Wisdom rather than mere intelligence

[GliderGuider]

I've reworked the opening page and message of my web site fairly dramatically, with the intention of changing its philosophical direction. The articles are still the same so far, but that's going to be changing shortly as well. I'd be interested in any comments my E/E friends might have on this new and more hope-infused direction.

http://www.paulChefurka.ca

[Dead_Parrot]

1. Without reading it....

...I'll say "fat fucking chance". But I'll read it later for a laugh.

:)

[GliderGuider]

3. Oh, ye of little faith...

:P

[SharonAnn]

2. I took a quick look and it looks interesting. I'll check it out later. Thanks.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. You're off on the right foot

Although I still take issue with your basic assumption.

...
The irresistible human urge is of course for us to get busy and do even more of what seemed to get us out of trouble in the past: innovate and expand. ...

I believe the urge to expand is resistible, and that in most of the "developed" countries, we are resisting it. (Perhaps it has something to do with "wisdom?")

[GliderGuider]

7. The urge to expand may ultimately be resistible

but I see precious little evidence of it at the moment. Global GDP is still expanding, China is still putting in its two coal power plants a week and I'm not aware of any non-renewable resource whose use has ceased. We may be slowing the expansion of our consumption here and there (like we are with population growth) but at a global level I see no evidence at all of widespread resistance to the philosophy of growth.

I will change one thing in that statement you quote. I don't think it's an irresistible human urge - that's a misstatement born from my old reflexes. I really think it's an irresistible cultural urge, an urge made irresistible by the forces that create, defend and propagate our cultural narrative. Given that this is the case the urge will become more and more resistible as the culture changes and its memetic fabric changes form.

Here's what I changed it to:

The irresistible cultural urge (promoted by the economic, social and political institutions that create and defend the narrative of our culture) is of course for us to get busy and do even more of what seemed to get us out of trouble in the past: innovate and expand.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. May I suggest a slightly different tack?

Perhaps something like:

Our natural impulse is to keep doing what we’re currently doing; but to do it better somehow. However, our current lifestyle is unsustainable; making it less unsustainable is not sufficient.

[phantom power]

5. I'd settle for intelligence.

[GliderGuider]

16. I think we already have more than enough intelligence, thank you

Monkey see, monkey do, monkey do, monkey do, monkey do, monkey do, monkey do, monkey do, monkey do.

[phantom power]

6. I wonder if "wisdom" == "inductive" and "intelligence" == "deductive"

I mean, it's all intelligence. In the sense of solving problems. Just different modes of learning and reasoning.

[GliderGuider]

12. Wisdom is experiential, while intelligence is cognitive

They both happen in the brain, but I'm convinced they are qualitatively different phenomena.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Well inductive and deductive reasoning are qualtiatively different

Inductive reasoning looks at specific cases, and infers general laws. (Think of Miss Marple, who understood humanity in terms of the members of her small community.)

Deductive reasoning looks at general laws, and extends that to specific cases. (Think of Sherlock Holmes.)

[GliderGuider]

15. So who was wiser, Miss Marple or Sherlock Holmes?

I don't think the inductive/deductive comparison describes the difference between intelligence and wisdom. They both seem like aspects of pure cognitive intelligence to me. Wisdom used the products of both inductive and deductive reasoning as components of its judgment. I think a key element of wisdom is compassion or empathy, which is required by neither of those approaches to reason.

[kristopher]

18. You could make the case

You could make the case that wisdom is judgment (based on intelligence which I'd define as the ability to make sense of complexity) that is accurately aware of its limitations.

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. Miss Marple but not because she used inductive reasoning per se

There's a different aspect to Wisdom. Wisdom also deals with value judgments. Right and wrong.

The OED puts it like this:

Capacity of judging rightly in matters relating to life and conduct; soundness of judgement in the choice of means and ends; sometimes, less strictly, sound sense, esp. in practical affairs: opp. to folly.

Sherlock Holmes is intelligent, but dispassionate. He really doesn't care that much about his clients; and is most interested in solving a puzzle using deductive logic. (The character of "Dr. Gregory House" is based (in part) on Holmes. He's a brilliant diagnostician, but cares little for his patients.)

