[MD] Kahneman

[118]

Hi Ian,
Thank you for the link.  As I have not read the book, I am addressing
your comments therein, only.

Any systematic representation of the human experience is only as
useful as one  makes it in terms of one's relationship with "that
which is".  Indeed, the separation of volition into strict dualistic
categories may only mislead more than it can instruct.  Therefore such
strict separations must be evaluated in terms of what they are
proposing in terms of a world view.

It would seem, from your presented quotes, that we have a strict
separation between the mythos and the logos, with an emphasis
(imbalance) on the rational aspect of man's awareness.  Such
rationality cannot stand alone, and is constantly fed by the
intuitive.  I believe this is what the author's self-deprecating
quotes point to.

The ability which one can organically grow towards "continual
astonishment", is an aptitude towards relinquishing the hold we have
on memory, and its projected hold on us.  Memory begets the static
quality which Western civilization tend towards, at the expense of the
dynamic correction which quality provides.  Indeed, a source of
continual astonishment, or surprise if you will, can be said to be at
the heart of dynamic quality, and is also a form of enlightenment.
Such enlightenment is a rebalancing of the static with the dynamic,
which is a basic tenet of Zen.  This rebalancing is taught in all Zen
temples.  It is often depicted as a balance between the physical and
the spiritual (or Will, if you will).

One must therefore be aware of the context in which any dualism if
presented, and the intent of the author.  Such intention belies the
implicit objectiveness which any author pretends towards.  A simple
reading in terms of the Intent of the author provides one with the
underlying theme which the author presents rationally, and gives a
place from which to judge the general objective without getting lost
in the specifics.  Since I do not know why this book was written, I
cannot address the directive which the book represents.

Suffice it to say that any rational argument towards the excellence of
rationality is far from objective.  The argument is presented in
rational terms, and therefore any "errors" of an appreciation or
deprecation of views outside of such rationality are simply "errors"
of the rational process itself.  This would be a case where such
rationality pretends to be more than it is.

Many recent posts between David H. and I on this forum have addressed
the problem with dualism of this sort.  The dynamic and the static are
always in flux like the Yin and Yang of Taoism.  One cannot be said to
strictly represent the other.  As such, any fault finding must be
considered a fault of the rational side.  "Faults" of rationality from
the dynamic side are ever present in our daily lives.  Dynamic quality
lies outside the arena of fault, and anything pointing to such a thing
is a rational problem, imo.

Thanks again for the link.

Mark

On 2/15/12, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve, et al,
> FYI I posted some more notes on Kahneman, after finishing the
> concluding chapters.
> http://www.psybertron.org/?p=4199
> Ian
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Ian Glendinning
> <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Steve, I have now read (and posted a review of) Thinking Fast and Slow.
>> http://www.psybertron.org/?p=4154
>>
>> The map to Pirsig isn't perfect.
>> System 1 is definitely closer to dynamic - but I think it's more. It
>> has the empirical immediacy, but also the subjective
>> decision-processing of the intuition, including evolved bio&social
>> patterns I'd say. System 2 is the "intellectual" to the dynamic's
>> "pre-intellectual.
>> Ian
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Steven Peterson
>> <peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Anyone read the Kahneman book yet? If you haven't, I'd highly
>>> recommend it. If you have, I'd be interested to hear how you think his
>>> System One/System Two model relates to Pirsig's dynamic/static model.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>> “Profound . . . As Copernicus removed the Earth from the centre of the
>>> universe and Darwin knocked humans off their biological perch, Mr.
>>> Kahneman has shown that we are not the paragons of reason we assume
>>> ourselves to be.” —The Economist
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>