Can you please explain, in an uncomplicated way, what Structuralism is?
It is very hard to give an easy answer to your question. A long time ago, I wrote a paper on structuralism where I began with: We must first look at the various structural models that have been described in linguistics (Saussure and Chomsky,) anthropology (Levi-Strauss,) psychology (Piaget,) and philosophy (Foucault). It was a long paper. But, I had no simple answers back then. Later, I stumbled upon a simple answer. After reading the book, Order Out Of Chaos by the Nobel laureate, Ilya Prigogine, I ran across the following quote: “Whatever we call reality, it is revealed to us only through the active construction in which we participate.” Ilya Prigogine
If all is one, why do we need worldviews?
The philosophy I subscribe to suggests that individuality and the freedom to act and choose is itself incorporated into the universe where “all is one.” It takes some getting used to, but it is logically consistent. The following quote from my blog, I hope, will help to answer your question:
“A word of caution here, just because the Upanishads and Christian mysticism may celebrate the same source, they remain products of different religious traditions; this follows from the b~b~bb structure that grounds human individuality. In other words, the sectarian nature of any religion speaks only through its own tradition because all religions are a product of the individuality that speaks through the ‘human freedom to choose,’ which, in turn, lies embedded in nature, humanity, and divinity.
How does unity coexist with multiplicity? How does oneness make room for otherness?
In The Beginning was the paradox: How does the all-perfect source become something less than it-self? God, being up for this challenge, solved the dilemma, and She did this by (gender is optional here, in fact, it’s probably best to think of God in terms of process, in terms of “processing divinity”) liberating Her own non-being. This event had to be performed in such a way so as God could both be and not be God in the same phenomenon. Her solution is doable, even logically doable, in the form of being-what-is-not-while-not-being-what-is. In this double negation, God becomes free in the phenomenon of not, not being God, while affirming (by implication) the God that is free to not be God. In other words, the liberation of God’s non-being becomes God’s immanence (God’s becoming) while, at the same time, there exists an “implied” transcendent God. God’s immanence is particularly important to humans because divine immanence is what gets called “reality.”