Miss Marple on the other hand is more interested in using her skills of inductive reasoning to make things "right." (Hence, she is the wiser.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Interesting, but I don't think so, at least not quite

http://www.bartleby.com/61/80/I0178000.html

intelligence
... The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. ...

http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/W0186500.html

wisdom
... The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight. ...

[Shoelace]

8. what an inspiring read!

I know it's good when I get goose bumps through the course of reading your missive and I did.
Ironically, I was just cogitating on the same subject very early this morning.
Having 5 grandchildren, I want to leave them a legacy of enlightened hope because I think that it's another tool in their respective toolboxes that they will need in the future.

"Wisdom is holistic rather than dualistic, unifying rather than reductionist."
is a wonderful, life affirming statement. I thank you for that. We get so caught up in this dualistic world, we forget to be passionately centered so as to co-create a more peaceful existence for all life forms here.

Your missive, in some ways reminds me of the "five paths to enlightenment" which came to my mind whilst reading it. So I found a website that elucidates those five paths pretty nicely which I link below.

I've recently put much of my energy into helping stop the Canadian seal hunt which at first seemed pretty hopeless. Then I started to meditate on the Universal life force to come and help out there. Lo, the next day I read that the EU is proposing a ban on all seal products which would effectively stop this barbaric hunt! Without trying to be a Drama queen about this affair, I'd say that there's alot of hope filled events that we often miss, opting instead to feel depressed, hopeless about so many events within our focus.

Several years ago, when I first began to study climate change/science in depth, I never thought there would be a time when so many would be "going green"! I was then, not hopeful at all about ever witnessing any consciousness change on such a grand scale as we see now. It appears that many there are who have good intent (intent is everything isn't it?) and are working in a multitude of ways to bring forth change in this world on so many levels.

I look at it this way, if the world is doomed then by God, many of us will be able to at least carry to whatever lies beyond, seeds of life affirming wisdom, knowledge and awareness.

Well, I'm starting to ramble on here so I'll knock it off and keep your site to see what other thoughts, wisdom you can share with those of us who share the journey. Thanks again Glider~

http://www.andrewcohen.org/teachings/path.asp

[tom_paine]

10. I am not sure what to say about this, Paul.

It is a beautifully written piece, and I respect your change of heart, as it were, and you modification to your writings.

However, I cannot agree with them. For myself I can say that your writings, beyond the education aspect of them, have not altered my level of depression or joy one way or another.

The reality is what it is. It was quite clear from a simple reading of history that the human race is a flawed, evolutionary dead end, nothing you can say in either direction changes that.

Good luck to you with your new writings and attitude. The one thing that isn't new, or changed fudnamentally in two million years, in Homo Sapiens.

As I have said before, when the energy runs out, slavery will be reinstituted, probably Bushie-style under another name and with the plausible deniability that is Bushie Evil's main vehicle for defeating Americans.

THAT's how little humanity has changed. We like to think that the abolition of slavery (and truthfully, it is far from abolished and still practiced around the world, much of it in the sex trade, these days, but still a human global force) meant something, but all it meant was our historic Bushie Masters now had energy slaves so they needed fewere of the human kind.

Anyway, it's a nice piece you wrote, and certainly I hope it's more optimistic vision turns out be be what comes.

But I would rate that at less than a 2% chance. The nature of the primate genome, mind, and psychology simply will not allow it.

[GliderGuider]

11. Don't misread my position

I'm still totally convinced that all the bad shit I've written about is going to happen. If humanity ends up consisting of more than a billion people by the end of the century, I'll be totally amazed. Our Taker culture has fucked up but good, and now it's time to pay the piper. I'm convinced there is going to be a lot of turmoil and misery in the next few decades. The Chicago School is going to hang ten on the biggest wave of disaster our culture has ever seen.

But of course that's not the whole story of humanity. What will those billion survivors be like? What will they believe, how will they behave, where will they find their joys amid the sorrow? And rest assured, they will find their joys, no matter what we might expect from our vantage point here in the past.

But never mind the survivors. How should we, the participants, act as the world unfolds around us? Will we choose the path of despair, denial, resignation, grim determination, armed insurrection or withdrawal from our fellow man? Or might it be possible for a person to become fully aware of what's going on, but at the same time work to improve the lot of humanity lot by promoting strength, courage and awareness in others and joy in themselves?

