East Meets West Logic...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

In order to correct this third, monumental and disastrous blunder, we need, as a first step, to bring about a revolution in the nature of academic inquiry, beginning with social inquiry and the humanities (as set out in some detail in my From Knowledge to Wisdom) [20]. Social inquiry is not primarily social science. Its proper basic task is to help humanity build into institutions and social life quite generally the progress-achieving methods of aim-oriented rationality (arrived at by generalizing the progress-achieving methods of science as indicated above). Social inquiry (sociology, economics, anthropology and the rest) is thus social methodology or social philosophy. Its task is to help diverse valuable human endeavours and institutions gradually improve aims and methods so that the world may make social progress towards global enlightenment. And the primary task of academic inquiry, more generally, becomes to help humanity solve its problems of living in increasingly rational, cooperative, enlightened ways, thus helping humanity become more civilized. The basic aim of academic inquiry becomes to promote the growth of wisdom - wisdom being defined as the capacity to realize what is of value in life (and thus including knowledge and technological know-how). Those parts of academic inquiry devoted to improving knowledge, understanding and technological know-how contribute to the growth of wisdom.
As I have already remarked, the aim of achieving global civilization is inherently problematic. This means, according to aim-oriented rationality, that we need to represent the aim at a number of levels, from the specific and highly problematic to the unspecific and unproblematic. Thus, at a fairly specific level, we might, for example, specify civilization to be a state of affairs in which there is an end to war, dictatorships, population growth, extreme inequalities of wealth, and the establishment of democratic, liberal world government and a sustainable world industry and agriculture. At a rather more general level we might specify civilization to be a state of affairs in which everyone shares equally in enjoying, sustaining and creating what is of value in life in so far as this is possible. At a still more general level, civilization might be specified simply as that realizable world order we should seek to attain in the long term: see diagram 2.
As a result of building into our institutions and social life such a hierarchical structure of aims and associated methods, we create a framework within which it becomes possible for us progressively to improve our real-life aims and methods in increasingly cooperative ways as we live. Diverse philosophies of life - diverse religious, political, economic and moral views - may be cooperatively developed, assessed and tested against the experience of personal and social life. It becomes possible progressively to improve diverse philosophies of life (diverse views about what is of value in life and how it is to be realized) much as theories are progressively and cooperatively improved in science. In doing this, humanity would at last have learned from the solution to the first great problem of learning how to go about solving the second problem.
Objections
I now consider, briefly, some objections that may be raised against the thesis and argument of this paper.
It may be objected that the traditional Enlightenment does not dominate current academic inquiry to the extent that I have assumed. But grounds for holding that it does are given in chapter six of my From Knowledge to Wisdom. There I looked at the following: (1) books about the modern university; (2) the philosophy and sociology of science; (3) statements of leading scientists; (4) Physics Abstracts; (5) Chemistry, Biology, Geo

That realizable
Level 7 Civilization5 social order
(whatever it may be)
we ought to try to
attain in the long
term.


A world in which
Level 6 Civilization4 everyone shares
equally in
enjoying,
sustaining and
creating what is of
value in so far as
this is possible.


A world that is
Level 5 Civilization3 democratic, liberal,
just, sustainable,
rational and wise.


A world with global
Level 4 Civilization2 democracy that puts
The new Enlightenment into
practice.


Best current
Level 3 Civilisation1 specific ideas
for world
civilization



Actual and Policies, projects,
Level 2 possible actions new laws,
institutions,
programmes



Level 1 Human experience (history)




