The Road To Becoming A Warrior Part 8

The pattern I described in which we educate the instinctive through thought to give us new ability is the same process we go through in all things we want to make a part of us.

This is an interesting realization. When we humans know about something in an intimate way, it becomes part of us. We do this with objects as well. We get attached to them. The higher the attachment the more the objects become part of us. They become part of our identity. The real Star Trek fan has made that world and that kind of thinking and philosophy part of themselves.

This can be a negative thing as well as a positive. We can make hate part of us as well. (Struggles with the heart) But this is the way we function. Not only do we make objects and abilities part of us, we make many things part of us. One of the most interesting things we make part of ourselves is others. Our relationships with others work in this same way. It is one of the things people find fault in about human relationships.

When you do not know a person they may seem interesting to you or not. They are not your type. But if you find something interesting you may want to meet that person and start to get to know them. As you get to know them things are very exciting. People marry in the midst of that excitement. They fall in love. But they then start to take each other for granted.

This is normal because this is what we do. Once that person is part of us we take the relationship for granted. An object cannot disagree with you. An ability will never leave you. But a person is different thing all together. You both want to make the other person part of self. But to do that you have to iron out all the differences between you. You have to in many cases fight for dominance so that you are not absorbed.

When one person takes the relationship and bond for granted while the other does not, you are in for conflict. Oh but isn’t love grand?

Empathy is when we can put ourselves in the shoes of another. We can feel their pain or pleasure. It is not so much that can actually feel their pain or pleasure, but that is not important. We are trying to make their pain or pleasure part of us.

When two people work exactly right together they have made each other part of each other. This is the essence of love. Empathy is the purest form of love because it allows us to include many in to ourselves. In fact Jesus told us to love everyone as we love self.

Isn’t that an interesting idea? To love others as you love yourself can be taken farther: To love everyone else as self. To make them part of who you are. An ultimate form of empathy. Also very difficult to do.

That is what love is. It is rationally explainable in the very words we use to describe it and yet so many want to make a mystery of it. Love is making something or someone part of you. In fact we can boil it down some more to: making something part of you is love.

It is as simple as that. And what do you want to do for yourself? Serve. You wish to fulfill your needs so you wish to fulfill the needs of that which you have made part of your being or self. Love and serve = include in to self and fulfill needs.

There is no such thing as a selfless act. For there be one you would have to do something by accident. An act done by accident can be considered selfless. But any act done with intent cannot by definition be selfless. The ego must exist if you want to do intentional acts. The self must exist.

Do not think of an altruistic act as selfless. It is selfish as hell. The person doing the act gets from the act usually more than they put in to it. A person rescuing someone from a fire is not doing it selflessly and thank goodness. The person doing the rescuing has to put themselves in to the task. Often they could do nothing else and live with themselves.

Mother Teresa was giving of self and she received. She could do nothing else in her eyes and be in good standing with god and most importantly herself.

So once we have eliminated greed and hate and all the negative aspects of self, modified our behaviour and have fought off our demons we are open to higher thought. We can also love ourselves. Because what is the use of trying to make others part of you if you don’t love yourself? You can’t love them. You will harm them as you harm yourself.

A lot of people have said that you can’t love others if you do not love self and this is why. Love is inclusion. It is not ego which must be dropped. It is the exclusion of others.

And does it not make sense? If all things are intimately connected, why should we not want be closer and reunify? It seems only natural that we would.

Fear, of course, is our enemy. And it is rightly there in us because strangers are an unknown quantity. Until we know them we do not know their motives. It is a brave person who can accept strangers as brothers and sisters. Yet this is what is required if we all want to live in peace. The less we make the stranger the “other” and pit us against them, the less likely they are to do the same to us.

I can love all people, in principal. I can include them all. But how far can I go with it? If we were to grieve for every person who dies or is suffering our grief would be never ending and yet that is what we should do until the last person stops suffering. But that is too much for any one person to take on.

