00:14 welcome back to awakening from the

00:16 meaning crisis so we are continuing and

00:19 it deserves this much attention our long
00:21 discussion about the nature of wisdom
00:23 because since the actual revolution is
00:26 just crucially connected to the project
00:31 of meaning in life last time we finished
00:34 up look at bolton slaughtering there I
00:36 made some criticisms and that led into
00:40 important criticisms made by Monica or
00:43 Delta then we looked at our doubts
00:44 theory and the way it brought in an
00:46 important distinction about not just
00:48 having a good theory of wisdom but the
00:50 process of becoming a wise person and
00:52 then the emphasis on what are the
00:54 features of a wise person as - as
00:56 opposed to what are some of the central
00:60 claims made by a theory of wisdom and
01:03 then we talked about how Monica
01:05 insightfully brings together and the the
01:09 cognitive the reflective and the
01:13 affective and I pointed out how within
01:17 at least the cognitive directly because
01:18 of the invocation of Keeks and
01:21 understanding we've got a relevance
01:23 realization grasping the significance I
01:25 would also point out that I think that's
01:28 at least even complicit in the
01:29 reflective machinery and there's
01:32 potential deep potential connection
01:33 there with both prospective all-knowing
01:36 and the cultivation of rationality at
01:40 least respectable rationality and the
01:42 affective ties to agape which I've
01:44 already argued too has very important
01:46 connections to relevance realization and
01:48 that affords our doubts theory a
01:51 powerful way of connecting wisdom to
01:53 meaning in life as something different
01:55 from connecting wisdom to virtue and
01:57 that's a very important thing to do we
02:01 still noted some criticisms but largely
02:04 it's still a product theory it doesn't
02:06 have an independent account of
02:07 foolishness and a processing theory of
02:11 how one becomes wise and in that sense
02:13 it's not picking up as well as it could
02:17 the philosophical heritage given to us
02:19 by people like Socrates and Plato and
02:22 Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius etc
02:27 we then took a look at the theory of
02:30 Sternberg just extremely pivotal figure
02:34 in the psychology the cognitive science
02:38 of wisdom and we took a look at his
02:42 theory and I pointed out his ideas about
02:44 adopting shaping and selecting are
02:47 clearly ideas about relevance
02:49 realization he invokes implicit
02:53 processing tacit knowledge you know in
02:56 order to bring understanding in that in
02:59 sort of intuitive grasping of the
03:00 significance of information I think is
03:02 what he's implying and we talked about
03:05 the how he involves a balancing of
03:08 interests and there's the interpersonal
03:11 how you connected to yourself the
03:13 interpersonal how you connected to other
03:14 people the extra personal how you
03:16 connected to the world
03:18 and so that's at least important
03:20 connections to implicitly at least I
03:23 mean important connections to meaning in
03:26 life that we've been talking about
03:26 throughout this course he invokes
03:30 balance throughout and I tried to make a
03:32 good case that you should see that as
03:33 optimization and directly relevant
03:35 therefore two accounts of optimization
03:38 of processing that we discussed with
03:40 connection to relevance realization
03:44 there were some issues I had with
03:47 Sternberg the idea that all wise people
03:50 all of this machinery is directed
03:52 towards the common good that strikes me
03:54 as an Akron estate I think a less
03:58 contentious claim would be that it's
04:01 directed towards virtue and meaning in
04:03 life for oneself and others in some
04:06 unspecified way there was also the
04:11 invocation of values as affecting or
04:15 constraining the whole process again it
04:19 was unclear to me what this is there's
04:21 an ambiguity here it could be the
04:22 relatively trivial claim that the wise
04:24 person is being regulated by normativity
04:27 you know by considerations what's true
04:29 and good and beautiful and that would be
04:32 definitional because wisdom is a
04:35 normative term
04:36 and therefore relatively trivial or it
04:37 could be that specific values are being
04:40 invoked here but if that's the case they
04:42 should be specifically stated and then
04:45 justified for why those ones are chosen
