Cherryl, Nick,
I have to say I'm surprised by that exchange and conclusion.
Surprised the current words "ring no bells" and equally surprised that
the recent exchanges don't suggest we could easily identify specific
"projects" that did ring our common bells.
That said I have to say, the day job always seems to get busier whilst
there are these interesting initiatives to pursue. So I recognise the
difficulty.
Stay in touch Cherryl, whatever.
Ian
On 3/29/07, Cherryl Martin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Nick,
>
>
>
> I guess you have given me the answer I suspected – but hoped to avoid. I,
> like the rest of the regular correspondents in this group, sincerely
> believed that your intentions were good and that I wanted to be part of a
> process that aimed at genuinely creating a better world in which individual
> gifts are appreciated and communication is honest and sincere.
>
>
>
> Since I have a lot of work to do on my own project, from which FOW
> communication has distracted significantly, I now ask you to unsubscribe me
> from your list. As you say, FOW is clearly not the place for me.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
>
> Cherryl
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: Group concerned that academia should seek and promote wisdom
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Nicholas Maxwell
> Sent: 29 March 2007 11:03 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Responses to what our Website Says
> Subject: Re: Responses to what our Website Says
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cherryl,
>
>
>
>
>
> Humanity is in deep trouble. We urgently need to learn how to
> resolve our conflicts and problems of living in wiser, more cooperatively
> rational ways than we do at present. That in turn requires we have
> institutions of learning devoted to that end. It is just that which we do
> not possess at present. We have science devoted to acquiring knowledge, but
> not rational inquiry devoted to helping us create a better world. It is a
> matter of very great importance for the long-term welfare of humanity that
> we transform academic inquiry (form knowledge-inquiry to wisdom-inquiry) so
> that it takes up the task of helping humanity learn how to resolve problems
> of living rather more wisely than at present.
>
>
>
>
>
> That, in a brief paragraph, is what is set out on our website.
> I can easily foresee someone disagreeing. But you say you find it
> uninteresting - or at least you say it "rings no bells" for you. Perhaps
> FoW is not really relevant to your interests. FoW was set up initially with
> the express purpose of developing and communicating the message summarized
> in the paragraph above.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
> www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> From: "Cherryl Martin" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:33 PM
>
>
> Subject: Re: Responses to what our Website Says
>
>
>
>
> > Nick,
> >
> > I agree with what you say - and have been giving some serious thought to
> the
> > issues recently. It seems we have the perennial problem of differing
> > perspectives - the action perspective and the process perspectives- either
> > 'being' or 'becoming'. It is hard to avoid the confusions that these
> create
> > since they are deeply rooted in personality and in 'ways of seeing the
> > world'. I come back to my point - neither is wrong - they are just very
> > different ways of thinking and 'being' - each with its own value. Finding
> > ways to integrate them in a constructive manner is a perpetual dilemma.
> >
> > As a member of the 'action' group - I share your frustration.
> >
> > Thank you for raising the issue of the website and opening the way for
> > changing it. It has been a problem for me, particularly as I was not sure
> of
> > what exactly you envisaged when you created it. I have read the site but
> no
> > bells rang for me!
> >
> > I wonder if it would not be useful for you to outline - in the same way as
> > many of us have done - what your dream is for the future? It would be
> > helpful if you could be more specific than we have been, but also as
> > visionary. ie detailing your ideas about curriculum, funding,
> > administration, leadership and the certification processes of your
> proposed
> > new universities. I would be interested in expanding that to an entire
> > educational system as I strongly believe that the teaching of values
> should
> > start very early in life. Anything taught at university level should be
> > building on what has been taught before.
> >
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Cherryl
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Group concerned that academia should seek and promote wisdom
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Nicholas Maxwell
> > Sent: 28 March 2007 12:47 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Responses to what our Website Says
> >
> > At the level of dreaming, we do probably mostly agree. It is when we come
> > down to the slightly more specific questions - the concern of FoW - about
> > what kind of academic inquiry can best help us realize (apprehend and make
> > real) what is genuinely of value in life, for ourselves and others, that
> > disagreements may arise. I still sense that some members of FoW do not
> see
> > the problem before us in quite the same terms as those set out on our
> > website. But why not? What exactly is wrong with what our website says?
> > What exactly is wrong with the arguments in support of the claim that
> > academia needs to be restructured in the ways specified if it is to be
> > devoted rationally to helping humanity realize what is of value in life?
> > How might what our website says be improved?
> >
> > If, on the other hand, most of us agree with what our website says, then
> > perhaps we should take up the tasks of developing further our message, and
> > working out how to get it across to academics, students, fund-giving
> bodies,
> > the media, and the public.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Nick
> > www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
> >
> >
|
