Like Whit, I’m sorry we didn’t properly connect at St. Giles. I think we’d have had a rich exchange.
You’re right: simplification often seems like the starting point, but I wonder whether the deeper issue isn’t just epistemological, but ontological. What if both dominant approaches begin—not merely in over-simplified knowledge—but in a misunderstanding of being itself?
That’s the question I’ve been circling in a recent reflection:
Eh, should have spoken with you at St. Giles. This is a plausible story you're telling. Perhaps over-simplified, but then your case would seem to be that both approaches you critique begin in over-simplification, too.
Like Whit, I’m sorry we didn’t properly connect at St. Giles. I think we’d have had a rich exchange.
You’re right: simplification often seems like the starting point, but I wonder whether the deeper issue isn’t just epistemological, but ontological. What if both dominant approaches begin—not merely in over-simplified knowledge—but in a misunderstanding of being itself?
That’s the question I’ve been circling in a recent reflection:
🌱 https://open.substack.com/pub/terrycookedavies/p/gardens-in-the-sea-of-becoming-an?r=2ho4b2&utm_medium=ios
Would be curious to know how it lands with you.
Warmest wishes,
Terry
Eh, should have spoken with you at St. Giles. This is a plausible story you're telling. Perhaps over-simplified, but then your case would seem to be that both approaches you critique begin in over-simplification, too.
Best,
Whit