I've tried both despair and joy, and I'm convinced of two things. The first is that joy beats despair any day, any time, any place, to any degree. The second is that by giving in to despair we are not recognizing Truth to any deeper level. Rather, we are letting our ego's attachment to pain and fear lead us into a trap of illusion -- the illusion that only the shit is real. That perception is not Truth, it's just the ego speaking.

Reality is what it is, and I have no doubt that enough hard rain is gonna fall to make an ego's skeleton dance with delight on the graves of the undeserving dead. But that will happen Then, and this is still Now. There is a lot to be gained by fully living the infinite succession of Nows that pave the road to Then. If we live them well, we might even change (no, we will surely change) what happens Then. What that will be, we cannot tell. We can't know Then, we can only know Now. Live the very best you can right now, and Destiny will take care of itself.

[kristopher]

17. "...when the energy runs out..."

So that gives us what, somewhere around 10^15 or 10^100 years???

That's an awful lot of time. You say we are an evolutionary dead end; I say we have achieved maximum adaptability through culture.

Personally, I'm wondering how we are going to ensure life makes it through the next collapse of the universe.

[tom_paine]

21. Wow, so much foolishness in such a short post.

You don't understand exponential numbers and scientific notation or you sure as hell lack an understanding of geology as well as the age ofthe universe.

1 x 10 to the 15th power = 1 quadrillion years Considering the age of the known universe is estimated to be 1/70th of that or so it seems unlikely.

Of course, you were probably just trying to be a smart-ass, and only succeeding at one-half of your goal.

Although one wonders what the scientific literacy and background of someone who says humanity "has achieved maximum adaptibility through culture" would be?

What, I wonder, do you do for a living? Insurance salesman? marketing specialist? I'd put good money on it NOT being in the sciences.

You try to be a smart-ass but achieve only one half of your goal. Can you guess which half that is?

Smug, self-centered idiots who believe humanity is the end-all, be-all supreme evolution in the face of 8000 years of recorded horrific human history which empahtically says otherwise, they make me laugh.

The ususal Bushie nonsense, take a statement out of context and run with it. You sure you don't belong over at Free Republic? Lotta people over there think like you do, that humanity is the pinnacle of wonderfulness, and that questioning anything beyond that is treason to be scorned and mocked.

Personally, I am wondering what the fuck you are doing at a web site people by enlightened far-seeing individuals when you are clearly quite shortsighted and unable to see the Big Picture.

OK, OK, I admit it. Humanity is obviously the greatest thing the universe has ever sprung forth from it's celestial loins and nothing NOTHING can stop us from doing whatever we want to the planet which God clearly gave us.

Fucking moron, I've got no patience left for people like you. Go to Free Republic and commune with kindred spirits there, why don't you.

I believe you could make your 1 x 10 to the fifteenth years comment and none of the idiots there would know one way or another how wrong and absurdly overlong that number is.

Hell, you could be a God to them over there!

[kristopher]

22. What a kidder you are...

Admittedly it's from Wiki, but considering the context I didn't feel the need to dig out a peer reviewed substantiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

You'll want to scroll down until you see the pretty pictures on the right...

Don't you just hate showing what a dumbass you are when you are calling someone else a dumbass?

And for the record, I know what I see. Humans, though culture, are adaptable to a wider range of environments than any other complex creature. My personal philosophy is that what makes us special is that we are part of the effort to thwart entropy - which is as good a definition as I've ever heard of life. Unlike you, I don't have a problem being human with all the "good" and "bad" that comes with it. And if you think being a doomer and hating yourself is a prerequisite for being a Democrat, then I think you are the one with a problem, not me.

[tom_paine]

24. LOL. You know nothing about me, but that didn't stop your armchair psychology.

Really, do tell me more about myself, since you obviously know me so well. How was my childhood? How did I react to my parents? What led me to this terrible life of hating myelf?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Make me laugh some more. Psychoanalyze me some more, insurance salesman-turned-psychiatrist. This Molecular Biologist would certain love to hear some more of your brilliant insights.

C-C-can you help me? I want to stop hating myself but...hold on a minute :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: (pointing at you and gasping with laughter), hang on another second.

Sorry, I can't keep a straight face. Actually my feelings about the long-term future of our species have little to do about how I feel personally, which is pretty damned good and happy.