Diagram 2: Aim-Oriented Rationality applied to the task
of making progress towards a civilized world


and Psychology Abstracts; (6) journal titles and contents; (7) books on economics, sociology and psychology; ( philosophy. In 1984, the year From Knowledge to Wisdom was published, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the traditional Enlightenment (or "the philosophy of knowledge" as I called it in the book) dominated academic inquiry.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Have things changed since then? The revolution advocated by From Knowledge to Wisdom, and argued for here, has not occurred. There is still, amongst the vast majority of academics today, no awareness at all that a more intellectually rigorous and humanly valuable kind of inquiry than that which we have at present, exists as an option. In particular, social inquiry continues to be taught and pursued as social science, and not as social methodology. Recently I undertook an examination, at random, of thirty-four introductory books on sociology, published between 1985 and 1997. Sociology, typically, is defined as "the scientific study of human society and social interactions" [21], as "the systematic, sceptical study of human society" [22], or as having as its basic aim "to understand human societies and the forces that have made them what they are" [23]. Some books take issue with the idea that sociology is the scientific study of society, or protest at the male dominated nature of sociology [24]. Nowhere did I find a hint of the idea that a primary task of sociology, or of social inquiry more generally, might be to help build into the fabric of social life progress-achieving methods, generalized from those of science, designed to help humanity resolve its conflicts and problems of living in more cooperatively rational ways than at present.
The tackling of problems of living rather than problems of knowledge does of course go on within the academic enterprise as it is at present constituted, within such disciplines as economics, development studies, policy studies, peace studies, medicine, agriculture, engineering, and elsewhere. But this does not tell against the point that the primary task of academic inquiry at present is, first, to acquire knowledge and technological know-how, and then, second, to apply it to help solve problems of living. It does not, in other words, tell against the point that it is the traditional Enlightenment that is the dominant influence on the nature, the aims and methods, the whole character and structure of academic inquiry.
It may be objected that it is all to the good that the academic enterprise today does give priority to the pursuit of knowledge over the task of promoting wisdom and civilization. Before problems of living can be tackled rationally, knowledge must first be acquired [25].
I have six replies to this objection.
First, even if the objection were valid, it would still be vital for a kind of inquiry designed to help us build a better world to include rational exploration of problems of living, and to ensure that this guides priorities of scientific research (and is guided by the results of such research).
Second, the validity of the objection becomes dubious when we take into account the considerable success people met with in solving problems of living in a state of extreme ignorance, before the advent of science. We still today often arrive at solutions to problems of living in ignorance of relevant facts. Third, the objection is not valid. In order to articulate problems of living and explore imaginatively and critically possible solutions (in accordance with Popper's conception of rationality) we need to be able to act in the world, imagine possible actions and share our imaginings with others: in so far as some common sense knowledge is implicit in all this, such knowledge is required to tackle rationally and successfully problems of living. But this does not mean that we must give intellectual priority to acquiring new relevant knowledge before we can be in a position to tackle rationally our problems of living.
Fourth, simply in order to have some idea of what kind of knowledge or know-how it is relevant for us to try to acquire, we must first have some provisional ideas as to what our problem of living is and what we might do to solve it. Articulating our problem of living and proposing and critically assessing possible solutions needs to be intellectually prior to acquiring relevant knowledge simply for this reason: we cannot know what new knowledge it is relevant for us to acquire until we have at least a preliminary idea as to what our problem of living is, and what we propose to do about it. A slight change in the way we construe our problem may lead to a drastic change in the kind of knowledge it is relevant to

acquire: changing the way we construe problems of health, to include prevention of disease (and not just curing of disease) leads to a dramatic change in the kind of knowledge we need to acquire (importance of exercise, diet etc.). Including the importance of avoiding pollution in the problem of creating wealth by means of industrial development leads to the need to develop entirely new kinds of knowledge.
Fifth, relevant knowledge is often hard to acquire; it would be a disaster if we suspended life until it had been acquired. Knowledge of how our brains work is presumably highly relevant to all that we do but clearly, suspending rational tackling of problems of living until this relevant knowledge has been acquired would not be a sensible step to take. It would, in any case, make it impossible for us to acquire the relevant knowledge (since this requires scientists to act in doing research). Scientific research is itself a kind of action carried on in a state of relative ignorance.
Sixth, the capacity to act, to live, more or less successfully in the world, is more fundamental than (propositional) knowledge. Put in Rylean terms, 'knowing how' is more fundamental than 'knowing that' [26]. All our knowledge is but a development of our capacity to act. Dissociated from life, from action, knowledge stored in libraries is just paper and ink, devoid of meaning. In this sense, problems of living are more fundamental than problems of knowledge (which are but an aspect of problems of living); giving intellectual priority to problems of living quite properly reflects this point [27].