04:47 and explicitly explain how those
04:48 specific values make an impact on
04:51 specific aspects of the machinery so
04:53 that's all sort of missing and needs to
04:57 be addressed
04:58 it's ultimately a product theory not a
05:00 process theory
05:01 Sternberg does have a theory of
05:03 foolishness but it's not independently
05:04 generated and it doesn't really pick up
05:05 on the centrality of seeing through
05:08 illusion and into reality so if you'll
05:13 allow me to make use of all of that
05:16 machinery not only the machinery that
05:17 we've talked about in the psychology of
05:20 wisdom but the machinery that many of
05:22 these theorists are either explicitly or
05:24 implicitly invoking all of the
05:25 philosophical work we already covered in
05:29 the first half of the course connected
05:30 to wisdom I want to try and humbly draw
05:33 upon that and talk about proposal made
05:39 by myself and Leo Ferraro if you know
05:43 remember Leo and I have done work
05:45 together on flow which I've talked about
05:47 work on mindfulness that I've talked
05:50 about this is worth from 2013 so the
05:56 place to start is to go back to what we
05:58 saw and what a argued for so I hope I
06:02 don't have to recapitulate that whole
06:03 argument right that we have these two
06:05 competencies we have sort of an
06:07 inferential competence that has to do
06:10 with our propositional knowing and we
06:13 have an insight competence right over
06:18 here and that has to do with control and
06:21 that has to be that's more sort of
06:23 procedural perspectival I'll come back
06:25 to that point because that's one of my
06:27 criticisms of Verve achey and Ferraro
06:29 and then the idea here is that this is
06:34 enhanced
06:38 and protected from undue influence from
06:41 sort of more s1 processing by active
06:44 open-mindedness and then I argued and
06:47 following Jacobs and Teasdale right and
06:50 also arguments derived from being the
06:52 need for an independent competence on
06:54 controlled etc right that while this is
06:57 really clearly the case for theoretical
06:59 context and more therapeutic or at least
07:02 extent X essentially developmental
07:03 contexts we want this to be foreground 8
07:06 and we want it protected from that and
07:08 so we want it developed by mindfulness
07:11 really and you understand that by
07:13 mindfulness I mean a style that
07:15 coordinates psycho technologies together
07:17 of meditation contemplation perhaps flow
07:21 interaction with the environment that
07:24 brought up the immediate question of
07:28 okay how are these coordinated together
07:33 now one answer might be that they are
07:35 just opponent processing and there are
07:37 self-organizing and and and that's
07:39 potentially viable but there's we
07:43 already at this point sorry that sounds
07:47 so self congratulatory I don't mean it
07:48 that way
07:49 okay we argued let's just state it that
07:53 way we argued that whereas this is
07:56 giving priority to propositional
07:60 knowledge this has to do with procedural
08:03 knowledge skills of attention
08:06 basically with cultivating certain
08:08 skills of attention and then the idea
08:10 was that active open mindedness and
08:12 propositional knowing basically we
08:15 argued then give you knowledge of facts
08:19 this this gives you knowledge of events
08:21 right or processes so right this
08:28 basically tells you about we're
08:30 understanding what a fact is as cross
08:33 contextual patterns events or processes
08:36 are things that are unfolding like
08:38 idiosyncratically right in time and
08:40 space I'm not I mean I that's sort of
08:45 right perhaps a better way of putting
08:47 this that would align it with the stuff
08:48 we talked about with
08:51 it's worked and sharp is this is your
08:54 grasping of principles and this is your
08:56 grasping of processes and this would
08:59 therefore largely be sort of like what's
09:03 being talked about in Sofia and this is
09:07 largely what perhaps what was being
09:08 talked about in phronesis we suggested
09:10 that I'm still open to that suggestion
09:13 I'm not quite sure that it Maps as
09:16 cleanly as that now but in addition to
09:20 this clearly propositional and at least
09:24 centrally procedural we invoked
09:28 prospective oh right so this is
09:35 propositional this is largely procedural
09:41 and then this is perspectival and then
09:46 right so if this has to do with
09:48 inference this has to do with insight
09:50 and we've already got a good sense we've
