And that the full mapping of mind will not concern 'reasoning' but 'unreasoning'.
Brilliant Sven, except that I might say rather that we may better say:
"Evidence-based" = reasoning
"Faith-based" = "un"reasoning; and
"Experience-based" is maybe what we need - in line with Pirsig, as I read him - ie "a"reasoning.
"Areasoning" is what you are doing when you are driving, based upon the accumulated experience and knowledge of driving, of the car and of the road/ environment. Thinking rationally on one level, but also acting "a-rationally", based upon experience, on another.
Pirsig, again...
You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.
When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.
...and strangely enough, I think that many of the defenders of Science may be fanatic in their defence of it because they are in doubt that another explanation, based upon another hypothesis, may in fact reduce their intellectual castles to their inadequate metaphysical foundations... "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
But you final Pirsig quote is a killer. To embrace doubt is also to embrace creativity IMO. It's about going to the edge, rather than congregating toward the center. It's about making mistakes as a learning experience. About accepting fallibility. I'm as proud of the times I fucked up as the times I have succeeded, because I have always learned from the fuck ups. Even here ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
Hence Pirsig's illustration of sitting on a hot stove when the Subject (stove sitter) comes into contact with the Object (stove) in a bad "Quality event". "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
couldn't put it better...asexual in its brilliance...
what bemuses me is how humans grew to fear death so much, and then smell it threatening us whenever we meet something we can't control.
whatever demon-du-jour, it's always our frightened ego clutching for security, and the asperity of the attacks prove it.
if they were really so sure, they'd be able to relax and see the funny side of it.
but no, out comes the snide...
you'd be amazed how deep it can go. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
It would be interesting to know whether people on either side of this here debate correspond to Myers-Briggs Thinking/Feeling supertypes.
Do people know their Myers-Briggs types? Mine is INTP. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
That seems to make me a champion idealist ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
Then again, I'd also have to take it purely sober, I migh turn out otherwise...
Seriously, I shift a lot on these self-tests, sometimes I turn up introverted. The only constants are the N and the P. I have never been sensing, or judging, as a Jungean trait of my general, idealised personality.
Then again, I never bought much stock in Jung or Freud...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
But Myers-Briggs is my top example for why I can't take personality tests too seriously. These tests try to hammer people's personalities into crude stereotypes. The result in the case of Myers-Briggs and me is that at least a third of my choices aren't better than throwing dice, as the question is loaded or underdefined for me. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I haven't done one in decades and I was ENFP. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
INFJ
As for the question I posed (Thinking vs. Feeling), we have:
T: migeru, poemless, dodo, colman, Jerome, JakeS F: fran, metavision, ceebs, turambar, sven
Draw your own conclusions. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
...and strangely enough, I think that many of the defenders of Science may be fanatic in their defence of it because they are in doubt that another explanation, based upon another hypothesis, may in fact reduce their intellectual castles to their inadequate metaphysical foundations...
There are so many things that are wrong with that paragraph...
First, none of the pro-science people around here can be described as 'fanatical' by any stretch of the imagination. 'Exasperated' would be closer to home.
Second, I have no 'intellectual castle' to defend. I do, however, think that words should have meaning and that empirical reality should not simply be hand-waved away into a mist of obscurantist superstition.
Third, I do not have any emotional investment in 'the metaphysical foundations of science.' The results speak for themselves, and they speak louder than any philosophical musings. I do, however, hold an emotional as well as a rational objection to having my profession consistently and consciously misrepresented by charlatans like Michael Behe and Deepak Chopra who are looking to separate the easily impressionable from their money.
Firstly: Peace, brother - if you were a fanatic you wouldn't be here!
And I have no problem with your other two points except that I don't know enough about either Behe or Chopra to make a judgment on them. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
....Unless you count the 3 Smiths hammering out a consensus outside the Stockmann department store in downtown Helsinki. They've been at it since 1932. Not exactly what I would call forging ahead.
Making mistakes is how we learn, getting it right is the real uneducational status seeking. ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
Here, the Havis Amanda statue is getting her student hat in a similar ritual requiring the skills of the engineering students ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