[Lloyd Gillespie]

It deserves to be noted that a kind of inquiry that gives priority to tackling problems of knowledge over problems of living violates the most elementary requirements of rationality conceivable. If the basic task is to help humanity create a better world, then the problems that need to be solved are, primarily, problems of living, problems of action, not problems of knowledge. This means that to comply, merely, with Popper's conception of critical rationalism (or problem-solving rationality) discussed above, the basic intellectual tasks need to be (1) to articulate problems of living, and (2) to propose and critically assess possible solutions, possible more or less cooperative human actions. (1) and (2) are excluded, or marginalized, by a kind of inquiry that gives priority to the task of solving problems of knowledge. And the result will be a kind of inquiry that fails to create a reservoir of imaginative and critically examined ideas for the resolution of problems of living, and instead develops knowledge often unrelated to, or even harmful to, our most basic human needs.
It may be objected that in employing aim-oriented rationality in an attempt to help create a more civilized world, in the way indicated above, the new Enlightenment falls foul of Popper's strictures against Utopian social engineering [28]. I have three replies to this objection. First, to the extent that piecemeal social engineering, of the kind advocated by Popper, is indeed the rational way to make progress towards a more civilized world, this will be advocated by the New Enlightenment. Second, when we take into account the unprecedented global nature of many of our most serious problems, indicated at the beginning of this essay (the outcome of solving the first great problem of learning but failing to solve the second), we may well doubt that piecemeal social engineering is sufficient. Third, Popper's distinction between piecemeal and Utopian social engineering is altogether too crude: it overlooks entirely what has been advocated here, aim-oriented rationalistic social engineering, with its emphasis on developing increasingly cooperatively rational resolutions of human conflicts and problems in full recognition of the inherently problematic nature of the aim of achieving greater civilization [29].
All those to any degree influenced by Romanticism and the counter-Enlightenment will object strongly to the idea that we should learn from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards civilization; they will object strongly to the idea of allowing conceptions of rationality, stemming from science, to dominate in this way, and will object even more strongly to the idea, inherent in the new Enlightenment, that we need to create a more aim-oriented rationalistic social world [30].
Directed at the traditional Enlightenment, objections of this kind have some validity; but directed at the new Enlightenment, they have none. As I have emphasized elsewhere, aim-oriented rationality amounts to a synthesis of traditional rationalist and romantic ideals, and not to the triumph of the first over the second. In giving priority to the realization of what is of value in life, and in emphasizing that rationality demands that we seek to improve aims as we proceed, the new Enlightenment requires that rationality integrates traditional Rationalist and Romantic values and ideals of integrity. Imagination, emotion, desire, art, empathic understanding of people and culture, the imaginative exploration of aims and ideals, which tend to be repudiated as irrational by traditional Rationalism, but which are prized by Romanticism, are all essential ingredients of aim-oriented rationality. Far from crushing freedom, spontaneity, creativity and diversity, aim-oriented rationality is essential for the desirable flourishing of these things in life [31].
Many historians and sociologists of science deny that there is any such thing as scientific method or scientific progress, and will thus find the basic idea of this essay absurd [32]. These writers are encouraged in their views by the long-standing failure of scientists and philosophers of science to explain clearly what scientific method is, and how it is to be justified. This excuse for not taking scientific method and progress seriously is, however, no longer viable: as I have indicated above, reject standard empiricism in all its forms, and it becomes clear how scientific method and progress are to be characterized and justified, in a way which emphasizes the rational interplay between evolving knowledge and evolving aims and methods of science [33]. In a world dominated by the products of scientific progress it is quixotic in the extreme to deny that such progress has taken place.