But I must be deluding myself. Under all of that happiness must be self-loathing. After all, you said it was true and who knows me better than you?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh, and by the way, culture is not what keeps humans alive in various environments...technology and object manipualtion/tool use do. You can say tool manipulation and technology ARE parts of culture, but that's a cop-out and a dodge, and ignores the rudimentary tool-use our Primate Relatives employ (such as baboons using sticks to fish termites out of mounds to eat) with no culture at all.

Tool use: It's a primate thing, not a cultural thing.

It's our only outstanding characteristic as a species.

As I have said before, when the (cheap, readily available) energy runs out, you will find out what precious humanity is capable of.

Oh, oh, that's right we already have an 8000-year record of what humanity is capable of. There's some damned good tool-use and object manipulation in there, especially in the arts of torture, war, killing and murder, but not a whole lot else, certainly nothing to suggest that humanity is anywhere near out of the cradle, cosmically-speaking.

I will confess that the scale of years you put forth for the Death of the Universe, are correct, at least according to this particular theory.

But your insurance-salesman's psychoanalyzing is much more amusing than pointing out that gaffe. Please do go on. Tell me more about myself, you who know me so well.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[kristopher]

25. Trying to cover up being a fool, eh?

So you engage in another blistering blast of nonsense and ad homimem. Tell us a little more about how good you are with those big numbers why don't you. Or perhaps you'd care to tackle the challenge of learning what culture consists of...

Let's go back to wiki, shall we? Cultural Anthropologists most commonly use the term "culture" to refer to the universal human capacity and activities to classify, codify and communicate their experiences symbolically. This capacity has long been taken as a defining feature of humans. (although some primatologists have identified aspects of culture among humankind's closest relatives in the animal kingdom)"

I realize I don't have your planet sized brain, but the easy definition is that body of knowledge and information that is transmitted from one generation to the next. I feel sorry for you that nature (which includes man in my view) doesn't accord with your sensibilities and standards.

[tom_paine]

27. Oh please, moron. Gave up on the armchair psychoanalysis, did we?

And yes, obviously lots of scientists are fools, dontcha know? I know that's why I went for my education and degrees, to codify and deepen my foolishness.

And as to foolishness, the idea that nature or the animals that make up part of it, including humans, can conform to anyone's sensibilities and standards is ridiculous. I never said anything like that, but why would you let that stop you? I mean, it's a nice straw man and you can club me over the head with it, so who cares whether I said it or not?

It's not a question of sensibilities and standards, it's a question of the future of our species, of Climate Change and Peak Oil, of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and the acidification of the oceans. You can't debate those things, you can't talk them away with glib bullshit like your first post, full of nonsense and snarky ad hominem, which triggered me to respond in kind. So don't get all whiny and suiperior and quacking like a wounded duck "oh woe is me, he's using ad hominem!" when you're the one who started with it. As such, you deserved nothing more than a response in kind.

What you don't have, moron, is the ability to integrate past human history and utilize the predictive capacities it gives us. But that's OK.

I am sure you sell the most insurance in your cube farm, and that makes you Employee of the Month.

C'mon now, and let's get back to you telling me more about myself. Don't give up now, you were on a roll, guy!

[kristopher]

28. Dude, the record is there for anyone to see.

You made an ass of yourself and it is eating you up.

Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Try it. It'll make you feel better.

[tom_paine]

29. LOL nice try, doofus. I KNEW you'd return to the armchair psychoanalysis.

Unfortunately, you're no better at that than you are at building straw men or analyzing history.

I'm sorry I am unperturbed at your nonsense. Clearly from your posts you would like to think you "hurt" me or that I am ate up. Perhaps it's an ego thing, perhaps just the simplicity of thinking you "landed some blows", and thus have not watsed your time and numerous ad hominems.

Please, if it makes you feel better, please do so. Here, I'll even help you.

I can barely get up off the floor of my office, I am so ate up with rage, frustration and grief, from your rapier wit. How's that? Was it good for you? Need a cigarette now?

I am glad to help you feel better about things. Can I do anything else to help your ego?

Hey, this armchair psyshciatry is fun! I can see why you are attracted to it. You must be the terror of your cube farm.

Just to show you what a nice guy I am, I am going to stop wasting my time with you now and let you get in the last word. Maybe some more ad hominems, or maybe you could tell me some more about myself. You have done such a fine job so far.

