Draft for Introducing Cross Culture Wisdom

[Editor: This is already dated. And contains real problems, but those lie outside the scope of intent for readership so ok. The point is more how to guide an introduction to something which people are willing to understand, but can’t imagine doing so without condensation. [most people should rather admit to knowing as much about .., as about devas]]

B/s:

1. Explain how we need wisdom for seeing others’ wisdom
2. Illustrate
3. Methodology
   1. Create flimsy wisdom (intuition) based on a theoretical paradigm
   2. Explain concepts using this new wisdom capacity
      1. This is how AR explains Hitbonenut, and Levinas reading
4. Emotionally (catharsis) trepidation at applying to non-literate wisdom
5. Illustrate
   1. E.g. of WHAT NOT e.g. B creation story is like tzitzוm of Adam Kadmon
   2. E.g. of WHAT FEASIBLE e.g. wisdom of topological-spiralling
6. Appendix: Limitation: Can’t apriori differentiate similar narratives, since they all obviously create webs… rather need to see how narratives are used
7. Final words
   1. Why learn the middle path? Because it is an offer, not because its physics are the strongest
   2. Why learn another? Because you don’t know what you don’t know
      1. Can we learn another? If you are lost, first know where your roots are? Else what compass? You were conditioned from before your birth. Maybe your roots are older than you, whereas new roots you will discover not from a continuous route, and v hard to achieve

Communication is a harmony of meanings. When we communicate, the meanings in your world, and in my world, cohere within our communication’s sphere. When we fail to communicate, our meanings are in disharmony; what I think you mean doesn’t make sense.

The Abrahamic, Indus, and Confucian religions especially are well represented in cross-lingual communication. But the rate of success of these communications is not perfect – as proven by our difficulty to appreciate the significance of meaning in other cultures – and limited by the suitability of the channels and illumination.

The channels are knowing which parts of your culture would fascinate me. The illumination is the sufficiency of description relative to the viewer’s occipital adoitness (or lack thereof).

E.g. I think Buddhism fascinates Judaism when it shows it the experiential Janna derived from Sati (wisdom from mindfulness).

E.g. Judaism fascinates West when it shows it how it reads whilst resisting generalizations.

But the thing is knowing how to show it so that it clicks. 3II