Finally, those of a more rationalist persuasion may object that science is too different from political life for there to be anything worthwhile to be learnt from scientific success about how to achieve social progress towards civilization [34]. (a) In science there is a decisive procedure for eliminating ideas, namely, empirical refutation: nothing comparable obtains, or can obtain, in the political domain. (b) In science experiments or trials may be carried out relatively painlessly (except, perhaps, when new drugs are being given in live trials); in life, social experiments, in that they involve people, may cause much pain if they go wrong, and may be difficult to stop once started. (c) Scientific progress requires a number of highly intelligent and motivated people to pursue science on the behalf of the rest of us, funded by government and industry; social progress requires almost everyone to take part, including the stupid, the criminal, the mad or otherwise handicapped, the ill, the highly unmotivated; and in general there is no payment. (d) Scientists, at a certain level, have an agreed, common objective: to improve knowledge. In life, people often have quite different or conflicting goals, and there is no general agreement as to what civilization ought to mean, or even whether it is desirable to pursue civilization in any sense. (e) Science is about fact, politics about value, the quality of life. This difference ensures that science has nothing to teach political action (for civilization). (f) Science is male-dominated, fiercely competitive, and at times terrifyingly impersonal [35]; this means it is quite unfit to provide any kind of guide for life.
Here, briefly, are my replies. (a) Some proposals for action can be shown to be unacceptable quite decisively as a result of experience acquired through attempting to put the proposal into action. Where this is not possible, it may still be possible to assess the merits of the proposal to some extent by means of experience. If assessing proposals for action by means of experience is much more indecisive than assessing scientific theories by means of experiment, then we need, all the more, to devote our care and attention to the former case. (b) Precisely because experimentation in life is so much more difficult than in science, it is vital that in life we endeavour to learn as much as possible from (i) experiments that we perform in our imagination, and (ii) experiments that occur as a result of what actually happens. (c) Because humanity does not have the aptitude or desire for wisdom that scientists have for knowledge, it is unreasonable to suppose that progress towards global wisdom could be as explosively rapid as progress in science. Nevertheless progress in wisdom might go better than it does at present.
(d) Cooperative rationality is only feasible when there is the common desire of those involved to resolve conflicts in a cooperatively rational way. (e) Aim-oriented rationality can help us improve our decisions about what is desirable or of value, even if it cannot reach decisions for us. (f) In taking science as a guide for life, it is the progress-achieving methodology of science to which we need to attend. It is this that we need to generalize in such a way that it becomes fruitfully applicable, potentially, to all that we do. That modern science is male-dominated, fiercely competitive, and at times terrifyingly impersonal should not deter us from seeing what can be learned from the progress-achieving methods of science - unless, perhaps, it should turn out that being male-dominated, fiercely competitive and impersonal is essential to scientific method and progress. (But this, I submit, is not the case.)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Conclusion
Having solved the first great problem of learning, it has become a matter of extreme urgency, as far as the future of humanity is concerned, that we discover how to solve the second problem. In order to do this we need to correct the three blunders of the traditional Enlightenment. This involves changing the nature of social inquiry, so that social science becomes social methodology or social philosophy, concerned to help us build into social life the progress-achieving methods of aim-oriented rationality, arrived at by generalizing the progress-achieving methods of science. It also involves, more generally, bringing about a revolution in the nature of academic inquiry as a whole, so that it takes up its proper task of helping humanity learn how to become wiser by increasingly cooperatively rational means. The scientific task of improving knowledge and understanding of nature becomes a part of the broader task of improving global wisdom.

