J. R. Molloy wrote
> You understand that these words which are difficult, are all
> of them time binding.
Yes. "Time-binding" is a concept that was used by Korzybski
a lot in General Semantics. I think that you mean the same
thing, namely, ..., well, I guess that the term is pretty
self-explanatory.
> But is that possible? Yes, without time, you see. Is it possible
> for humanity, with its narrow focus on practicality, to have
> this insight, so that the old pattern of life is broken? We
> have tried all this, tried every form of self-denial, and yet that
> insight doesn't come about. Once in a while there is a partial
> insight, but that partial insight is not the whole insight, so
> there is still partial ignorance. Which doesn't dispel the center
> of the self. It may dispel some ignorance in a certain area, but
> the source of the ignorance, the cause, the sustainer of it, is
> still there. Now what shall we do? But this is a wrong question.
> This leads nowhere.
Not at all! Progress is merely, slow. But not non-existent.
> We have stated the general plan. And one has to make the
> moves, or make no moves at all. I haven't the energy. I
> haven't the capacity to see it quickly. Because this is
> immediate, not just something that I practice and eventually
> get. I haven't the capacity, I haven't the sense of urgency,
> of immediacy. Everything is against me: family, colleagues,
> society. Everything.
I'm not 100% sure that I understand. But I think that you mean
that the habits of all the people and institutions around you
constantly mitigate against any revolutionary change in thinking
that you would like to attain. Is that right?
> And does this mean that I eventually have to become a monk?
> No. Becoming a monk is the same as becoming anything else.
> Becoming a monk is like becoming a businessman. I see all
> this, verbally as well as rationally, intellectually, but
> I can't capture this thing. Is there a different approach
> to this problem? I am always asking the same question,
> because I am caught in the same pattern. So, is there a
> totally different way? A totally different approach to the
> whole turmoil of life? Is there a different way of looking
> at it? Or is the old way the only way?
Until we may much better drugs, or until we have the singularity,
the old ways are the *only* ways. Constant introspection, as you
are doing, is utterly necessary, I think. It is to be hoped that
one's rational and logical mind prevails, though definitely *not*
unsupported by the emotions, which are crucial to reasoning and
to understanding. (E.g., see "Descartes Error", by Antoniu Damiaso.)
There is simply *no* revolutionary way of looking at it, *no*
totally different approach, or it would have been found long
ago. All we have is a lot of people who have managed to persuade
themselves that they have discovered this key, this "new way of
thought" that solves the problem in a simple manner. But it's
never happened, and I think never will until we have more direct
control over how our brains function.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:02 MDT