Either way, it has been interesting. Remember, you have hurt me deeply.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Wups. Having problems keeping a straight face again. And I simply had to type in the laughter I am enjoying at your expense.

[NNadir]

19. "Wisdom" is over-rated, and is generally self referentially defined.

It's your website, but I think that most "wisdom" is received.

Usually when someone tells me I am about to hear "wisdom," I run the other way.

One hears all the time for instance, that Buddha was wise, that Jesus was wise, and that Moses was wise and Mohammed was wise.

Unlike the value of pi - which has independently appeared in almost all literate human cultures and can be independently measured to any degree of accuracy one seeks - the "wisdom" of these folks was not independently discovered and is therefore merely the product of subjectivity.

[kristopher]

20. Poor examples; but then look at the source.

[NNadir]

23. I make no secret of my contempt for faith, particularly the fundamentalist type.

Faith is almost always blind. It is devoid of objectivity, devoid of experiment, devoid of of reason, devoid of analysis.

Most of what I see from fundies - particularly the anti-nuke fundies on this website - is devoid of objectivity, devoid of experiment, devoid of of reason, devoid of analysis.

You wouldn't know a "poor example" if it bit you in the ass.

I do consider the source Kiddie, and thus it is hardly a surprise to see a fundie defending fundie thinking. I note that you have not once produced a single scientifically or intellectually worthy comment in your short and miserable tenure here, but like all fundies devoid of ideas, have now started whining about my personality. At some point, all of the fundies who cannot grasp concepts about physics, math, chemistry, history, or any other intellectual discipline try the red herring of talking about my personality.

There's a long tradition of this approach here, and over the years - the years of "solar will save us" and "wind will save us" and "biofuels will save us" rhetoric, I have never been dissuaded from my approach to ignorance.

Guess what Kiddie? I'm not a nice guy. In my tenure here, going on almost a decade of dumb ass "world's largest solar plant" posts, I have not once felt inclined to indulge stupidity with niceties.

Why?

Because ignorance kills, that's why.

Ignorance - and its sister "faith" - are not neutral things.

A word on being polite: I note that the Bushies in 2000 - that may have been before you learned to read, if in fact, you have learned to read - were always trying to say that while they were "nice," the Democrats weren't.

One hundred thousand or more dead bodies more, we see what avoiding contempt brings.

Now why don't you run off to Yankee Stadium to receive wisdom from the Pope, or something equivalent? You're clearly the type. You'll clearly believe anything.

[kristopher]

26. Then why use them as examples of wisdom?

Unless, that is, your planet sized brain is the only thing in your world you accept as "wise".

[GliderGuider]

30. I've never known a particularly wise religious person

But I have met a few wise people in my life - Stephen Lewis, Romeo Dallaire, a handful of mere mortals, and perhaps my father.

"Wisdom" as a type of knowledge may be received. Wisdom as a way of thinking can't be received -- it comes from within the individual.

"Objectivity" is a shibboleth of our culture because of the adoption of the scientific method as the supreme arbiter of value. Scientific objectivity is much like journalistic objectivity, though -- it looks very real from afar, but the closer you look the more diaphanous it becomes (and you don't even need to invoke the name of St. Heisenberg the Uncertain to realize that). That's not to say that objectivity in either field isn't important, just that to count on the ultimate reality of either is to present yourself at the entrance to a trap.

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. I've known several wise religious and/or spiritual persons

I believe you do not fully appreciate "Wisdom."

Any story regarding a master and pupil tends to revolve around the master teaching the pupil "Wisdom."

Whether it is Yoda, teaching Luke Skywalker the ways of "the force," or Mr. Miyagi teaching "Daniel" the ways of karate, or Don Juan teaching Carlos the "Yaqui Way of Knowledge," it always tends to be the master teaching the pupil to transcend skill or intelligence to a higher plain of "wisdom."

Consider the Zen master, who presents his pupil with a kōan. What is the purpose? other than to teach "Wisdom" rather than mere "intelligence?"

[kristopher]

34. I really don't think it is that complicated

Repeating from earlier: You could make the case that wisdom is judgment (based on intelligence which I'd define as the ability to make sense of complexity) that is accurately aware of its limitations.