[labelwench]

Have just embarked upon the reading of a book entitled 'The Fountain Of Age' by Betty Friedan, it having been recommended to me by a respected elder.

If, in the experiencing of a long life, there is any measure of knowledge and wisdom gained, it is being disregarded and discarded like the 'baby with the bath water'. Not so many generations ago, it was the mature people of our society who mentored youth, crafts were learned through apprenticeship, and persons took pride in the pursuit of their learning and abilities ever increasing.

At what point did we lose this interface? When we institutionalized the process of learning and began to select for productivity instead of capability?

Knowledge and experience already gained......we are wasting, and with the passing of each generation, we may be losing that which we can never reclaim.

What benefit is knowledge, gained through trial and tribulation, if we are unable to pass it forward and save others from making the mistakes of the past?

The barriers must be identified and gotten beyond, if we are to make genuine progress.

[labelwench]

That modern science is male-dominated, fiercely competitive, and at times terrifyingly impersonal should not deter us from seeing what can be learned from the progress-achieving methods of science - unless, perhaps, it should turn out that being male-dominated, fiercely competitive and impersonal is essential to scientific method and progress. (But this, I submit, is not the case.)
Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Despite our society being male-dominated on most fronts presently, and in more recent history, such has not always been the case. In Science and other disciplines, women, too, have left their mark, and are venturing into space etc.

There is no species more competitive than the female, and we (the females) may, in fact, be partially responsible for the current situation, in having allowed same to evolve and proliferate. Women have far more influence than most might be willing to admit, especially in the mate selection, birthing and early care of our young.

When the female of the species finally elects to step forward in greater numbers, change will come about at an accelerated rate, or so go my thoughts. We are a disenfranchised segment of the population, and yet, even with fewer resources at our disposal, the female of our species lives longer than the male, according to the majority of statistics. A longer life, more accumulated living experience, and the female sex, while very competitive in seeking advantage for it's own young, is also historically more co-operative in maintaining the genetic diversity and success of broader society, as ultimately, the benefits come full circle.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Have just embarked upon the reading of a book entitled 'The Fountain Of Age' by Betty Friedan, it having been recommended to me by a respected elder.

One of her better books Lorrina. When we all understand what age's true role in society really is, we may start to recover the central tenets of the age old wisdom, required to guide our social, personal and public thoughts and actions...

If, in the experiencing of a long life, there is any measure of knowledge and wisdom gained, it is being disregarded and discarded like the 'baby with the bath water'.

Could it be as stated by Maxwell, "Not yet recognized...?" This is the same point I've been trying to raise awareness about, since I started posting back in September. We are all talking, and have been talking for thousands of years, yet we are only talking about information systems, and knowledge systems__Not Wisdom Systems__The Necessary Conversations... Just as Maxwell has clearly stated, we've concentrated so hard on the first question, we've not even realized we're not defining any semblance of true intelligence__We're just re-iterating information systems, and telling people all about our knowledge__Which Is Not Wisdom__Information and knowledge lack wisdom__The necessary actionable intelligence. We've pushed science and technology beyond all bounds of common sense, in the fact that our totality of information and knowledge systems can not take advantage of the science and technology systems we've pushed, through academic accolades, to the forefront of our dellusional salvation__When in fact, it's our 'Wisdom of Use', that's needed to make proper use of these new sciences and technologies__Not just more silly information and silly knowledge about all our fallacious academic achievements. Academics hasn't learned the hard lesson of, "A compliment is just an insult, standing on its head, kicking you in the teeth..." Academics must learn, not the general society. The general society is presently where all true wisdom lays... Ever meet an average person, who didn't know how to use his own intelligence...? No...! It's only the academics who don't know how to use their own intelligence, to move information and knowledge into wisdom...

The pin-head academics haven't discovered the 'baby in the bath water' yet___to throw it out_disregard_or discard it...

Not so many generations ago, it was the mature people of our society who mentored youth, crafts were learned through apprenticeship, and persons took pride in the pursuit of their learning and abilities ever increasing.

At what point did we lose this interface? When we institutionalized the process of learning and began to select for productivity instead of capability?

What you mention is the modern form of the present problem, I'd agree, as I saw it happening during the '60's and `70's cultural revolution, when the prejudice developed between age and youth over drugs and fear__But, the deeper problem goes back centuries__Of thinking information and knowledge is wisdom, when it's clearly not. Wisdom is knowing what to do with information and knowledge, and some would argue we once did, but I'd argue it was all an accident of history shining on the New World for a few short centuries, and nothing but an accident, that actually deceives us into thinking we were once smart and used our wisdom circuits__Whan in fact__We've not yet discovered our 'Wisdom Circuits...' It's just now the fact that the accident has ceased producing her natural benefits to the New World, we've forgot how to 'Think Wisely For Ourselves...' And since there's no longer our accidental historical progressions granted by nature__We are being forced to look at ourselves anew__And we are beginning to realize our 'Intelligence Is Naked...' I posted Maxwell's entire paper, because I thought it best represented what is historically the true problem__'Information and Knowledge Has No Wisdom...' I've also written about this for years. His first book goes back to the late `70's, early `80's, and the world hasn't heard the message yet. It's a simple message__The world is listening to information and knowledge__and lacks all identification to the true human being's actionable intelligence, and wisdom of sensible action...