09:52 seen this we didn't we were not aware of
09:55 cuz it hadn't been generated we are not
09:56 aware of Grossman's work at the time but
09:58 we knew the Berlin work and this is of
10:01 court what's being managed here is
10:02 internalization how do you learn to take
10:08 adopt and take other people's
10:10 perspectives and internalize them within
10:13 your own processing so they become
10:15 metacognitively effective and then we we
10:18 said well what perspectival knowing did
10:21 and here's where I want to launch or
10:25 what am I I think first criticisms we
10:28 said well what perspective knowing does
10:30 is it integrates knowledge of facts with
10:33 knowledge of events it sort of helps you
10:37 to use I think maybe a better language
10:40 it helps you to put principles into
10:43 process and have processes governed by
10:46 principles and that's what sort of
10:48 perspectives are doing so this is we're
10:51 talking about the the epitome of this as
10:53 a skill and the epitome of this is a
10:55 theory and what a perspective does is
10:57 put theories and skills together I think
11:00 that's kind of right still in a sense
11:03 but
11:03 I think the relationship is and this is
11:05 a what I would argue for here the
11:08 relationship is more like this the
11:11 propositional knowledge is grounded in
11:17 but affected by procedural knowledge
11:20 your skills knowing how to interact and
11:24 then that this your your ability to
11:27 cultivate skills and then apply them to
11:30 the propositional knowledge is grounded
11:32 in your perspectival knowing because
11:35 that's going to give you your
11:38 situational awareness that you need to
11:40 cultivate the skills and so that you can
11:43 apply your knowledge of principles and
11:46 then I would argue that that and you've
11:49 seen me make this argument before this
11:50 is ultimately grounded in your
11:51 participatory knowing the agent arena
11:54 attunement that affords your being in
11:58 the world and your ability to go through
12:01 modal transformation existential change
12:03 so that also brings up I might as well
12:07 mention it now another criticism of this
12:10 of this theory which is although it's
12:13 talking about propositional and
12:14 procedural knowledge and prospective
12:16 unknowing there there is no clear
12:19 discussion here of participatory knowing
12:21 and that's a significant lacunae in the
12:24 theory for the following reason
12:25 without an account of participatory
12:27 knowing for all of its claims the verve
12:31 a keen for our theory of being a process
12:33 theory rather than a product theory
12:36 without talking about the participatory
12:38 knowing it really can't incorporate into
12:41 its account of becoming wise how one
12:44 goes through transformational experience
12:47 how one goes through modal change
12:50 I mean modal in the existential sense
12:52 not the logical sense
12:54 so without connecting participatory
12:58 knowing to this overarching schema the
13:01 connections between wisdom
13:04 transformative experience altered states
13:07 of consciousness all of these things
13:08 that we've discussed are actually
13:10 crucially missing from this theory and
13:13 therefore its claim to being an adequate
13:16 process
13:17 theory can be rather significantly
13:20 challenged I own I think that that so
13:23 that needs important development we did
13:28 talk about a cognitive style that you
13:32 could cultivate and one more thing I
13:35 think what we were doing is also we were
13:37 smuggling in that the prospective
13:40 all-knowing with the process of identity
13:43 creation that's central to participatory
13:46 knowing so I think that was also part of
13:50 the problem now what we did argue is
13:55 that this is set within a cognitive
13:59 style that will give you a higher-order
14:03 way of regulating active open mindedness
14:06 and mindfulness and here we took
14:09 directly from the philosophical
14:11 tradition and we talked about
14:14 internalizing the sage right
14:19 internalizing Socrates internalizing the
14:21 Buddha internalizing Jesus internalizing
14:24 the sage and we talked about what what
14:29 impact that has so we you know what this
14:32 is internalized we talked about this
14:33 repeatedly what the process of
14:35 internalization is what it's like to
14:36 internalize Socrates etc etc and we've
14:39 already seen how central that is to
14:40 wisdom it's so well this is overcoming
14:43 fallacious reasoning right