[GliderGuider]

36. What about the role of compassion?

[kristopher]

37. Now you're asking for a dissertation

Compassion - or as I'd prefer to view it - a sense of fairness, is to a point hard wired (see neuro-ethics). There appears to be two levels, one that is instinctive and the other that is associated with more reasoned decisions.

For example, there is a train that is either going to kill one person, or 5 people. We might consider it ok to push a button to divert the train from the track with 5 people so that it kills the one, but we wouldn't be likely to push the one person in front of the train to prevent it hitting the 5.

That said, generally compassion is essential to cooperative survival behavior. Knowing that we aren't in this alone seems to me to fit the definition I gave regarding knowing one's limits.

[GliderGuider]

39. I don't believe compassion is a sense of fairness.

From Wikipedia:

Compassion is an understanding of the emotional state of another or oneself. Not to be confused with empathy, compassion is often combined with a desire to alleviate or reduce the suffering of another or to show special kindness to those who suffer. However, compassion may lead an individual to feel empathy with another person.

This is how I interpret "compassion". Like empathy, fairness can result from compassion, but it's not the same thing.

After reading the definition of "empathy" ("Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives" or "the ability to place yourself in another person's shoes"), I think empathy has more to do with wisdom that compassion does.

Wise decisions require a strong sense of the "other" who will be affected by them, but do not necessarily have to do with alleviating suffering.

[kristopher]

41. I tend towards root concepts

I'm reasonably confident that if you carefully deconstruct either compassion or empathy, you'll find their root in our innate sense of fairness; which I'd sum up with the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

[GliderGuider]

42. Is the root of the tree the fruit of the tree?

You risk missing a lot of nuance by hewing to such etymological fundamentalism.

[kristopher]

44. I don't think so. And I don't agree with your characterization (fundamentalism)

Trying to understand things like compassion or empathy without taking into consideration what biological/cultural framework they are appended to is extremely inefficient in my view. If we know that people have a biologically programmed sense of "fairness" and we understand what that is (do unto others...), then we understand the underlying element that makes compassion or empathy possible - the ability to place ourselves in the position of another. Without a sense of fairness, I doubt there is another source within us that allows that conceptual model to develop.

[GliderGuider]

45. Not everything in life is an intellectual game.

Your explications are all arid reductionism. You give no sense of belonging to the world you describe. I understand what your intellect is telling you about the world. What do your emotions and your body have to say about all this?

[kristopher]

47. There is a time and place for everything.

This has, so far, been a discussion about concepts; wisdom, intelligence, compassion and empathy. My emotions and body aren't really components of that exercise. So I'm not sure where you are coming from with the question or the "arid reductionism" remark. Reductionism implies a view lacking complexity and I don't believe that is an apt description of my outlook. You'll find that my definition of intelligence - the ability to make sense of complexity - is perhaps more accepted than most; and frankly, would seem to be the trait in me you are labeling.

I know one thing, however; even as (or maybe because of being) a person who has pretty thoroughly internalized the buddhist concept of no self, I'm a heck of lot more optimistic about both the present and the future than most on this forum. That internalization of no self may also be a factor in your perception of me.

Now if you'd like to share a discussion on the emotional impact of a given something, let 'er rip. I'll be happy to try and open up.

[GliderGuider]

50. True.

If not Now, when? If not Here, then where?

The reason I asked about your emotional response is that both compassion and empathy are emotional concepts, and are probably best explored within that context. Attempting to understand an emotional idea in intellectual terms risks stripping away or not recognizing its most important elements.

Your comment that "reductionism implies a view lacking complexity" is an interesting phrasing. It seems to carry the implication that complexity has a value that simplicity lacks, while the usual meaning of the term "reductionism" doesn't imply that at all. The common usage in science and philosophy is that reductionism is a theory that asserts that the nature of complex things is reduced to the nature of sums of simpler or more fundamental things.

A physical example of reductionism is the Discrete Fourier Transform that represents a complex waveform as the sum of a series of simple sine waves. Reductionism has acquired a bad rap because people tend to look deeply into the mathematical structures of the sine waves, but completely ignore the various qualities of the original waveform. It's like reducing a phrase of Beethoven's Violin Concerto to a book of numbers through a DFT analysis. The result isn't necessarily simpler than the original, but it has lost all of its meaning.

On the emotional side, do you feel true wisdom is possible in the absence of the emotional component of empathy? I'd say no.

