From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Oct 20 2002 - 21:53:30 BST
Dear Darrell,
I am still interested in 'your' 'empathic rationality', but I often need
quite a lot of time to reply.
You wrote 10/10 17:56 -0400:
'My take on "empathic rationality" was derived from a powerful experience,
(brought on by a need to understand what Pirsig said to me), where I believe
I was insane for several days. I didn't eat, barely drank and was basically
unable to leave my bed. My mind had turned totally inward and I was merely a
passenger along for the ride. What came from this was insights and
understanding that has answered a burning question that has bothered me for
many years, what is wrong with me and/or society that has created such a
problem in that relationship. The problem I sense in inserting myself in
this discussion is my experience is primarily intuition, instinct and
emotion. This quorum feeds on intellect so I have been hesitant to, (or
maybe not sure how), to contribute.
Unless there is an interest shown here for more about the experience I will
only share some of the outcome.'
I would like to know more about that experience. If you (understandably)
don't feel safe enough on the list, you could also elaborate off-list.
How was it brought on by a need to understand what Pirsig said to me? What
part of Pirsig's writings 'spoke to your condition'?
What was the burning question that was answered and had bothered your for
many years? Was it your ideas about 'empathic reality' being a next step in
evolution?
You described 'some of the outcome' of your experience with:
'The instinct that motivated the first chemical compound to become life has
continued to be a part of life forms. This instinct evolved just as the
physical bodies evolved. At some point this instinct became evolved to the
point where it needed an organ to house it. In homo sapiens that organ is
the brain ..., primitive thinking is the earliest thinking of homo sapiens.
As the violence of the environment continued to motivate our ancestors to
change to survive we developed Logic thinking. Both these processes of
thinking have continued to evolve until at this time we are evolving a third
process of thinking I call empathic rationality. There has existed conflict
between our earlier two processes of thinking from the beginning. One to
maintain self and the other to protect us from self. All this third process
of thinking does is refine the communications process both in our own
thinking as well as the collective thinking. Consciousness at whatever level
is a communications process.'
Did you read 'Lila'? Could this 'instinct' you describe in the first
sentence be the same as Dynamic Quality as described there?
Pirsig describes biological evolution in ch. 11 of 'Lila' as:
'a process by which weak Dynamic forces at a subatomic level discover
stratagems for overcoming huge static inorganic forces at a superatomic
level.'
By analogy I would say "Social evolution can be seen as a process by which
weak Dynamic forces at a subcellular level discover stratagems for
overcoming huge static biological forces at a supercellular level." and
"Intellectual evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic
forces at an individual level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static
social forces at a collective level."
Do I understand correctly that you see the development of 'empathic
thinking' also as a 'change to survive' motivated by 'violence of the
environment'? Do you then agree if I interpret your succession of
primitive/logic/empathic thinking as a description of intellectual
evolution, of a succession of stratagems for overcoming 'the violence of the
environment'? (I thus interpret this 'environment' as 'social environment'.)
Do you mean that 'empathic thinking' reconciles this 'conflict between our
earlier two processes of thinking'?
You don't really write about what constitutes or distinguishes 'empathic
thinking' from primitive and logic thinking.
I wrote 12/9 23:45 +0200:
'we will never be sure whether other beings than ourselves are conscious
unless we share their experience (which I don't consider impossible...).'
Could the distinction with earlier types of thinking be that 'empathic
thinking' presupposes the possibility to (intimately) share experience
between individuals?
Refering to your disagreement with some others on this list about the
(im)morality of judging others:
I wrote 14/10 23:26 +0200:
'social quality is ... 'status' or the difference in practical value of
different things and people. If we are not able to distinguish things (and
yes, people) by their different practical value, any social pattern of
values and any society/community will break down'
I think that judging others is inevitable and moral at the social level (the
level of the reproduction of habits and culture). I do agree with you
however. Judging others IS avoidable and immoral at the intellectual level
(the level of the reproduction of stories and systems of ideas that motivate
and justify our actions). We can and must
judge roles and behavior, but we needn't and shouldn't judge persons.
Maybe 'empathic rationality' and acknowledging that we share experience with
everyone else is necessary to be able to avoid judging other persons?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:59 GMT