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.)
