Replying to LO25591 --
Ray wrote:
>I like Whitehead. His name is great and seems almost fictional in that he
>embodies many of the transcendent elements of Western thought in his
>writings. I often think that Whitehead and Russell are very good
>introductions to non-Western thought from a Western perspective of course.
I am delighted to see Whitehead's name connected to non-Western thought.
Thanks Ray.
In history books, A. N. Whitehead will be remembered rather for his
collaboration to the Principia Matematica (a masterpiece of that time in
Western thought), than for his following remark:
"It is no paradox to say that in our most theoretical moods we may be
nearest to our most practical application." A. N. W.
It seems to me, that Whitehead was expressing in these words how huge
human imagination can be compared to what it actually accomplishes. This
he wrote even before K. Godel showed that the Russell-Whitehead model,
being as perfect as possible, is still incomplete.
I ask myself what is all this for me, now, toward the end of year 2000 (by
Christian counting method - for me, it's actually the dawns of 5761),
equipped with all it needs to look back at the development (be-coming) of
human consciousness (you may name it knowledge, understanding, technology
;-))? what can i learn from this developpment?
For logicians, non-X is anything but X, not only that the two sets have no
element in common, but that together they make up EVERYTHING (just don't
ask me what EVERYTHING is, please). therefore defining non-X by what it IS
will most probably be impossible.
Can my consciousness encompass any theory of leadership, different from
the theories I developped from and into? Will this be more then an ersatz?
What does it mean "non-western" for me, a western product of procreation?
Can I dream in any other language, but my mother-tongue? It seems that I
can not, and I'm not even surprised, doesn't it directly follow from
Whitehead and Russell's model and by Godel's theory?
And if so, what now?
An insight occured at the Friday dinner table, when my daughter, a fresh
student in the faculty of Eastern Culturs came up with the following:
In the Chineese caligraphy lesson her teacher was tracing back the history
of "writing". He explained to the class how this invention served the need
for communication among hundreds of different "languages" in old China,
and therefore they had to invent a figurative script, pronounced in
various forms but common to all. Yes, yes, we say, that's also how
hieroglyphics developped in old Egypt, to serve the need to communicate
with nomadians (workers or tradesmen).
Maybe Jan is right, suggesting to seek for a new common language, less we
become a modern instance of the Tower of Babillon. I think there's no
need. It will suffice to give more respect (just like logicians do) to
"non-me" and all what derives from it (like "non-us"). This can be
accomplished, among other ways, by letting ourselves experience the
simillarity in opposites, as mentioned in an earlier post.
with hope,
Judy
Judy R. Tal
LCL -Learning Cycles
tel: (972) 3 6997903
mobile: (972) 54 666294
fax: (972) 3 6902127
--"Judy Tal" <judyt@netvision.net.il>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.