Subj : Back again To : FRANK MASINGILL From : RICHARD M. MEIC Date : Fri Jul 13 2001 08:42 pm -> Read "Debate of a Man Contemplating Suicide with his Soul" of circa -> 2,000-2,500 BCE Okay, Frank... You do realize that it will take a long time to track down the piece. I just finished a search on the net and found only 1 refference ("Eric Voegelin Remembered") where you yourself made a number of comments. By the time I find the reference itself and read it this topic will have been long over and perhaps even both of us will have forgotten why it came up in the first place. So, if you would be so kind as to quote me the pertinent passages I would be greatful. :o) Til then I hold steadfast to my view that we understand reality better than we did. Without bringing in metaphysics or god into the topic, without breathing in more complexity than is needed to explain processes, without using bigger words than is needed, without quoting dead people from a time where knowledge was in its infancy... without all the fat. Another thoughts that occured to me: The trained philosopher seems to have forgotten how to properly phrase a question, so it is no wonder that the answers they derive are more complex than they need to be and it is no wonder why philosophy is not a science. That's because the question is made more complex than it needs to be. It is no wonder that a philosopher who has never attended any formal instruction looks at the comments made by the trained philosopher and realizes that nary a thought was original. This is what I have noticed. I have looked, searched the forums of the internet for one, just one trained philosopher that has not constantly repeated all things read, or referenced literature where a few choice words would do. I have found very few. The thoughts that occure to those like myself are original to _us_. It matters not that the thought has been brought forth by another or even a number of others. What matters is that no refference to any dead people was needed, no flipping frantically through page after page of book after book to find that half remembered quote from (insert dead philosopher here). There is a point at which a philosopher, like myself, can look back at the path traveled (and yes, even travailed) and find that it deviates little from the paths of those who first thought the thoughts that I now think. I fear for you, the trained ones. Are you truly doomed to regurgitate what you have been exposed to during your formal training? The philosophy you practice is not your own, for that I have nothing but sorrow. Do you remember how it feels to have an idea pop into existence and frolick in your mind for a while? Perhaps you are a lucky one and you still experience those moments of complete clarity, moments where the universe seems to speak to you not in riddles, but as an equal. I do more often than you realize, and I admit that I may be insane... but I don't need the library philosophy section to achieve those moments. I too am a child of the universe... I use the same playground... and the games I play are just as fun. My words are just as important and MUST not be ignored or distorted. Now back to the message: -> I tend to agree with John that it is not emotion and passion we need to -> get rid of. I have not said this at all. If you two had paid any heed to my words and the meaning they carried you would know this. I made the extra effort to clarify... it is now up to you to pay attention. I can lead you to my pool of meaning... but you must drink of it to understand. -> They just need to be turned in the direction of the -> Heraclitian Common This, my friend is exactly what I reffered to above. Use words and meanings us mere mortals on Earth can understand, for we are not gifted with the library you have. ;o) -> and the rationality of the humanity that philosophy -> and the spiritual eruptions that have occurred throughout the world -> along the lines incorporated in Plato's "Big Lie" Again, "Plato's _Big Lie_" is lost to me and I have not the time to hunt for who-knows-how-long for the reference. Therefore your meaning is lost... and this is unfortunate. -> as the greatest truth -> of all - that "all men or brothers." (Voegelin) Such myths through the -> refinement of philosophy certainly have not harmed men, whereas the -> rigidity of doctrine and ideology in the pursuit of perfection on earth -> turn men into devils. This has been the observation of my short -> lifetime as I yearrned and prayed for the "open soul in an open -> society" (Bergson, William James and Whitehead). What turn men into devils is the misaplication of knowledge and you know this, Frank. Do not alter the meaning of my message to that which you wish to argue against. It is not fair to me and above all it is not fair to yourself. Knowledge and the search for it is not evil, logic is not evil and emotion is not evil. Evil I dare say does not exist in any other reality but a man's mind. Does a man's mind create all? Sorry, metaphysics and overcomplication if you answer with anything but "no". I will repeat once more my _exact_ meaning: 1. Emotion (the drive to know X), is required in all sentient beings and is required to ask a question ("I wonder why X does this?"). 2. Logic with emotion put aside is required to answer the question ("X does this because of this particular process"). 3. Emotion then takes over after the question is aswered. Emotion is what appreciates the answer and sees the beauty in the answer. Emotion is what is used to apply the answer in a manner that satisfies a need (that need can be primary, secondary etc). Discovery of the real truth is made in #2. No more meaning than I just stated, and certainly no less. --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140) .