And so (Nick) to raise my message in this thread above the meta-noise ...
"Like Nick (should) ..."
IMHO naturally.
Ian
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Alan Rayner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Ian,
>
> Yes, maybe!
>
> Diplomacy isn't my strongest suit.
>
> Sigh!
>
> Warmest
>
> Alan
>
> PS I don't have an 'agenda' other than to say what I think is true. Despite
> what may be appearances, I am not trying to 'sell' natural inclusion, and
> natural inclusion is not a 'campaign'.
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Ian Glendinning
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 9:56 AM
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Ruth Chang - Worth a Listen
>
> Alan, believe me I know.
> But in doing so, you add your additional point as "noise" in the
> channel communicating her original message - that's the
> (unintentional) disservice - as I am now doing ;-)
>
> ie Yes, But.
> Yes, in the outgoing current-positive-message channel,
> But, in the internal next-message-development channels.
> Ian
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Alan Rayner <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Ian,
>>
>> No intention to do her a disservice.
>>
>> Having done a 15 minute TED talk myself, I know the difficulties of
>> covering
>> everything.
>>
>> I was simply adding something I felt was important.
>>
>>
>> Warmest
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Ian Glendinning
>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 9:46 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Ruth Chang - Worth a Listen
>>
>>
>> Hi Alan, I think maybe you do Ruth a disservice - it was a very simply
>> 15 minute general audience presentation. (If you read my blog post
>> linked above, you'll see I too was pretty sceptical how simplistic her
>> message was initially.)
>>
>> She gets to the (her) key point pretty clearly. Hard choices are about
>> what we want to put our agency into achieving (as opposed to objective
>> analysis of the world out there).
>>
>> I think your additional point is a meta-point, that in fact some of
>> the choices are false dichotomies anyway, which she does in fact
>> approach - options "in the same league, but of different kinds" - but
>> doesn't go on to make the ontology her main point.
>>
>> On the positive side - 15 minute talk - one simple valuable message.
>>
>> Like Nick, I believe you need to be supportive of agendas that support
>> yours / ours,
>> whilst not being exactly yours ;-)
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Alan Rayner <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Ian,
>>>
>>> An interesting talk both for what it says and doesn't say.
>>>
>>> Firstly, it said that 'hard choices are ones between options that are
>>> equally good but can't be resolved rationally by adding quantitative
>>> value
>>> to one as opposed to the other'.
>>>
>>> In other words something deeper and intangible needs to be taken into
>>> consideration and this can only be achieved by journeying inward and
>>> discovering what really matters from the place of innermost depth - the
>>> core
>>> of self-identity.
>>>
>>> So far, so good, but note that it doesn't readily correspond with
>>> 'deciding
>>> what is of most value in life by rational means'.
>>>
>>> What is not said is that 'hard choices are ones between options that are
>>> equally bad but can't be resolved rationally by adding qualitative value
>>> to
>>> one as opposed to the other'.
>>>
>>> Hard choices of this kind arise in a rationalistic culture that fails to
>>> take into consideration the receptive influence of intangible
>>> omnipresence
>>> on natural flow dynamics, and hence measures everything against a purely
>>> objective standard.
>>>
>>> Hard choices of this kind engender conflict, paradox and contradiction of
>>> how we naturally are in the world as it naturally is.
>>>
>>> The choice ('false dichotomy') between reductionism and holism is an
>>> example
>>> of such a hard choice. There are a great many others.
>>>
>>> My discovery of natural inclusion arose from my efforts to resolve such
>>> hard
>>> choices through 'the middle way' that includes each in the other instead
>>> of
>>> separating them by a hard line of definition (an unnatural cut through
>>> the
>>> continuum of space as intangible, receptive omnipresence).
>>>
>>> Warmest
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Ian Glendinning
>>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 8:16 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Ruth Chang - Worth a Listen
>>>
>>>
>>> How to decide what we should do.
>>> (Avoiding the scientistic neurosis)
>>>
>>> We all want to change the world ....
>>> http://www.ted.com/talks/ruth_chang_how_to_make_hard_choices
>>>
>>> Ian
>>> http://www.psybertron.org/?p=7115
>>> (Hat tip to Maria Ana Neves on LinkedIn.)
|