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.)