[kristopher]

51. Considering the context

"arid reductionism" following "etymological fundamentalism" led me to read the comment a being a statement implying oversimplification, which is also a fairly common criticism in all manner of venues including science and philosophy. Obviously the context in your thoughts was different.

Do I feel true wisdom is possible without emotional empathy? No, I don't believe it is. I think the ability to experience empathy is a fundamental component of the judgment I spoke of. Honestly I believe that is what is wrong with Bush.

However, I think it is very important to realize there is a demonstrated capacity in humans to create spheres of "caring". This has been described any number of ways, but it involves applying one set of standards to an included set of actors and a different set to an excluded set of actors. That isn't the same as lack of empathy or lack of judgment.

[GliderGuider]

52. spheres of "caring"

I agree this isn't related to empathy or judgment. It sounds to me like your "spheres" are related to altruism. If that is true, do you think their origins are genetic or memetic (IOW, biological or cultural)? A demonstrated capacity, after all, could spring from either source.

[kristopher]

56. Both.

Well, there is no doubt the existence of the in/out dichotomy is universal in humans. Evidence assembled by Harris indicates where the line of inclusion is drawn is very much a function of environmental feedback. He uses the cannibalism taboo as his example.

[OKIsItJustMe]

53. "Spheres of Caring" -vs- "The Golden Rule"

This is what makes “The Golden Rule” such a dramatic advance.

“The Golden Rule” was not applicable only to an “included set of actors.” Hence, Jesus’ parable of the “Good Samaritan” in response to the question “Who is my neighbor?”

[kristopher]

55. And that brings us full circle

Back the the example given before:
"There appears to be two levels, one that is instinctive and the other that is associated with more reasoned decisions.

For example, there is a train that is either going to kill one person, or 5 people. We might consider it ok to push a button to divert the train from the track with 5 people so that it kills the one, but we wouldn't be likely to push the one person in front of the train to prevent it hitting the 5."

This behavior originates in activity within two distinct areas of the brain. When confronted with the possibility of pushing the individual into the path of the train, MRI recorded activity in a deep, instinctive level of the brain; when the problem facing the subject involved pushing the button to divert the train, there was activity in an area more associated with reasoning. I'm afraid I can't be more specific, it's been a while since I read the study (I think the author was Green).

The personal interaction would, IMO, represent an example of an ethical decision related to inclusion, while the insertion of technology between the actors would approximate the effect of the same ethical decision related to an excluded group. Again, this is just my uninformed take on it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

46. Question, Is there such a thing as an "innate sense of fairness?"

The "Golden Rule" you cite was seen as the foundation of a much more complicated set of rules. However, that was only after many years.

The “Golden Rule” (AKA the “Ethic of Reciprocity”) is a relatively new invention.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM">The Code of Hammurabi did not contain the “Golden Rule.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments">The Ten Commandments did not contain the “Golden Rule.”

It was wisdom which allowed later scholars to look back and say, “You know, all of the laws boil down to this...”

[kristopher]

48. Please take a look at neuroethics.

There is some pretty solid empirical support for my statement, although I don't have references at hand. I'm not deeply into this topic, I haven't had time to devote to it. But the readings that I've done provide intense food for thought. Here are a couple of places to start if you're interested.
Main site: http://www.springer.com/philosophy/ethics/journal/12152

An article titled Introduction to Neuroethics that I haven't read: http://www.springerlink.com/content/04x51m73l7l13252/fulltext.html

http://neuroethics.upenn.edu/overview.html


And before I get accused of reductionism, this is material that goes to understanding the foundation that we as individuals and members of our social units build upon. It isn't meant (at least by me) to be an end-all explanation of life.


correct type on edit

[kristopher]

49. Second reply

How long was gravity around before it was described?

Wisdom? Or was it the accumulation and sharing of knowledge through the invention of the printing press? I think wisdom is inextricably related to judgment, and that judgment is a function of learning about limits; but I don't insist you agree.

[OKIsItJustMe]

54. It predates the printing press

Hillel the Elder is sometimes given credit for "The Golden Rule":

... Love of man was considered by Hillel as the kernel of the entire Jewish teaching. When a Gentile, who had just been harshly dismissed by Shammai, wished to become a Jew asked him for a summary of the Jewish religion in the most concise terms ("while standing on one foot"), Hillel said: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Law; the rest is the explanation; go and learn" (Shab. 31a). With these words Hillel recognized as the fundamental principle of the Jewish moral law the Biblical precept of brotherly love (Lev. xix. 18).

