At 10:10 PM -0700 12/2/99, David Buchanan wrote:
>Don't we agree that SQ and DQ are both necessary to the overall picture?
>Wouldn't "dynamic philosophizing" be an IMPOSSIBLE thing to do? As
>philosophers, aren't we SUPPOSED to deal with intellectual static
>patterns?
>
I agree completely with the above, David.
I'm not sure I agree with "the ultimate goal is to transcend all that in
favor of Dynamism". Maybe I can expand on it a bit.
We always bring every bit of our consciousness/enlightenment into SOMe sort
of static order that blends with the rest of our brains... I can't see how
pure dynamism is even possible. I certainly can't conceptualize it!
But even taking the successful mystic's word for it, that this is an
achievable goal, I'd say it takes a special sort of person to be able to do
this. The shamanistic journey beyond rationality and into the realms of DQ
can never be the universal goal of all ordinary members of society. Who's
gonna bake the bread and tend the children? Our very existence is
dependent upon tight static patterns that keep our hearts beating and our
lungs filled with air. It seems to me the best we can all do is stay open
to the possibility of dynamism beyond intellect and honor those who take
the journey and respect the wisdom they bring back to the intellectual
realm.
I'm probably overconstruing your term "ultimate goal" and warping it in my
head to mean "goal for members of a society". Is it more of an ultimate in
the same way that the speed of light is? Something one can approach but
never fully realize?
jc
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:16 BST