[Fis] Fwd: Re: The Basic Core of Wisdom - Reification

[joe.brenner at bluewin.ch]

Dear Pedro, Mark and All,
I see the problem elsewhere, the result of an attempt to talk about knowledge and wisdom as static, essentially epistemilogical phenomena. Pedro seems to me to leave the door open to a process of view of knowledge/wisdom_as_change in the concept of the "main body". But the machine cannot participate in the "main body" as it is not alive; turn the machine off and it does not change.
The capacity to enjoy music should not be related to memory. One is sometimes exposed to music for the first time and still can both understand and emjoy it, OR NOT. The or is critical here. Most attempts to create "new" classical music and jazz fail; they are simply similacra without meaning of their own. On the other hand, I can admire Japanese poetry without knowing Japanese, if I listen carefully, even without "complete" or any understanding, since I can listen to the "music" - the information constiuted by relations in it between elements.
The inclusion of the above imprecise characteristics of phenomena is necessary in the scientific explication of phenomena as an irreducible part of them. Like everything else, they can be distorted and exaggerated. One aspect of "Wisdom" then might be the capacity to exercise the judgment necessary to avoid the latter.
Thank you and best wishes,
Joseph
----Message d'origine----
De : johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
Date : 31/10/2023 - 13:14 (E)
À : pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com
Cc : fis at listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] The Basic Core of Wisdom - the main body
 
  
   
    
     
      Dear Pedro, all,
      
       
      
      
       Your comment here is interesting: "Nevertheless, in our times whatever wisdom might be around remains buried under growing heaps of specialized, mostly technological knowledge."
      
      
       
      
      
       There is a key question which arises from this: Do we think that wisdom is separable from the 'heaps of specialized technical knowledge'? Can a surgeon act wisely if they don't know how to use a scalpel? Is it important to know and do what we are talking about at some depth of experience? I suspect so. 
      
      
       
      
      
       So perhaps the problem is the "burying". What/who performs the burial? Education must be the first culprit there - what do we do about it? There's nothing stopping people gaining deeper specialised knowledge if they are so-motivated. But there is a lot that stops us making connections between deep practice, thought and judgement. 
      
      
       
      
      
       Wittgenstein made a similar comment in his discussion on aesthetics (here: 
       Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief - Wikipedia): 
      
      
       When we make an aesthetic judgement about a thing, we do not just gape at it and say: "Oh! How marvellous!" We distinguish between a person who knows what he is talking about and a person who doesn't. If a person is to admire English poetry, he must know English. Suppose that a Russian who doesn't know English is overwhelmed by a sonnet admitted to be good. We would say that he does not know what is in it. In music this is more pronounced. Suppose there is a person who admires and enjoys what is admitted to be good but can't remember the simplest tunes, doesn't know when the bass comes in, etc. We say he hasn't seen what's in it. We use the phrase 'A man is musical' not so as to call a man musical if he says "Ah!" when a piece of music is played, any more than we call a dog musical if it wags its tail when music is played. 
      
      
        
      
      
       If there is a paradigm shift that is required, it is an epistemological shift that is in this space. 
      
      
       
      
      
       Best wishes,
      
      
       
      
      
       Mark
      
     
    
   
  
  
  
   
    On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 at 11:26, Pedro C. Marijuán <
    pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com> wrote:
    
   
   
    
     
      Dear Chen and FIS colleagues,
     
     
      
     
     
      Welcome to the list. Your comments on the "main body" are interesting. They look close to the (Taoist?) tradition of "
      chi flow" in the body. The interrelation between the
       li and the 
      chi in the organism looks quite enigmatic (say, information flow vs. energy flow: time ago I published about that from the point of view of cellular gauge symmetry). This interesting "main body" theme may also be connected with the discussions on consciousness... Nevertheless, I fail to see the relationship with "wisdom". Most parties in this list are discussing about wisdom from a "realist stance" (as something clearly delimited in the real world) while I adopt a "nominalist" position: it represents nothing but a useful artificial convention about an unassailable phenomenon. Nevertheless, in our times whatever wisdom might be around remains buried under growing heaps of specialized, mostly technological knowledge. Taking its evanescent presence as a crucial distinction between humans and the new AI systems does not look very "wise"...  If we provide full Autonomy and maybe some form of embodiment (robotic?) to these systems, well, things could be pretty problematic, far beyond the realistic or nominalist stance around wisdom.
     
     
      
     
     
      Best--Pedro
      
     
     
      
     
     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20231102/5a50b550/attachment-0001.html>