email reply from F.

> After my long list of questions, you send me a long list of reading materials. We are so efficient at keeping each other busy with useless stuff!

Well, useless, it depends. :) Of no importance, at a philosophical level, does not mean useless for us, in our lives. Those are two different concepts.
Me, it makes me write stuff that could be used for a book, or at least makes me formally express thoughts on a given subject, that might be of some value to others. Like... to you. :)
As for you, the list is no more useless than a list of materials related to studying for a Ph.D. in Physics, since if you studied all that in details, and explored forward, you'd have all the requisite knowledge for a degree in Epistemology. On the other hand, it is indeed exactly as useless.
Remember: Value is in the eye of the beholder. Reread the quotes of M. Csikszentmikalyi, in my last letter. ;)

> One quick question for now: What is the relationship between my recent "awakening" experience, and my "generalist" ability?

I personally think they are powerfully linked. But then, that's just an opinion.

> Are all the people who are enlightened able to understand "generalist" theory? And are "generalists" all enlightened, or likely to be enlightened?

They possess "something" that might indeed be of help, or perhaps predispose them to go in that direction. Maybe. If they feel like it.

> Douglas Hofstadter is a generalist, right?

He certainly is. Besides being a Professor of Computer Science, he is also Adjunct Professor for History (History is a major component of a generalist approach) and of "the Philosophuy of Science", which is none other than, according to Webster, "Epistemology".

> Is he enlightened?

I will ask him. ;) I don't know, but he sure seems to have insights the average man does not have.

> He writes so well! His book is such a universe of its own.

Writing well is good. However, it does not guarantee full access to Wisdom. Sophists and (literary) con men write better than we do, yet, no one would think of them as enlightened.

> For me, I think it was that morning when I read your email to Madhu and Mark about epistemology, and after a few days of learning "wisdom" from you, that triggered my recent experience.

The idea that it might made me write it. See, "no importance" is different from "useless". ;)

> I would like to note that the "scientific" knowledge makes the "spiritual" experience fuller and more overwhelmingly captivating, and the "spiritual" experience makes the "scientific" knowledge more grounded (so we know where all this knowledge comes from, or rather, where every branch of knowledge comes from, or where everything comes from).

This is just an illustration of the interconnectedness of all thing. And it further answers your question here above. Finally, this brings us back to the man I'd consider the founder of General Epistemology, C.L. von Bertalanffy.
On the following site:
http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/vonBertalanffy.htm they say: "(...) interested in the broadest implications of his conception, (he) went beyond biology to consider psychological, social and historical levels of organization. He conceived of a general theory capab! le of elaborating principles and models that were applicable to all systems, whatever the nature of their parts and the level of their organization" and "He used these principles to explore a host of scientific and philosophical issues, including a humanistic conception of human nature that opposed the mechanistic robot conception of behaviourists and cyberneticists as failing to do justice to the spontaneous self-motivated activity of mind and body; a philosophy of mind and culture that distinguished human from animal nature in terms of the ability to use symbols; and the seeds of a new philosophy of history that revived valid components of Spengler's and Toynbee's theories in a perspective that saw civilizations themselves as systems."
And the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, quoted here
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SYSTHEOR.html says: "Bertalanffy was both reacting against reductionism, and attempting to revive ! the unity of science. He emphasized that real systems are open to, and interact with, their environments; and that they can acquire qualitatively new properties through emergence, resulting in continual evolution. Rather than reducing an entity (e.g. the human body) to the properties of its parts or elements (e.g. organs or cells), systems theory focuses on the arrangement of and relations between the parts which connect them into a whole (cf. holism). This particular organization determines a system, which is independent of the concrete substance of the elements (e.g. particles, cells, transistors, people, etc). Thus, the same concepts and principles of organization underlie the different disciplines (physics, biology, technology, sociology, etc.), providing a basis for their unification."
Now you know what a generalist is, as I see it. ;) And it's not even me saying it. :)
As for Hofstadter, just from his professoral titles, he obviously followed CLvB in that pathway. From the way he writes, and what he writes, it is extremely probable that he is "awakened", and very possibly "enlightened".

> One example: today I was driving in the woods and saw a beautiful patch of yellow flowers. I appreciate flowers and the beauty of nature, like everyone else. But this time I notice how natural it is for us to appreciate beautiful things -- nature is part of us and we are part of nature, and we are truly one in essence. I know this now from the deepest place within my heart (my being), without any doubt, not with impulsive or blind love. So I was able to love the flowers with so much more passion than before.

I think you just described one of the natural effects of Awakening in a simple, fluent and clear manner.

> This passionate love only happens when I can get back in touch with "being" and feel its existence. When I am not in touch with "being", which is most of the time now (since I am a novice), I can only use my newly gained wisdom/insight to guide/convince myself, and this is not too bad although could be better.

This is the difference between being awakened and being enlightened. ;)

> Also, this applies to everything, not just the love of beautiful flowers. Another example I thought about at the time was the subject of morality, but right now I am just thinking and not "being", so the Truth does not flow out me. Yes, I am trying to use my memory and reasoning to retrieve Truth, and how limited the mind is!!

Be patient, it's coming. ;) Remember that, from Korzybski's point of view, also very relevant here, as human beings immersed in the here and now, we are essentially "time-binding" creatures.

> Every time I write to you, I learn something more.

See, it's not that "useless". Uselessness and "no importance" are vastly different things: For example, nothing of what I do is of any importance. Yet, very little of it (albeit a lot too much ;) is useless.
Anyway, what would be the sense of writing to me, if that was not the case? ;)