Societies find a focal point to pour out their grief on. We pick celebrities for communal grieving. They are a social safety valve. We cannot pour out or love for those we know nothing about, so we do our grieving socially by picking people or events we all know to communally and sometimes globally grieve for. This is why we have developed deities like Jesus who is supposed to be so enlightened as to be able to feel compassion for all individuals and yet rejoice for all at the same time.

We can certainly do that in principal concerning the entire world and in practice when confronted by real suffering. If we each do our part to help those who are suffering around us, it wouldn’t be such a big burden. And that of course is the ideal. It is the only best we can do.

So this is why the messages of the sages and wise men and gurus and messiahs is love. We are part of the all, other people’s suffering adds to our own. We must try to include as many others as we can in to self. That way we are all served as we serve and we can all have peace and security.

The three fold laws of the Wicca tell us that whatever negative we do to others will come to us three fold. It also tells us the good we do comes back to us three fold. The law of Karma tells us a similar thing. Good deeds bring good karma upon you, hurtful deeds bring bad karma. Every religion has seen this. Good works are rewarded by the Christian god. Bad deeds punished. The numbers, three fold, or double are irrelevant.

Is this just wishful thinking? As it turns out it is not. If ones actions cause conflict, the effect is a retaliatory reaction. If one’s actions are benevolent, they are more likely to receive benevolence in return. The person who understands this knows that they themselves benefit more from positive acts than they do from negative acts. This is just nature. The golden rule has been sighted by every culture in the world in one way or other. The most well known version in western society being: Do unto others as you would they do unto you. In this version you are using yourself as a guide.

I wrote a hub called: The Golden Rule Explored. It details many other forms of this moral guide.

Removing the negative aspects of ego and id makes it very unlikely that you could do others harm and it increases your chances at a life of peace by adding to the peace of others.

More by this Author

  • There Is an Exception to Every Rule
    7

    There is a big problem with some sayings that seem perfectly logical. Let’s look at this common example: There is an exception to every rule. Most people would just start thinking of all the rules they can recall...

  • The Cruelty Of The Christian God
    110

    I have often mentioned the cruelty of the Judaic-Christian God. Let’s examine that claim from the beginning: It is said that when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, God told them that they could have...

  • Venting your plumbing
    21

    This essay is on the importance of venting a drainage system, the consequences of not doing so, and how to fix it.


29 comments

Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 5 years ago from Toronto, Canada

"This is normal because this is what we do." - I very much dislike that "normal" word Mr. O'Brian - there is nothing normal in my world.

"An object cannot disagree with you. An ability will never leave you." - I believe objects can disagree in many ways and abilities can for sure leave one if they are left uncared for.

"Love and serve = include in to self and fulfill needs." - I like your equation.

"It is not ego which must be dropped" - I agree, I would never drop my ego. It's amazing!

"strangers are an unknown quantity" - I am not sure how I feel when referred to as "unknown quantity" ... rofl

"If we were to grieve for every person who dies or is suffering our grief would be never ending and yet that is what we should do until the last person stops suffering. But that is too much for any one person to take on." - I enjoyed this part. The pain is great indeed.

"The numbers, three fold, or double are irrelevant." - I don't know ... I had this all calculated, now you got me confused.

"Is this just wishful thinking? As it turns out it is not." - Everything should be wishful thinking. When one wishes with purity in their heart, the wish comes true. (At least, that's how it works for me.)

I enjoyed this piece Mr. O'Brian. 'twas fun! Cheers.


Binaya.Ghimire 5 years ago

I'm following your hubs in this topic. All are insightful, though I have commented on few...because sometimes I really don't have words, all I do is ponder.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

"I very much dislike that "normal" word Mr. O'Brian - there is nothing normal in my world."

You are right, of course. I should have said natural for all of us who hate the word normal. lol...

"I believe objects can disagree in many ways and abilities can for sure leave one if they are left uncared for."

