Posted by Diana on September 13, 19100 at 16:14:05:
In Reply to: Wilberish Posting-A Meta-Ethic from Complexity Theory posted by johnboy on September 06, 19100 at 22:09:06:
Johnboy,
Thank you for this post and for attempting to
dialogue with me. I feel privileged just to be
able to talk to someone with your command of the language. You are helping me exercise my mind and I am thankful.
I went so far as to dig out my American Heritage Dictionary, my college "Ethics and Metaethics" book, and my old Heidegger "Being and Time."
I'll tell you what I understand and you will be able to see if I've grasped any of it. Please feel free to correct me. (This is the way
we had our exams in my Heidegger class.)
I think the author is attempting to construct and articulate his own worldview as a part of his attempt to live an examined life. I would guess you are attempting to do something similar in your Christocentric version.
I can identify with the author as a "both/and/plus" way of thinking person. I'm like that in many ways, too.
I like his use of the scientific method and his cautions about applying metaphors willy nillly across hierarchial realms. Metaphors misapplied can be lethel.
I don't know what "ding an sich noumenal"reality means but I'm guessing it's German for a particular view of reality.
I liked his general categorization of 8 worldviews in an attempt to facilitate dialogue and lay the framework for a "global ethic." However, if he doesn't articulate his material in an easy to read format, how could it possibly become accepted globally? I guess it would have to filter down through the intellectuals.
Two book come to mind so far. "The Sourcebook of the World's Religions" edited by Joel Beversluis
which also discusses a global ethic and "Seven Life Lessons of Chaos" by Briggs and Peat. I think both these books have material related to what he is articulating.
I also like the assertion that attainment of the aesthetic "does not result from a purposeful striving but rather from randomness, chance and chaos." (p. 3) I wouldn't call it "randomness, chance, and chaos." I would call it grace.
Well, that's where I am so far. I'm much better with comic strips like Peanuts and Doonesbury. :)
Am I even close?
Oh, I was wondering what level of consciousness this man was speaking from. I am guessing he is
speaking from a very developed vision-logic consciousness on the mental level.
I am impressed. Yet, there is a great difference between a Meister Eckhart and an Aquinas. I think Eckhart is more to the heart of the matter.
Thank you so much johnboy.
Diana