Tom,
Yes, it would be great to have consensus. But I do not think it is there.
But, what do you think that the objectives of the FOW should be?
I think that much misunderstanding has arisen from the word "wisdom" on
the FOW list. I think that there is a radical disagreement bubbling below
the surface on the list. It is hard to put a finger on it, but there seems
to be both a spiritual, intuitive idea of wisdom at play (for which some
people feel that they possess it more than others or know someone who
does) and there is the more secular, pragmatic, and philosophical concept
that Nick is labouring under. I am skeptical about the former (beyond the
idea that we all possess it in more or less equal measure) and wish to
develop the latter.
Although I am open to the idea that some people may possess spiritual,
intuitive wisdom more than others, as a possibility, I think that it is
quite hard to say who these people are, unless one is already wise enough
to recognise them. It is this latter claim that cults and religions emerge
among a group of people who consider themselves to be wise enough to
recognise a spiritual leader.
Developing the secular, pragmatic, and philosophical concept involves
discussion about how to develop education in a way that improves society
and the quality of life for oneself and for others.
It is for this reason that I have been calling for the recognition of a
distinction between being a friend of wisdom (a philosopher) and a
possessor of wisdom (a sage). I think that the FOW should focus more on
trying to be the former rather than the latter. However, it is not at all
clear that FOW members agree with this. It has become evident that there
are some members who think that they are wiser than others and we should
follow their lead. We have would-be sages among us.
Karl.
|