Right. What I meant was that abilities and objects are not sentient beings so do not actively work against your attempt to make them part of who you are where as people do as in unrequited love. If you use your ability it does not leave you, except perhaps in old age or through an accident. But they do not leave on their own. I should perhaps rewrite that passage. ;)

"I agree, I would never drop my ego. It's amazing!"

I agree. It is amazing. But it is something almost all philosophies tell you must be completely eliminated. I say don't worry. When you die it will all be gone. There is time. Just get rid of the negative aspects of it and you'll be fine. ;)

"I am not sure how I feel when referred to as "unknown quantity" ... rofl"

I know how you feel. I hate when that happens. lol...

"I don't know ... I had this all calculated, now you got me confused."

Not nearly as confused as I was when a Hindu woman told me Krishna could teach me to astral travel on different planes. But later she told me they are not the type of planes business men travel on. It was too late. I was already booked on Sun Wing and was going to try an Air Canada flight next. lol...

Wishful thinking is wonderful. But usually needs to be followed up by doing something. If the wish is already a reality but you don't know it, that's a bonus when you discover it. But some wishes do not come true in reality expect perhaps in the mind, which is fantasy.

I intend to do a hub n this series on why prayer, which is wishing, does work, though not in the way most people think. ;)

Glad you enjoyed it. Peace, you unknown quantity. lol... Glad to have you reading. Love your responses.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Binaya

I am just glad some one like yourself who has a background in Hinduism is taking an interest in this. I love your hubs and would recommend them to anyone reading this. Most informative and interesting. I am only experienced with the philosophy not the individual god manifestations or history of the religion in detail as you seem to be.

Thank you.


Business Success 5 years ago

I would just like to say that this seems an example of one of the primary causes of conflict in society (here, it is American) and the globe at large. In all peoples, in all cultures.

For example, you imply there is a Universal agreement and acceptance on the word Love. ( You do this throughout your piece with much of your vocabulary and concepts) I know a large number of people with whom I have a "friendly" relationship. Easily in the hundreds. There is great diversity in these folks and all come from the lowest levels of the economic and social, educational and religiousus ladders to the hghest. Street people, junkies and addicts, religious people ( from dozens of denominations and a variety of western and eastern religions ) and spiritual people, illiterates and folks who hold Ph D's's. High school graduates whou don't know where Africa is, whose primary language is Ebonicscs, who can't do simple math, who never took a civics class, don't read the newspapers, to your typical straight A students, homcoming queens, read everything, at leaste cursorily they happen to stumble onto, who are curious and act on that curiosity, to emotionally stunted individualsls raped and molested by fathers and uncles and at 20, 30 and 40 today are still handicapped in their daily and committed relationships, doctors, lawyers, bakers and candle stick makers, from 18 countries and from my traveling through over 250,000 miles around the States and World.

And there are that many different interpretations and applications to all on your Universal concepts and definitionsions you place on the words you use in this article. And all but a few, like you, use these words about themselves and each other and doing so, create an incredible amount of ill feelings, resentment, anger, confusion and hate between themselveselve and others.

Youe approach supports the continued creation of Pollyanna worldviews, polarization of societies and cultures furthering the divide between individuals and classes in our society, states, schools, clubs, affiliations, counties, religions, and peoples from differing cultures and locations all over the world.

And it is all because of your and all of these other people who wear the same blinders, assumption, your belief, that you are the authority on words and concepts which is a function of your society's belief in the same, that everyone thinks and believes, was educated and raised just like you, and your past reflecting a superior, intellectualized view of yourself.

Which is in itself a function of your education by school, family and society that not only holds erroneous beliefs and assumptions and a lack of empathy and curiousity about the world and the Universe.


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 5 years ago from Toronto, Canada

lol Mr. O'Brian ... I think someone's upset. Make sure you stress the idea of the "unknown quantity" when you swing by again. (LOL)


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Business Success

Wow. We seem to move in the same circles. ;) So in all that I didn't see a suggestion from you as to how to remedy what you think is a bad situation. And i would like your opinion on how to fix things. Or do you think they can be fixed?

