as dualistic as any other.

 

Also, to posit that relativism is a bad thing is to make the arrogant and anthropocentric assumption that man can understand the Absolute Truth from his incredibly limited physical and mortal perspective in his little tiny corner of the universe.

 

Looking upon that wilderness , obviously it is mind-space . I am witness . There is one human I see .

Is it me ?
It is protector .
Doing what ?
Observing .
Anything more active than that ?
Standing upon a stone ledge way up high .
How may observing be protection of wilderness ?
Listen for a voice .
Now ?
Not now , this is a silent movie .
In color .
Deep violet depths of shadow .
Impressionist .
To be music .