[MD] Chaos

[David M]

William Blake:

The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the Eyes of others only a 
Green thing that stands in the way. Some See Nature all Ridicule & 
Deformity, & by these I shall not regulate my proportions; & some Scarce see 
Nature at all. But to the Eyes of the Man of Imagination, Nature is 
Imagination itself. As a man is, So he Sees. As the Eye is formed, such are 
its Powers. You certainly Mistake, when you say that the Visions of Fancy 
are not to be found in This World. To Me This World is all One continued 
Vision of Fancy or Imagination.

Martin Heidegger:

How are we going to find our famous particulars, the individual trees

as such, as trees; how shall we be able even to look for trees, unless the 
representation of what a tree in general is shines before us?.

Unless we are guided by a developed knowledge of treeness. we can look over 
thousands of trees in vain

-we shall not see the tree for the trees



David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Heather Perella" <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Chaos


>
>     [DM]
>> I understand that the solution suggested by the
>> philosopher of science Nick Maxwell is that we need
> to understand
>> what we value, what we consequently want to attain
> that
>> is of value, and develop theories that recognise
> what we value
>> and what we ends we are seeking.
>
>
>     Exactly.  I like trees.  Trees are trees.  Trees
> are me.  Now, this value, my end that I seek (or
> settled perspective) works well for me, and the world
> due to trees so numerous.  Yet, exactly what I'm
> saying (the context, content, meaning, etc...) is
> settling upon perspective, who's perspective though
> one might ask.  Mine and anybody reading this.  What
> is this perspective?  It is totally real trees, and it
> is me, this real tree.  What the heck does this mean?
> Any questions like this latter one, is the whole ball
> in chain in which might lead to more questions, more
> clarity needed, and yet, once we take certain steps
> this all might be clear, even if the clarity is to why
> I'm saying stuff like this.  Then explanations might
> be necessary, but we are all well aware that to get
> trapped in depending upon somebody for an explanation
> too much is to doubt ourselves, and here, question
> mark, all over again.  Is this what anybody wants,
> 'question-mark-all-over-again'.
>
> clouds out of nowhere, seemingly,
> SA
>
> P.S. excellent post DM
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Cheap talk?
> Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
> http://voice.yahoo.com
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>