I'll be the first to tell you i don't speak from any authority what so ever. Please don't believe a word I say.

And please. If you have an answer tell us what it is.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Mr Happy

He isn't angry. He is right. He just misunderstands my intent. He seems to think very much like me. lol...

I don't think he is an unknown quantity at all. ;)

Unlike you, of course. lol...


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 5 years ago from Toronto, Canada

You're certainly right Mr. O'Brian ... I thought I was a Sylph but then, I'm often an Ondine, a Salamander and/or a Gnome.

All in one. Or "all for one and one for all".

"Unknown quantity" sounds rather correct. Cheers!


Spirit Whisperer profile image

Spirit Whisperer 5 years ago from Isle of Man

I particularly like this piece because you have made a valiant attempt to address love and show it as central to all our lives. Well that is what I got from it anyway. The piece oozes love and it reflects pure intent. Reading this hub makes me warm to you and it is refreshing to read something with a positive focus that shows a way to live that brings peace and happiness not just to the one who walks this path but to all he comes in contact with. You walk the talk as your reply to Business Success clearly shows and that sets you apart from the crowd.

I like the way you describe how we try to incorporate everything and everyone into self and I when I see a babies putting everything they see into their mouths I imagine that they are literally trying to do that.

I am still pondering the notion of ego that you describe in this series and I am still not convinced that holding on to ego is the best way forward. But I am unable to explain why succinctly at present. I suppose one of the main reasons being that it is still too strong in me. LOL

Binaya above expresses well the effect your writing has on your readers and that must give you great satisfaction. You make us ponder and surely that is a great gift to give anyone.

Thank you Slarty.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Mr Happy

I think you know i am only joking around with you. ;) I haven't been a salamander yet. What's that like?


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

SW.

I'm very bad at writing about love because everyone writes about it and some people like Business Success are sick of hearing: "all you need is love" sung by Nero while Rome burns. ;) Meaning he has heard too many false prophets tell us of love while fleecing us for all they can get. He has a valid point.

But it is in essence true and one can't write about this subject without mentioning love and empathy as the answer to many of our problems. The issue has always been how to get us to that point. And that we can only do individually at our own pace.

Thank you for your kind words. ;)

"I am still pondering the notion of ego that you describe in this series and I am still not convinced that holding on to ego is the best way forward."

Why don't you explain exactly what you mean by ego? That may clear a few things up?


Business Success 5 years ago

Namaste,

When I used the words "you" and "authority" in my "exhortations" above, I was dipping into the Queen's English, to borrow their distinction, separating the rest of Humanity from the Queen Mum, using the royal version of "you" (as in the royal "we") and not intending (or hoping?) that "Slarty" would think I was addressing him... :-') No harm intended... no foul? lol

And, no, I have not let Self be eroded by cynicism as my education has unfolded, and come to be, as you say, "... sick of hearing: 'all you need is love'..." For truly, at the most fundamental level, love is all we are...

I believe I was studying late that night and to break the dull glaze forming around my thinking from a lack of a break for awhile, and as an act born out of random, literally stumbled onto this Hub, to which my reaction was the clarity I had lost from the monotony of that lack of a timely break. My comment was not a result of a linear thought process but a simple stream of consciousness, after which I closed my browser, went back to studying, and until in my email I was notified of a new comment here, the experience left my little brain... :-)

I had to start by re-reading everything from the top down, to get a glimmer of my thought processes started by this chapter of your Warrior Hub here. I also paused for a moment and wound up over at "Chapter 4" of your "Warrior" series, reading it and the comments that followed.

