Hi Brian,
Have you read any of Erich Fromm? or Gregory Bateson? Dorothy Lee's book
*Freedom and Culture* deals directly with the effect of the various concepts
of being and time, etc as to the way they affect people's lives; she is
especially good at spelling out the relationship between language and
behavior. Fromm, as I'm sure you know, deals with the way capitalism leads
to the commodification of human beings, an idea that has come up on this
list from time to time. He deals with it directly in *To Have or To Be* and
with its consequences in much of his other work, especially *Escape From
Freedom* and *The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness*.
Yes, Einstein did point out to us that time and space are artifacts of human
thinking. He also was very clear that his most profound ideas derived from
mystical experiences and dreams. I don't know what other evidence one would
need to have to acknowledge that 'being in the moment' can be of value in
the advancement of rational understanding of the universe. Herbert Maslow
writes about the importance of mystical experiences in *The Psychology of
Being* and Milhaly Csikszentmihalyi in his books about being in the 'flow'
of work, etc. enhances and enriches life.
So yes, there are some very serious people who have dealt with the way the
mind/body split and the assumptions of the scientific method have been
limiting and at the same time acknowledge the benefits that have been the
result of that split. The problem is that when that split and the ideas that
emanate from it are applied to the way we deal with ourselves and others as
human beings, we become objects, we deal with ourselves and others as
objects and our lives and experiences become fragmented and are at the root
of why so many of us feel isolated and alienated and have to turn to power
and violence in order to feel fulfilled. These things have also been pointed
out eloquently and in great detail by thinkers such as David Bohm, David
Peat, John Briggs and others.
Selma
----- Original Message -----
From: "mcandreb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Not ideological (was More crap again)
> Hi Selma,
> A few thoughts:
> I can't re-member exactly when I first had this thought: 'there is only
> the "now"'. And I also can't re-member (do we need language to
> 're-member'? Is that why we can't re-member stuff that we did when we
> were 6 weeks or 6 months old? or in old age as words just don't show up
> when needed!) when I first heard this quote by Einstein talking about a
> recently departed friend:
>
> "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That
> means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the
> distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly
> persistent illusion."
>
> I believe the physicists came to this insight long after the ancients
> did.
>
> I re-member my father talking about how the concept of time changes as a
> person's age increases. Time speeds up.
>
> Chaos and wilderness connect in my mind. What feels foreign seems
> chaotic (unpredictable) to some. Some city folk describe forests as
> wilderness (unpredictable).
>
> This writing kept me in the moment; so does being caught up in a story,
> film, play, teaching, music, conversation - anything that allows me to
> forget about time. (time disappears)
>
> Take care,
> Brian
>
>
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Well then, let me ask you and the list if you think there is any value
> > for
> > understanding our lives and culture in discussing the issues of
> >
> > 'being in the moment', not instead of but in addition to using our
> > rational
> > minds at other times and incorporating what we may have learned while
> > we
> > were 'in the moment'
> >
> > the idea that what appears to be chaos has an underlying order that
> > may
> > appear if we can be open to those possibilities; being open to those
> > possibilities may necessitate a combination of 'being in the moment'
> > and
> > using our rational minds
> >
> > are there similarities and differences and connections to be made
> > between
> > the interaction between human being(s) and the interaction between
> > human
> > being(s) and nature, art, science, etc What are the different
> > dimensions of
> > 'being' that exist when we are thinking or just totally involved in
> > the
> > 'meeting of another's eyes'. There is clear evidence that brain waves
> > change
> > dramatically when people are totally involved say, in listening to
> > music,
> > making love, painting a picture, e.g., on the one hand, and thinking
> > about
> > things on the other hand. I'm not talking here just about the
> > differences
> > between emotion and thinking. I don't mean to be condescending, but I
> > suspect there are only a few on this list that will be able to
> > distinguish
> > between emotion and what I am talking about.
> >
> > I've said this before- if we don't deal with some of these basic
> > issues
> > about human life and culture, the rest of the conversation just goes
> > around
> > in circles.
> >
> > For example: the way humans 'meet' each other varies enormously by
> > culture:
> > in cultures where 'being' is valued, people 'meet' and connect very
> > differently. This had been more than alluded to in some of the posts
> > here,
> > especially by Ray.
