Mike, you’re over-the-top brilliant but you need to work on your commas. A comma is a half pause; read what you write out loud and punctuate accordingly.
There's the question of living by others' opinions, then there's the question of living by our own, the sort of 'self-discipline' in which we make an ideology of them to which we seek to adhere. So much of current cultural discourse is attempts to impose ideologies on each other -- as if we can't do better than to adhere strictly to opinions, if we could only find (or be given) the right ones.
The Buddhist Diamond Sutra, favorite of Zen and the Beats, centers on Gautama explaining to a disciple how a Buddha cannot be recognized by the '32 marks of the Buddha.' Conforming to a list of virtues isn't it. J. Krishnamurti spoke of the difference between 'discipline' as strictness and 'discipline' as open learning. Aristotle's Ethics claims being well-balanced (temperate) is superior to being contained by opinions (continent).
So in addition to the question of getting oughts from is, there's the question whether we do best to act from any list of oughts -- however gotten -- or if in our nature there's a better path towards a virtuous life, a sense for virtue akin to our sense for beauty, both in the end beyond reason however well languaged.
What ought we do about the shortcomings in structuring oughts into confining, conflicting and alienating ideologies?
While reading this wonderful writing of Mike’s, I was reminded of my late mother - a master teacher in Eugene Gendlin’s Focusing technique. Perhaps it was the use of the term “felt sense” which was part of one of Gendlin’s core teachings. I never seriously explored Gendlin’s Focusing, but I’m wondering if you have Mike? Your writing never fails to astound me with its depth and purchase on the human condition. I love reading your content!
The problem is that liberty is the foundation in which we are all free enough to discover what our verse will be. 160 years later and the prize we sought is still not won...
Liberty is ordered thing. It's not subjective. It's intersubjective. And so there are emergent rules. We can call them virtues and vices. But there is an orientation. Not a deontological one. But one you can give yourself to. It is something accepted. Not forced.
You know, you are correct- we're living through the emergence of a new world. One that will ultimately be oriented towards what we collectively each choose. I choose liberty, for myself and others.
For the first time in a very long time I was reminded of Tolkien's Ainulindalë, The Music of the Ainur.
WISDOM YOU SPEAK
Mike, you’re over-the-top brilliant but you need to work on your commas. A comma is a half pause; read what you write out loud and punctuate accordingly.
There's the question of living by others' opinions, then there's the question of living by our own, the sort of 'self-discipline' in which we make an ideology of them to which we seek to adhere. So much of current cultural discourse is attempts to impose ideologies on each other -- as if we can't do better than to adhere strictly to opinions, if we could only find (or be given) the right ones.
The Buddhist Diamond Sutra, favorite of Zen and the Beats, centers on Gautama explaining to a disciple how a Buddha cannot be recognized by the '32 marks of the Buddha.' Conforming to a list of virtues isn't it. J. Krishnamurti spoke of the difference between 'discipline' as strictness and 'discipline' as open learning. Aristotle's Ethics claims being well-balanced (temperate) is superior to being contained by opinions (continent).
So in addition to the question of getting oughts from is, there's the question whether we do best to act from any list of oughts -- however gotten -- or if in our nature there's a better path towards a virtuous life, a sense for virtue akin to our sense for beauty, both in the end beyond reason however well languaged.
What ought we do about the shortcomings in structuring oughts into confining, conflicting and alienating ideologies?
While reading this wonderful writing of Mike’s, I was reminded of my late mother - a master teacher in Eugene Gendlin’s Focusing technique. Perhaps it was the use of the term “felt sense” which was part of one of Gendlin’s core teachings. I never seriously explored Gendlin’s Focusing, but I’m wondering if you have Mike? Your writing never fails to astound me with its depth and purchase on the human condition. I love reading your content!
The problem is that liberty is the foundation in which we are all free enough to discover what our verse will be. 160 years later and the prize we sought is still not won...
Liberty is ordered thing. It's not subjective. It's intersubjective. And so there are emergent rules. We can call them virtues and vices. But there is an orientation. Not a deontological one. But one you can give yourself to. It is something accepted. Not forced.
You know, you are correct- we're living through the emergence of a new world. One that will ultimately be oriented towards what we collectively each choose. I choose liberty, for myself and others.
A juicy piece that starts with a personal coincidence.
I've spent two days questioning what I do. And I've had to stop and ask myself: where does this judgment come from?
The questioning is simple and blunt: what am I doing wrong.
And I've had to stop and tell myself — this is not the way.
Buddha pointed it out. So did the Stoics. So did the Existentialists. And yet we have to remind ourselves of this in real time, over and over again.
The tension is real. And that's precisely what makes life pierce through us — and gives us the capacity to search for meaning.
We create meaning. We dance. Because the void chases us, relentless.
Viva la vida!