On the use of the word Love, I was merely attempting to point out how often, for example, a brutalized and wounded woman's soul will desperately cry out to her husband or boyfriend after being beaten and terrorized by him, "Baby, it's all my fault. I made you do it. Don't leave me. I love you." And with her actions, her words, her emotions, her life experience, her perception of Reality, that is what Love is. Inflicting pain, hurt, humiliation - all of that which destroys a person's soul, self worth, value - that is how Love is expressed. As the days pass, she then shares how to love and be loved with her children... and so on. And this is just one slight variation of the billions of different egos letting their life experiences shadow their definition and concept of Love.

And when they hear the word Love in church or synagogue or mosque they accept the image of a wrathful god who will brutalize terroize them for sinning. And on and on and on ad nauseum...

As A Course In Miricles so well points out and explains, the Ego, whose Fear based reality, twists and contorts perception with obvious inherent contradictions and does so so skillfully and subtley that the vast majority of people alive at any given moment never even question their Reality. Or their thoughts. Or their Actions, Beliefs, Ideas, Words... And go through life constantly and consistantly when sad or depressed wondering just who they are. Running to therapists, religious gurus, self help experts, pastors, actors, commentators, politicians, bums and idiots to tell them who they are, what to think, how to act.

And with such Gusto and desperation that as soon as they hear something that in any way seems to be in agreement with anything in their life that they then evangelize and proselytize their perception as "Right" and become an Authority on the lives of others.

So, I was just commenting that I noticed by not informing the reader on how you were defining that word and many other words and concepts in your hub, assuming every one would be on the same page as you, it would be a simple "fact" that they would skew your whole message rather easily.

And, how that is what I meant, as it "supports the continued creation of Pollyanna worldviews, polarization of societies and cultures furthering the divide between individuals and classes in our society, states, schools, clubs, affiliations, counties, religions, and peoples from differing cultures and locations all over the world."

Makes me remember when in high school studying math and physics, (though I made the grades and did well on the tests, I loathed these things passionately and considered the whole experience just a process of rote memorization of rules which were designed to be used in a specific way to merely justify support and validate those same rules. A kind of circular logic clouded well by the mind (or Ego) so that it wouldn't be noticed that as Vonnegut claimed, it was all, "Folly. Folly. Folly.")

I want to also be clear that no, I didn't misunderstand your intent. As I mentioned to someone the other day, it would be so enjoyable and fun to sip an ice cold beer on a hot afternoon sitting on the front porch and idly passing time in conversation with this Slarty guy. Not to find agreement like you said, but to broaden understanding.

A quote I found (but didn't note the source!?!?!...) :

"If one does not yet clearly see the idea that everything is relative and that depending on one’s perspective, a truth may be a truth or it may not then, Nietzsche can certainly help in understanding that. His writing is heavy with metaphors and it offends everything you have known. But only in such a way can we find new paths and perhaps new answers to our question of morality; only in such a way can we come to the realization that we live as Nietzsche would say ‘in a sea of metaphors’"

Though you do have to change some of his words and labels, his argument holds true on our subject here as well...

To pose the beginning of an answer to your inquiry about an answer to this condition of Man I would have to begin by saying instead of living in a narrow minded linear way, live laterally, like the Fibonacci Spiral.

Here we disagree a little, in that the problem as I see it at this point, is the Ego claiming that it is the definition of Self. At the expense of allowing the True Self, our Spirit Self, any input on interpretating Life and gaining and sharing the lessons of Wisdom with others as opposed to Ego's simple accumulation of knowledge - which is situational and circumstantial and inherently contradictory.

But, the only thing I do know, is that I don't know. And that The Tao does not speak. And that these kinds of things can only be understood and accepted by the individual at a deeper level of consciousness than daily conciousness requires and rarely if ever from some authority figure. Enlightenment is a process, not an event.

Thank you sincerely for this opportunity Slarty,

Namaste


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

" And this is just one slight variation of the billions of different egos letting their life experiences shadow their definition and concept of Love."

I agree completely. A person can want to make another a part of themselves so much that they lose self esteem and beg an abuser to stay with them even though they know they will be abused. This is obviously a problem and denotes a conflict within themselves which they must resolve or it will eat them alive.

