yes i agree arlo, i think an 'ecological perspective' is perhaps a good way to imagine the new paradigm, for an ecology privileges the interconnections - the interdependence - over the elements themselves, which are privileged in an atomic perspective. obviously the interaction between elements is where the dynamism is, the elements themselves being relatively static.
so what does this mean for thought? for philosophy? well i guess it means that the relation between concepts - the effects they have on each other - are primary. what happens when we compare, juxtapose, counterpose... - how does a concept evolve/grow/extend when it is seen in the light of other concepts....? this is a new type of dialectic, in which the goal is not to synthesise or reduce, rather it seeks to keep the contrasting elements in a kind of creative tension - seeing what new ideas/insights are gained from these interrelations. this is *creative philosophy*; philosophy has never really been a search for truth, not even science is that (science is more about a search for function)...philosophy is about love and wisdom.... i guess that means that we are doing philosophy when we are subsumed by love - love/intrigue for the mystery at the heart of all our inquiries; and also love for ourselves and the whole world - that is, a la pirsig, only when we care are we capable of philosophy. as for the wisdom bit....what is wisdom? knowledge of the implicate order or tao perhaps? and this is an intuitive knowledge - a *knowing* rather than knowledge - knowledge *in action*. creative philosophy - i like that....sounds good. as for power and capitalism...well...i guess money is the supreme example of reduction - everything reduced to a dollar quantity- this is a monoculture rather than a true ecology. a healthy economy should have a multiplicity of exchange agents; just as a healthy forest has many insects, birds, reptiles, invertebrates, fungi that facilitate the energy exchanges that maintain the dynamic equilibrium. we need more than money then - different types of exchange - gift, volunteer, barter, credits; and the money we do use needs to circulate! this is what the japanese understand so well - it is how many times the money goes round that indicates economic health. when so much cash is tied up in banks and the assets of the obscenely rich - this life giving energy is criminally withdrawn from the economic ecology - money must be used, not hoarded. money with a use by date! but the rich will not give up their billions - they are owned by their wealth - power is a disease, a la lord of the rings or even scarface. it is we - the poor of the world, the vast vast majority that are sacrificed on the altar of avarice....but we walk up the steps ourselves. --- On Fri, 12/3/10, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > From: ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] continental and analytic philosophy > To: [email protected] > Received: Friday, 12 March, 2010, 3:41 PM > [gav] > philosophy - the love of wisdom - is at its best when > creating new concepts > which open up new ways of thinking - new directions, new > interconnections. > > [Arlo] > Yeah, you know I think you could make the argument that > what has happened to > philosophy is what has happened to rotisserie building and > motorcycle > maintenance. There is a hang-up on the endless specificity > and technicalities > and a lack of overall "care" or "oneness" or "grooving" > that would return "art" > to the practice. > > Again, I just make the point that this is hardly unique to > the academic > discipline of philosophy, and I think ZMM underscores very > strongly that the > entirety of Western Culture (which includes the building of > rotisseries) has > been effected by this schism. > > This is not to say either that specificity has no place > whatsoever. Only that > the evident disconnect owes a great deal to the very > fragmented nuances which > become the sole pursuit of said activity. > > As you seem to suggest (correct me if I am wrong), what > gets lost is an overall > "ecological" perspective. We can engineer genes, but we > don't understand what > it is to be human in the first place. Pirsig's comment from > ZMM is a profound > one. > > "Phædrus remembered a line from Thoreau: "You never gain > something but that > you lose something." And now he began to see for the first > time the > unbelievable magnitude of what man, when he gained power to > understand and rule > the world in terms of dialectic truths, had lost. He had > built empires of > scientific capability to manipulate the phenomena of nature > into enormous > manifestations of his own dreams of power and wealth...but > for this he had > exchanged an empire of understanding of equal magnitude: an > understanding of > what it is to be a part of the world, and not an enemy of > it." (ZMM) > > This is precisely the "ecological" perspective so beaten > out of modern > discourse, in nearly all disciplines. We can still see so > much how the pursuit > of this "power" (be it social or economic capital) informs > so much of the > West's activity. > > [gav] > so we return to the ethics of permaculture i think. by > caring for the planet > (ethic 1)and people (ethic 2), and by providing the fair > share (ethic 3) that > is necessary for the process of individuation... > > [Arlo] > I think you're spot on. > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
