I’ve stumbled upon you. You looking out over the water, and I asked you what you were looking at and you said Time. Every ripple, you said, represented a relationship with Time. A series of awarenesses went out across the distance. This was everything, you said. The light patter of knowing, feeling, and being. The sky was blue and the plants were green and everything in between had the mark of man. That interference reminded us of the mark we make, unless of course we are trapped in the emptiness that exists without us. I prefer to look, like you, across the water or “The Ancient Road” and see almost no evidence of our being. We almost never do as well as mother nature.
Answer by Mario Savioni:
I think “analytic philosophy” specifically is not available to most members as a phenomena. But, the idea of analyzing the conflict, in terms of its origin and our values might reveal a debate, likened to Chomsky’s that would allow for positions on the circumstances. Perhaps, like Chomsky, I believe that the arrival en masse of Israelis ultimately caused the conflict. This is not to say that I am against Israelis. I am not. I understand the horrible events that lead to this reconversion. But, it reminds me of the American Indians and the Colonists. Might should not make right.
In the end, the American Indian will have been vindicated and we will, if we survive as a species, have to integrate ourselves into the biosphere as non-destructive. The other value is that aggression rather than response is the less virtuous. I believe that the Palestinians are fighting for their lives, just as Israelis are causing their own problems.
I left Hawaii because I felt like I didn’t belong, out of respect for the Hawaiian people. I also understand that just as there is racial strife, there will always be racial strife because one’s natural inclinations or dominant traits lord over those who have to adapt or change their natural behaviors. One’s skin color, for example, is not something one can change readily and they shouldn’t have to, but it has been used as an element of differentiation. So, it is human nature to attack those who are perceived as a threat to our way of doing things.
I do not agree with you that, “Analytic philosophy” would get us on the same page, per se, but when we talk about our positions we may see that there are better arguments than others, that, “Cut to the heart of the issues,” schooling not-with-standing.
Answer by Mario Savioni:
Yes. I say this because language to communicate questions is dependent upon words, which both in terms of individual words and as phrases have connotations and denotations. Inherent in these elements is meaning. In meaning, we can derive answers because we are brought closer to context. An answer, for example is a conclusion. You never said the answer had to be correct. You implied that there could be many answers. This reminds me of Oliver Wendell Holmes arguing with his clerk every morning and winning every time. As men/women we are limited by language both to communicate and to understand. Language is the extent of our questions and answers. Our world is limited to our senses. Language communicates what we think and feel. Our imaginations, as Lakoff said, are contingent upon our bodies. Our answers may always be as we, as a species, think.
And if we rely on scientific answers, for example, it was Thomas S. Kuhn, who said in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that, “Periods of…conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science,” thus implying changes in understanding of the world. We may never have a correct answer, we may have an evolving understanding.
I am often fond of the best answer given our limited understanding. Sometimes things just seem correct in the minute, which is akin to catharsis derived from looking at art.