I wrote about this in the first hub of the series. This is an agreement the person has with the abuser to accept their abuse in return for love which they will never achieve. It is a poison which they must expel and an agreement they have to break.

"So, I was just commenting that I noticed by not informing the reader on how you were defining that word and many other words and concepts in your hub, assuming every one would be on the same page as you, it would be a simple "fact" that they would skew your whole message rather easily."

But I thought I did define the word. I am defining it as the desire to make someone part of self. That does not always work because you are not the same people. So it causes a lot of conflict and brings out all our personal issues.

A lot of times a man or woman will try to change the other person; to mold them to be more like they themselves want to be or are. This is, of course, the wrong approach. You can make people part of self by accepting who they are. If you can not accept that then the relationship has no hope or will be miserable.

"Makes me remember when in high school studying math and physics, (though I made the grades and did well on the tests, I loathed these things passionately and considered the whole experience just a process of rote memorization of rules which were designed to be used in a specific way to merely justify support and validate those same rules. A kind of circular logic clouded well by the mind (or Ego) so that it wouldn't be noticed that as Vonnegut claimed, it was all, "Folly. Folly. Folly.")

One thing I learned from Zen was to use to everything I can and fall to nothing. Science is taught very badly in schools. But it is like Zen in may ways.

To me, my most profound revelations have come from science. My first moment of enlightenment came from understanding the laws of conservation. It struck me light a bolt of lightening. It explains everything from simple thermodynamics to the behavior of atoms to the behavior of the human.

Zen teaches that we can reach enlightenment by studying but one blade of grass. In it is contained all knowledge.

Science is very miss understood by the general public, the media, and even by teachers.

The principals of the scientific method are the principals of the seeker. They espouse non-belief, not assuming etc.

Granted that like religion Science is corrupted by people because of the way the institutions and their funding are set up in this society. But the principals of science are sound and the only way we have to get to true knowledge.

Not so much by science itself, but by employing it's principals and methods in to our thinking.

I realize this is not your way. But it is the way I am trying to explain to you through these hubs. So far they have only set up the subject. But as they go on you will get a picture of what I mean if you don't already.

"If one does not yet clearly see the idea that everything is relative and that depending on one’s perspective, a truth may be a truth or it may not then, Nietzsche can certainly help in understanding that. His writing is heavy with metaphors and it offends everything you have known. But only in such a way can we find new paths and perhaps new answers to our question of morality; only in such a way can we come to the realization that we live as Nietzsche would say ‘in a sea of metaphors’"

Nietzsche was dead wrong and yet right in some ways. Yes, life is lived in a sea of metaphor. But he took it all to an extreme that makes no sense.

We are to take from him that there is no objective reality. Yet we are then to take this statement as the objective truth. You can see what a problem that poses.

He claims that truth is only relative to perspective. therefore there is no absolute truth and no objective facts.

Truth is relative. But it is relative to a specific set of variables and dependent on those variables staying the same.

Is it true that water boils at 100 degrees c? Yes and no. The boiling point of water varies depending on several factors. They include altitude and the purity of the water. But. If you always use the same purity of water at the same altitude/pressure it will always boil at the same temperature.

So you have absolute truth that comes out of relative truth. There are objective facts. The fact that we have to work for them is irrelevant.

My view at the moment is that there is an underlying reality which creates this layer of reality. So while we can not always see the full extent of reality we can find it indirectly.

After all, your comment about how love can be twisted and abused is a fact. If not, then it is just your perspective not an objective fact. Yet you have made the comments as if they are objective fact. I agree that they are and so would any rational being.

So to me, Nietzsche doesn't cut it.

"And that these kinds of things can only be understood and accepted by the individual at a deeper level of consciousness than daily conciousness requires"

I agree. It has to be n enhanced understanding. But this is problem we face. How can you say all life is an illusion or perspective based, and think your sentence has objective meaning?