> >
> > Do you think a discussion of the way people 'connect' and how this
> > comes out
> > of culture and reinforces it would be helpful in our understanding of
> > what
> > kind of a society we might want to try to imagine for the future?
> >
> > Selma
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Well then, let me ask you and the list if you think there is any value
> > for
> > understanding our lives and culture in discussing the issues of
> >
> > 'being in the moment', not instead of but in addition to using our
> > rational
> > minds at other times and incorporating what we may have learned while
> > we
> > were 'in the moment'
> >
> > the idea that what appears to be chaos has an underlying order that
> > may
> > appear if we can be open to those possibilities; being open to those
> > possibilities may necessitate a combination of 'being in the moment'
> > and
> > using our rational minds
> >
> > are there similarities and differences and connections to be made
> > between
> > the interaction between human being(s) and the interaction between
> > human
> > being(s) and nature, art, science, etc What are the different
> > dimensions of
> > 'being' that exist when we are thinking or just totally involved in
> > the
> > 'meeting of another's eyes'. There is clear evidence that brain waves
> > change
> > dramatically when people are totally involved say, in listening to
> > music,
> > making love, painting a picture, e.g., on the one hand, and thinking
> > about
> > things on the other hand. I'm not talking here just about the
> > differences
> > between emotion and thinking. I don't mean to be condescending, but I
> > suspect there are only a few on this list that will be able to
> > distinguish
> > between emotion and what I am talking about.
> >
> > I've said this before- if we don't deal with some of these basic
> > issues
> > about human life and culture, the rest of the conversation just goes
> > around
> > in circles.
> >
> > For example: the way humans 'meet' each other varies enormously by
> > culture:
> > in cultures where 'being' is valued, people 'meet' and connect very
> > differently. This had been more than alluded to in some of the posts
> > here,
> > especially by Ray.
> >
> > Do you think a discussion of the way people 'connect' and how this
> > comes out
> > of culture and reinforces it would be helpful in our understanding of
> > what
> > kind of a society we might want to try to imagine for the future?
> >
> > Selma
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "mcandreb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brian McAndrews"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 5:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Not ideological (was More crap again)
> >
> >
> > > Hi Selma,
> > > Wittgenstein is behind Shotter. You need to get to know him. His
> > life
> > > must be appreciated in order to understand his writing. Ray Monk's
> > > biography "Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius" will do this
> > splendidly:
> > >
> > > From The Times Literary Supplement
> > > This is a very satisfying philosophical Life. When I read Bruce
> > Duffy's
> > > excellent novel, The World as I Found It {BRD 1989}, I was convinced
> > > that onlya novel could do justice to this exemplary, almost awesome
> > > life, with its fierce moral beauty and relentless artistic drive. I
> > now
> > > no longer believe that. There is no substitute for unflinching
> > truth.
> > > Ray Monk's biography is a contribution not only to our understanding
> > of
> > > Wittgenstein as philosopher and as person, but of philosophy as
> > finally
> > > confessional when it is truly great.
> > >
> > > Take care,
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > > Brian,
> > > >
> > > > Another thinker we both admire! Although I am most familiar with
> > him
> > > > through
> > > > his home page and the relationship of his work to The Sociology of
> > > > Culture.
> > > > I haven't yet had a chance to read anything of his except what's
> > on
> > > > his web
> > > > site but I did thoroughly enjoy reading this.I have a couple of
> > > > questions
> > > > about how one might interpret some of what he said and you may
> > just
> > > > want to
> > > > tell me to read the rest of his stuff to get answers, and that's
> > fine
> > > > but
> > > > this article did generate, for me, questions about the
> > relationship of
> > > > what
> > > > he is saying to
> > > >
> > > > the Buddhist idea of 'being in the moment"
> > > >
> > > > Chaos theory- there is a paragraph in which it appears that he is
> > > > saying
> > > > that by 'paying attention' to the moment, which may seem to be
> > without
> > > > order, eventually the order appears.
> > > >
> > > > And I suspect he might be using the 'meeting of a stranger's eyes'
> > as
> > > > a
> > > > metaphor for any situation where we have contact with 'other'
> > which
> > > > would
> > > > include long and intimate conversations, listening to music,
> > enjoying
> > > > and/or
> > > > participating in other art forms, doing mathematics.
> > > >
> > > > Selma
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Futurework mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
