[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[transformative-change] knowing vs. being
At 16:44 97-07-08 +0000, you wrote:
> [...]
>Personally, I believe that one of the primary needs for paradigm shifting
is in
>the tendency to want conceptualizations that explain, define, quantify or
>associate the gestalt that we live in.
This is a blatant slander against all people in knowledge professions.
Just kidding.
But seriously, you've made a very strong, interesting statement there. And
carefully phrased, so I think you probably mean exactly what you are saying.
I assert that the motivation to conceptualize is something that we better
accept in ourselves and in our species. It isn't going to go away. We're
stuck with it. There is SO MUCH literature about this issue -- its a very
interesting one!! I think the story of Genesis is primarily about this
motivation and this curse: this motivation to know, and this curse of being
alienated irrevocably from nature as a result of knowing.
The ability to conceptualize has lifted us from merely drifting with the
flow of the universe with no comment, with no choice, with no possibility of
changing course. The good news is that this ability allows us to
distinguish between good and bad, to make choices, and to change direction.
The bad news is that, as individuals, we can get alienated from Life.
Disasters sometimes occur in nature. Weather patterns change and a whole
species will starve. The species will not analyze the situation and come up
with new ways to feed itself; they won't develop a system of trade that will
allow them to import food; animals with enough food elsewhere don't organize
"Beaver-Aid concerts" or "We Are The Forest" albums. Instead, the species
will continue to eat itself into starvation. We don't call that wrong,
because they don't know any better.
Sometimes, lightning causes fires that destroy millions of trees and
countless animals. We don't call it wrong, because the weather doesn't know
any better.
Planet-wide disasters have occured. One of the leading theories of what
happend 65 million years ago was that a comet hit the earth near the Gulf of
Mexico. It was so devastating that it destroyed the earth's ecosystem.
Most species went extinct within a few seasons. It was unbelievably painful
and destructive. We don't say that the comet was immoral.
We apply terms like "wrong", "good", "bad", and "moral" primarily to human
activity. It is partly, though not entirely, our conceptual ability that
allows us to do so. Without that conceptual ability, we would drift along
with the thoughtless abandon of the starving species, the lightning bolt,
the comet. Our urge to conceptualize brings terms like "good" and "bad"
into existence. Our ability to think and learn and understand also means
that we can know better than to do bad things. We evaluate the morality of
others' behaviour because we know they can make choices.
Note that none of the above discussion argues against being, against our
biological dimension, against our ultimate inseparability from the dust of
the earth. That would be silly. A life without feelings, without walks in
the forest, without occasionally watching clouds would be boring and
pointless. The dimension of being is important and it needs exercise.
But let's assume that there is some purpose behind the nature of our nature.
Let's assume that what we do actually does matter. I put it to you all that
the purpose of our being here is to use our capacity for knowledge
productively, not to rebel against it.
Greg Parker
====
To unsubscribe from this list, email to transformative-change-request@ox.org,
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the email.
Follow-Ups: