Hi Marhs, Wonderful to include you in this discussion. Sorry if I use the word system.
I believe, like Pirsig, that there are different levels of interaction each creating its own reality (if you will). For example, each nerve cell has its own reality. The group of nerve cells creates another, which we call the mind (a system). In the same way, each of us have our own reality, but he group reality is separate. We cannot experience that reality in the same way a nerve cannot sense the mind. Perhaps the flaw is thinking that we can determine group reality, which results in leaders thinking they can control it. Adopting through insight takes care of what is inside, but let's not stop there. Cheers, Willblake2 On May 8, 2009, at 3:39:25 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote Greetings Will, How many times can the pattern of reaching for quality be repeated before it becomes embedded in the social consciousness? Not another system!!! Exchanged through dialogue??? Not another system with this or that puny little dictator wanting to scurry to the top to define the choices. How about adopted through insight? Marsha At 01:11 AM 5/8/2009, you wrote: >Returning to the old way of thinking, the Upanishads, We can easily >get into a semantic >debate here. What is the difference between philosophy and so >called "mystical thought". >I believe that there is an agreed upon difference. Metaphysics can >easily become >ones own perception only, are we just a brain in a vat? > >The trouble with that for me, is, it becomes entirely personalized >and of no use >to social consciousness. What is good? Need anyone tell us? My >interpretation >of the metaphysical endeavor is to try to put together a system which can be >exchanged through dialogue. A group awareness, if you will, that is separate >from the personal awareness. I believe such a thing exists. > >Are there laws outside of our experience? Do we simply create the >world around us? >Which is a more useful way of thinking from a sociological point of view? > >I don't think these are new ideas, but perhaps worth another round. > >Cheers, > >Willblake2 > >On May 7, 2009, at 4:48:12 PM, "Steve Peterson" ><[email protected]> wrote: > > > > the end of purely abstract philosophy at least. > > but yes in a way most academic philosophy is becoming redundant as the > > existential takes precedence over the 'essential' (by which i mean the > > illogical idea of immutable 'real' laws, facts etc that are > > ontologically prior to experience). > > > > the existential is direct, dynamic, integrated, > > mythopoetic...philosophy now moves toward direct engagement: > > facilition over inculcation. > > > > philosophy become playful, creative, personal. > > > >Would you also say, "Pirsigian"? Or was Pirsig hopping on board an >existing trend in philosophy? > > >Moq_Discuss mailing list >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > >Moq_Discuss mailing list >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ . _____________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars......... . . Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
