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.)
