[MD] Kahneman

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Mark so you've not read the book - but no reference to any words I
used or quoted either ?!?
What are you on ?
Ian

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:44 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
> 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