Re: MD Statesman?

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 21:13:57 BST

Next message: David Morey: "MD non-realism"

Previous message: Paul Vogel: "Re: MD Statesman?"
In reply to: MarshaV: "Re: MD Statesman?"
Next in thread: johnny moral: "Re: MD Statesman?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi Marsha

I enjoyed the Turning Point back in 1982 I think.
Have you tried Rupert Sheldrake too?

regards
DM
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: MarshaV
  To: moq_discuss@moq.org
  Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 7:53 AM
  Subject: Re: MD Statesman?

Greetings,

Hmmm. I certainly can agree hierarchy is a successful method. I was a programmer for a number of years, and I loved it. At one point I even tried to put Pirsig's discussion of Western Philosophy into a flowchart. That was just too much for my little brain to manage. - But isn't hierarchical methodology of the static variety? Not low value, but static. Maybe there's another way.

I've told people that ZMM is my bible. It's true. But there's a movie called Mindwalk that deeply moves me, and inspires me to push forward. In painting, I've been taught to see more like a painter: squint. That's what Mindwalk suggests to me. Squint. The movie is a dialogue between a politician, a physicist, and a poet. It's based on Fritjof Capra's book 'Turning Point'. It suggests we look at the world/existence as being made of interconnected systems and patterns of probability. There are no easy answers provided, but that doesn't mean answers don't exist. It's groovy!

I want to keep my mind open to both hierarctical and interconnectedness. But as I mentioned, I think hierarchy has not been terribly successful for the whole of humankind.

I don't really know anything. I'm exploring.

MarshaV

P.S. I just reread this email. The contradiction is that I start by saying hierarchy is successful, and end by saying it's unsuccessful. I'm going to admit the contradiction, and let it stand.

At 06:54 PM 6/9/2004 +0100, you wrote:

    Hi

    I had concerns at first too. But can we really avoid
    placing things into an evolutionary progression?
    The alternative seems to be to forsake values.
    When we decide what is the best way forward we
    are inevitably rejecting certain possibilities for the
    sake of those we are choosing. But also we can
    respect and give space to all life in the context
    of allowing others their own evolutionary trajectory
    unless conflict arises. Given conflict we have to assess
    how to resolve it, Pirsig's suggestion is that we do so
    in an evolutionary context of levels. It seems to work
    pretty well with the examples we have discussed here
    before. Like killing the virus to save the human being.

    regards
    David M