I think it does. I think you think it does. Yet so much of Hindu and Eastern religion does not. Neither did Nietzsche. How do you resolve or explain that?


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 5 years ago from Toronto, Canada

Hello Mr. O'Brian. (Yes, I know you were joking - I'm dancing too, as usual.) Salamanders are fiery!

My apology for bursting-in again like Kramer in Seinfeld but I heard his name being written. That man was a genius. Yes, Nietzsche of course.

I am not sure how the term of objective meaning has come together with him in the same sentence but I think they are unhappy about it (lol). If we were talking about Kant, maybe that term would fit along somewhere but Nietzsche? I am shaking my head. I think he wanted us to be wild, to be free, to forget about "objective meaning" and to create ourselves on our own. Have courage! (That's what I hear from him.)

Of course, when one says something with conviction, one may think that that has some sort of an objective meaning. Sure it may, or it may not, or it may for a period of time ... I hear Montaigne now: "I may contradict myself but the truth I do not contradict."

Thanks you for the conversation. (And if you have the time at some point and feel like it (no pressure - just curious what you would have to say), try my essay titled "My Stairwell to Heaven" - it is on Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.)

All the best!


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 5 years ago from Toronto, Canada

rofl ... I guess I was thinking stairwells ... it's stairway LOL (that's what happens when I start writing before my morning coffee)


Business Success 5 years ago

I really only meant to reference the first sentence of the Nietzsche quote re: that everything is relative... :-)


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Mr Happy.

No. I agree with you. I was saying that Nietzsche created a philosophy called perspectivism which states that there is no objective reality. Reality is only relative o perspective or the subjective.

It's not a philosophy I agree with. ;)


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Business Success

lol... Yes. But to what?


Business Success 5 years ago

Why of course, each other... lol


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

I agree. But some wouldn't. ;)


rmichaelf profile image

rmichaelf 5 years ago from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows...

I have created a new profile from which I will be posting, discontinuing the use of Business Success. The reasons will become clear in a post from this profile, but I didn't want yo to think that I had abandoned this wonderful conversation....


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 5 years ago from Toronto, Canada

Cute Avatar ... much better than the Business-stuff-one ... (in my opinion).


rmichaelf profile image

rmichaelf 5 years ago from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows...

Slarty,

hmmmm, with what would those agree :)? 1. Having pertinence or relevance; connected or related.

2. Considered in comparison with something else. 3. Dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute. I throw these three brief definitions out not to imply that that is all there is, but to try to urge my mind past them to get to what you are thinking making the statement that "some wouldn't." I don't want to go off on a tangent if we are just having a laugh at how irrationally our thoughts can be while forming our rationalizationsns! Yes, a hearty lol belongs here... but there is a real question in there as well.

Mr. Happy, what a genunine fit of laughter at myself you gave me! With gratitude, I hope to return the fun... I am not now or have ever been able to have enough stock in self awareness to represent what ever it is I am to others, in word or image!


Spirit Whisperer profile image

Spirit Whisperer 5 years ago from Isle of Man

Michael the Archangel has arrived!


rmichaelf profile image

rmichaelf 5 years ago from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows...

SW, You bring warm fuzzies to my heart, and hope that I may do honor to that name. Thank you my friend, I hope that which you see, is that which I can be... in our friendship and in my life.


Spirit Whisperer profile image

Spirit Whisperer 5 years ago from Isle of Man

I have no doubt.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

rmichaelf

My meaning is just that some philosophical positions do not agree that there is a relationship at all, or think of it as an illusion.


rmichaelf profile image

rmichaelf 5 years ago from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows...

Slarty, I'm missing something here. Granted I am five minutes away from deep slumber, but are we not discussing things which are inherantly dualistic and as such relationtional? And wouldn't a philosophical position which would think that this isn't so no longer be in that category and beyond or outside our discusion? If the answer is something to the effect of of course not you big dummy, would you please take a second and catch me up???

Thank you,

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working