[MD] American moral complex

[MarshaV]

At 10:40 AM 7/29/2007, you wrote:

>      [SA previously]
> > >Do we need problems to solve?  Do we need problems
> > to spur a philosophical discussion?
>
>
>      [Marsha]
> > How about a great curiosity?
>
>
>      A great curiosity about nothing (dq)?  What is
>there to know about static patterns?  We know what the
>levels are.  We don't always know where, or have the
>knowledge as to where some static patterns belong
>(which level?).  Yet, these certain static patterns,
>as to what level do they belong, is it a question of
>change?  I think these static patterns are
>degenerative or morally bettering themselves, thus, no
>longer in one distinct level.  So, the indecision as
>to what level seems to be based upon not only problems
>(degenerative spv movements), but solutions (morally
>better spv's)?
>      I don't know what to be curious about?  It is all
>right here, right now.  No seeking for something.
>      Are problems the heat on the stove?  To get U.S.
>revolutionaries to show up for their trainings those
>in charge gave beer parties afterwards.  To have
>participants at meetings about plans to change how the
>U.S. will relate with England in those days, the
>meetings were held at taverns a lot.  So, people would
>show up (the beer was key).  I'm not saying we need
>beer or heat, but is that what we are doing here.
>Revealing problems and then solving them
>intellectually?  Pirsig mentions in the sailboating
>article how social issues can be solved with Quality.
>Nicholas Maxwell calls for a Intellectual Revolution
>due to the failure of the Enlightenment to apply the
>scientific, intellectual rational effectively in
>society to help induce a civilized, enlightened
>society.  Social knowledge in the Enlightened period
>veered off course, and it became about collecting
>social knowledge/Baconian facts.  Nicholas Maxwell
>points out that social knowledge just to be collected
>is where science used upon the social level became
>incomplete.  The intellect is to help the social
>level.
>
>woods,
>SA

Greetings SA,

Maybe we each come at this differently.  I'm not suggesting there's 
just one reason to wonder about philosophical questions, but I think 
curiosity is a good one.

If I am a constellation of overlapping & everchanging spovs, than I 
might be curious what those patterns might be.  What are they?  How 
do they work?  What sets them to activate?  Should they exist?  What 
benefits? Is something harmed?  What do they influence?  If they 
disintegrate, same questions?  Are they a subset of other 
patterns?  What do they serve?   Are they common in other 
individuals?  How far does that commonality reach?  Etc., etc., etc....

Why wonder you might ask?  I believe, as Socrates stated, that an 
unexamined life is not worth living.  Huh? To become a truer, 
clearer, more decisive constellation.

Marsha