I hope you can see what I'm talking about, as this is the central key to the world's problems, of why we can't talk to each other. Everyone's trying to talk about information, and knowledge, and personal pseudo-intelligence__when in fact, what's required is the sensible linker of plain talk wisdom of/to action__What's all the information, knowledge and intelligence for...???

Knowledge and experience already gained......we are wasting, and with the passing of each generation, we may be losing that which we can never reclaim.

I would simply state it as, 'Claiming what we've never had__Simple wisdom about our actions of use...'

What benefit is knowledge, gained through trial and tribulation, if we are unable to pass it forward and save others from making the mistakes of the past?

Imo, the major problem is in identifing what is truly necessary knowledge, and separating/segregating it from the frivolous academic subjects. This would go a long ways, to improving academics__but, the problem with modern society is political correctness__'Segregation/Prejudice Not Allowed...' And, unless segregation and prejudice of information and knowledge systems are allowed back into the academic curriculum, we are doomed at the academic level... I run into this problem all the time in the many academic groups I participate in, as well as all the rules established at many of the online forums, etc...

The barriers must be identified and gotten beyond, if we are to make genuine progress.

How do we get rid of academic's worship of the useless...??? It's probably 99% of what exists...

Anyone for plain talking common-sense wisdom...?

[labelwench]

Anyone for plain talking common-sense wisdom...?
Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie

You have said a mouthful in that short sentence.

Common-sense would be the oxymoron of the past several decades, I would suggest, as it certainly has been lacking in many of the circles of my experience.

Plain talk is clearly what is needed.

Each direction of investigation has added new vocabulary to our language, English being but one of many, and this proliferation of new words, many with broad or variable interpretation, has made it increasingly difficult to communicate what is precisely meant between individuals and groups.

The sad fact is:

Many of the people I have worked with and whom I am the Shop Steward on behalf of, would not know the meanig of several of the words that I have used in the sentence above.

We are all just trying to get by, to experience life and what it has to offer, and most are doing the best they know how.

How best to improve what they know?

People must be free to choose, and it would be the responsibility for each generation to progress toward better options to choose between, as the legacy for their offspring.

The intent being not to limit the number of choices for future generations, perhaps to limit the number of errors that need be repeated?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lillian Jane Gillespie’s Ideas__(100 years > of Evolution…


Holding the Reins………………………| Imagination is within
Pulling in the Reins…………………..| ones inner
Taking control…………………………….| being.
(Knowledge is a disconnection of Wisdom >
Wisdom is a connection of Past, Present & Future.
(Unraveling hope is a
darkened burden on the
connection to Wisdom

Wisdom is full truth of partial
Knowledge. Connecting at the time
of difference & indifference.
…I will connect to the once
woven spirit of ones own being
…to flow with the waves of
( time >
…I will prevail in the
lighter path of joy.

As a child is being as an
old soul, burdened by discovery
as time reflects an old, new
discovery.

(Your life is what you make it
…is pretty true
….I want my life better.

(Female & Male Wisdom >
…(Veins of Life >
….(Spirits of Infants > !!!!

[labelwench]

Lillian Jane Gillespie’s Ideas__(100 years > of Evolution…

Holding the Reins………………………| Imagination is within
Pulling in the Reins…………………..| ones inner
Taking control…………………………….| being.
(Knowledge is a disconnection of Wisdom >
Wisdom is a connection of Past, Present & Future.

Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Life is what happens to you, while you are busy making other plans.

The only thing over which I have control is my attitude, which I may choose to change for the better.

If I learn no other skill, this one will suffice. If I can but demonstrate the change that comes from within in a manner that another may learn, they will change their own attitude and life as best suits themselves.