...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

[OKIsItJustMe]

40. Compassion is much more than "a sense of fairness" and it's not just pity

“Compassion” means “suffer together.”

A compassionate person, seeing the suffering of another, does not respond by saying “That’s not fair!” A compassionate person shares their suffering.

[GliderGuider]

43. Here's a good relative of compassion: "compersion"

"Compersion" means "to find joy from the joy of others", or "empathy for others' love-joy". Not shared suffering as with compassion, but shared joy.

It's a polyamory term that expresses the opposite of jealousy. In that usage it means being happy that a lover is fulfilled in loving relationship with another.

I love language.

[GliderGuider]

35. Maybe this comes down to semantics

First off, I have no doubt there are wise religious and spiritual people. I bet there are more wise people among those who self-identify as "spiritual" than among those who self-identify as "religious", though. It has something to do with dogma substituting for personal judgment.

The semantic question I have is this. Is what the pupils are receiving in your examples actually wisdom itself, or is it more like a framework that allows them to become wise? The finger that points out the moon is not the moon...

[OKIsItJustMe]

38. The finger is not the moon

My brother told me many years ago, “You cannot teach a person how to whistle. You can only help a person discover how to whistle for themselves.”

The “masters” in my examples are teachers of wisdom: They observe their pupils' progress, and provide appropriate lessons, guiding their pupils’ steps along the path. Each of the “masters” operates within a religious context, and their wisdom is informed by their religion (even though their pupil may not be an adherent.)

[NNadir]

58. Why am I in no way surprised with these Pop cult examples?

Yoda?

Mr. Miyagi?

Give. Me. A. Break.

[NNadir]

57. Bohr and Einstein had this argument about objective reality and people assume Einstein lost.

I'm not so sure.

The argument is beautifully and literately described in Abraham Pais's "The Life and Science of Albert Einstein." The conversation - at which Pais was present - took place very close to the place I live, and I seldom go past the Institute of Advanced Study without thinking about that conversation.

Without disracting reference to the very beautiful Pais original, I can say that Einstein asked Bohr whether the moon only existed when one sees it.

I don't believe that the moon exists only when a human sees it. It is anthropomorphic hubris that argues otherwise. Einstein was clearly right, the moon exists independent of the observer.

So called "wisdom," on the other hand, does not.

I can only speak for myself, but I do regard the scientific method as the supreme arbiter of value.

I note that, like the value of pi, the scientific method has been independently discovered many times. Only things that are true can be independently discovered. There may be statistical background noise in the scientific literature, of course, but the truth always wins out. Berthelot's claim of "N-rays" was published, and for a while, respected, but the truth won out because "N-rays" do not exist.

(Likewise cold fusion.)

I don't think of "Saint Heisenberg" since no mysticism whatsoever is involved in Heisenberg's results. They are at the core of science, much like Newton's laws, and Maxwell's laws, and the laws of relativity. They explain the universe by predicting results that can be verfied. The results of "Saint" Heisenberg's work are independent of any feature of Heisenberg's personality, and thus the issue of so called "Sainthood" is not relevant.

I note that several Nobel Laureates have been racists. One, for instance, was William Shockley, who invented the transistor.

Obviously he is not a candidate for "Sainthood," but the fact that he was not a saint has no bearing whatsoever on whether transistors work. They do work.

You may take my opinion for what it's worth. Keep in mind that I failed out school in the 5th grade - one of the few Americans ever to have had that distinction - but you asked for my advice, nonetheless, and I gave it.

[GliderGuider]

59. Well, good luck

I obviously disagree with you on some fairly fundamental questions, but you're in very good company among your peers.

[hunter]

31. It's very pretty.

I tend to be one who nurtures my own cantankerousness rather than my wisdom (if there is such a thing... and I'm not so sure about intelligence either.) "Wisdom" is something I have a feel for, having met some wise people. Oddly, they are rarely the people who are widely proclaimed to be wise.

I much enjoy your arrangement of articles from the hopeful to the really depressing.

:thumbsup: