On6/17/99, David Clark wrote:
<<This Hegelian dialectic assumes that understanding proceeds from dualism
or polarity --a typically . . Western mode of thought.
***In many cases, that is very true. A sort of Aristotelian heritage of all
or none thinking extended orvaried in different forms by many Western
philosophers after the Grecians. However, I chose that master-slave example
because its nature is more of a relationship than a polarisation. And
relationships or mappings do not necessarily depend on polarities.
In fact, if one analyses that example, it is strongly reminiscent of
'Eastern' philosophies, since the master and slave each contain elements of
masterhood and slavehood. The master is a slave and the slave is a master.
That sort of deduction might even be viewed as pure Zen.
<<Eastern philosophy (the word 'guru' is derived from the Sanskrit), on the
other hand, leans towards an emphasis on stepping outside a system where
words like 'right' and 'wrong' are the guidelines for 'truth'. . >>
***The origin of the word "guru" is interestingly paradoxical, since it tends
to be more Western than Eastern. Usually, "guru" means one who takes one from
s state of darkness to a state of light or enlightenment. The guru takes you
from one extreme state to another. In other words, Eastern philosophy,
though many modern Westerners claim otherwise, sometimes does rely heavily on
polarities of concept.
In the Eastern pantheon of gods or even in Buddhist concepts of balance there
is sometimes the implicit spectre of dualism peeping over one's shoulder..
In some cases, duality may be more relevant than continuum, fuzzy or grayness
thinking, since, unless the scale on both sides of any graduated scale or
continuum is infinitely long or boundless, then we have to acknowledge that
at each end there has to be one concept which is the diametric opposite of
the other. To avoid facing that conundrum, we then need to abandon the
existence of a strict continuum and suggest the presence of some ill-behaved
singularities or discontinuities.
A great deal of 'New Age' thinking tends to conveniently bundle thinking into
Eastern and Western polarised packages, thereby tacitly neglecting the
possible existence of Northern and Southern forms of philosophising. This, to
me, as an African by birth, has always been rather ironic.
-- the pertinent questions have more to do with 'integration' and 'disunity'.
Dr. Siff's questions, albeit slightly rhetorical ('would YOU really like to
become the best guru in the world... Do you really want to have some catchy
procedure named after you?'), are really only meaningful in a context where
shades of right and wrong are precise and exact.
However, as you all know, the healing profession is rife with plenty of juicy
grey areas... So it might be morepertinent to think bout degrees of
professional and personal integrity rather than degrees of excellence. I'd
be interested in hearing from you about what it means to exercise integrity
in the healing profession -- what is integrity? where does it stand in the
hierarchy of professional abilities?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|