Relational Philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relational Philosophy, as defined by the Persian-American philosopher Ardeshir Sepahsalar, is the history of humanity in its evolving exposure of the development of the Self-Unself (SU), the Self-Others (SO), and the Self-World (SW). ^[1]

The nature of the Relational perspective is characterised by an "enhancement" of the world. Some famous ancient theorists of the relational perspective are Zarathustra, Mithra, Omar Khayyám.

1 Key concepts
2 Relational analysis
3 Evolution and Relational theory
4 Themes in the Evolution of Human Expression
5 Notes

[edit] Key concepts

As viewed from a Relational perspective, human experience is rooted in three phenomena: Self-Unself (SU), the Self-Others (SO), and the Self-World (SW). From the time of Australopithecus afarensis to our world today, it is the meanings of an expression in relation to others and the world that have dictated the fate of humanity. Historical analysis shows that the individual is not always victorious when opposed to the masses or the world, but in the most crucial ways the individual has shaped and controlled the masses from within its relational ontology.

From the birth of language to religion, and from art to science, the individual has shaped the masses and has been shaped by it. This battle is biological, within and of the body. Mutation and adaptation affect the self, the body; while natural selection affects the masses, populations. We are at the mercy of the individual and at odds with the masses. A battle wages inside every individual and is expressed with the role of the moral image for the liberation or enslavement of both the individual and the masses.

[edit] Relational analysis

Relational analysis, to some critics, appears similar to Postmodernism. Defenders of Relational analysis would argue that there is a distinct difference, while post-modernism is generally viewed as an abandonment of any clear meaning and authority of text, Relational philosophy is generally viewed as creating the essence of meaning and authority from its relational ontology, so that the ultimate source of authority is the play of the three relations in the expression.

A Relational analysis of history attempts to show that the ethics of time have been the most outspoken expression of the relational ontology, and they have changed sides and perspectives to liberate or enslave the individual against the masses in search for the absent images.

To understand this incredible balancing act Relational analysis uses tools with which it can see through the ideological black holes that lean either on the side of the individual or the side of the masses, either or neither on the side of ideologies. This objective tool is obtainable with the act of any (Relational) expression. Because the only perspective humanity has ever had is the Relational perspective, in or out of harmony with other expressions or the masses opinion in the world at any particular time.

Relational expressions are at the heart of the relationship between the SU and the SO. The phenomena of the SU, SO and SW in relation to an expression is captured in all expressions. Relational Analysis^[2] traces the ontology of an "expression" in its flux, which can never completely leave the SU, the SO, and the SW.

The movement of power from the individual to the masses or vice versa is recorded, though obscured from the individual in every expression.

All meanings answer from a Relational perspective as the individual expresses itself against the masses or vice versa, as it shapes the World. All meanings are created from this Relational ontology. Within Relational expressions we discover ideological values that are always at the threshold of identifying themselves with other relational perspectives. The reality of it is always temporal and in a flux between the SU, SO, and SW. It is for the self and against the self. It's always for the masses and never for the masses alone. It's source is always in the world, in the SW relation.

To understand any Relational expression as the object of analysis, one must first understand the changes that have brought about the growth of any expression beyond its temporal state or form.

One must look at the cycles of evolution and/or revolutions to understand the relations between the structures and functions of an evolving expression of Reality. The past does not yield her secrets easily, but she does give hints from time to time. It is with the help of the present image of reality that we can see the past unfold and the future become.

[edit] Evolution and Relational theory

As an elaboration of the modern theory of evolution, the analysis model using the synoptic method explains both the persistence and the alteration of "themes," in human expression, by identifying the three convergent Relations within every human expression and their biological structures: DNA, fitness, sexual selection, maturation rate, environmental forces including gene flow and drift.

Once the focus is placed on a Relational analysis model and its synoptic method's ability to translate the three convergent human relations into their evolutionary counter parts, its explanatory power becomes self evident. The point to keep in mind is that no supplement to the modern theory of evolution can ever state an end goal, or a predetermined future outcome for anything as complex as a biological organism such as Homo sapiens sapiens. Human expression is part of, if not the apex of, the most complex biological system, the brain; in fact, the brain is more complex than any known biological system, therefore, it is absurd to assume that if a model can explain the regularities or irregularities within a few thousand years of pre-history and history, that it can also predict a future outcome for that system. Though it might predict certain parameters, if the data or theories are correct. Since we are able to look back a few million years and apply our data to our present theory, we ought to be able to give an adequate scientific and meaningful explanation of the "themes" in the evolution of human expression, language, and culture.

The philosophical concept of Relationality, as a bird's eye view, amplifies the three fold process of human expression. Relational philosophy as a point of view, exposes the three necessary evolutionary levels in human expression.

[edit] Themes in the Evolution of Human Expression

Relational philosophy exposes the evolution and the "ontology" of human expression. It is an ontological fact that these three relations: Self-Unself (SU), the Self-Others (SO), and the Self-World (SW) converge. Therefore, it aims at the most accurate analysis of these three levels, by using a synoptic method, thus allowing for the most accurate understanding of the evolution of human expression. The latter three relations are important because they are necessarily distinct, while being simultaneously infused in every human expression. By using a Relational analysis model and synoptic methods to analyze the expression of the human condition, Relational philosophy attempts to understand the boundaries between these very three ontological levels. It is important to keep in mind that while each level affects the other, no single level can entirely negate the other two. The three levels co-exist, separate and co-dependent. One can plainly see that the philosophical notion of Relationality lies at the root of every theme or human expression. In other words, because mankind is categorically interlocked within these three ontological levels, any process of attaining "knowledge" through the "analysis" of human expression will be subjected to these same levels. So, not only will the three levels be a necessary part of any adequate "theory" created by the human mind, but in fact, only if these three levels are incorporated within our methods of analysis can we therefore accurately decipher the "themes" in the evolution of human expression.