14:50 this is overcoming miss framing
14:53 misconstrue
14:59 what this is doing is it's helping you
15:01 to overcome egocentrism in a powerful
15:03 way these are all ways in which we can
15:09 fall into illusion so it's
15:13 self-deception but we also talked about
15:16 what does internalizing the sage do
15:17 what's when you get that meta cognitive
15:20 enhancement you get that perspective of
15:21 ability what's it doing so here we
15:24 talked about a virtue that you haven't
15:25 heard me talk about very much and it's
15:29 it's unfortunate because in some ways
15:32 this this this is okay so the the Asia
15:36 Greeks had four cardinal virtues wisdom
15:38 which is really kind of a meadow virtue
15:41 justice which we talk a lot about
15:43 courage and then the fourth is this word
15:47 softer son now softer son is often
15:49 translated as temperance doesn't capture
15:51 it well moderation doesn't capture it
15:53 well so I want to to put aside that and
16:02 try and come back at this but you see if
16:04 you went to the Delphic Oracle there
16:06 were things inscribed on the wall there
16:09 and one was know thyself and that's
16:11 clearly you know connected and Socrates
16:14 made it a zone and we've come to know
16:15 what that means how the knowledge of
16:17 one's self is of course not they're not
16:19 romantic autobiography but a deep
16:22 understanding of the principles by which
16:24 you're operating but the other one was
16:26 everything in moderation which was like
16:28 this and it but that's not right that
16:32 again moderation is good but it's not
16:34 quite right it's and we know this is
16:38 connected to something like Aristotle's
16:40 notion of the golden mean that all
16:42 virtue and remember what that is you
16:44 tried to create you're trying to create
16:45 a virtual engine that right right
16:49 generates enough options so you don't
16:52 suffer vices of deficit but also
16:55 generates enough right there's enough
16:57 governance there's enough selective
16:58 constraints so that it also forts vices
17:03 of excess so there there's there's a
17:06 kind of optimization going on there and
17:08 as I said there which you get a little
17:12 bit in the word moderation but modern
17:13 raishin sounds more like averaging and
17:15 settling i we argued that there's a
17:19 better way of trying to understand this
17:20 by understanding it in something that it
17:22 was often contrasted which which is in
17:25 Crotty a-- so you know this word this is
17:31 democracy uh right power or rule by the
17:37 people and and krithia is sort of
17:40 exercising power on yourself so this is
17:43 kind of like self-restraint self-control
17:50 and so a way of getting at this is to
17:54 think about the the fact that you could
17:59 be practicing a virtue a virtue and
18:02 kradic lee or in a sort of cynic manner
18:05 let me give you an example so here's two
18:09 people there's Tom and there's Susan Tom
18:14 is honest or at least he's trying to
18:19 become honest no Tom goes into
18:22 situations and Tom sees clearly the
18:29 potential to lie and he thief clearly
18:32 the benefit that would accrue to him if
18:34 he lies and it comes with a tremendous
18:37 sort of temptation at there's a
18:39 tremendous impulse and so he exercises
18:42 self-control and he doesn't lie and Tom
18:49 is to be commended for that that is an
18:51 important kind of honesty but consider
18:53 Susan Susan comes into a situation she
18:59 clearly sees the opportunity to live
19:02 she clearly sees the advantages that
19:04 were the crew to her if she lies but
19:07 that's it it's like when we talked about
19:10 Frankfort and whether or not some it's
19:12 unthinkable to her not in this sense
19:14 that she can't think the thought I can
19:16 lie or think or imagine to herself like
19:19 it's not a viable option to her she
19:22 can't she can't get into the existential
19:24 mode where that draws on her
19:26 anyway so although she can think it in
19:30 one sense in a Frankfort Ian sense it is
19:32 unthinkable to her it just she's not
19:34 tempted to lie in that sense many of us
19:40 myself included would side with the
19:42 Greeks and saying susan is more honest
19:45 than Tom right because honesty is now
19:50 second nature to Susan in a way it isn't
19:54 to Tom so that's soft resan but at least
19:59 one aspect of it
19:60 do you remember we you you see that
20:02 remember when we were doing Paul and
20:05 agape and Paul says now I will show you
20:08 the most excellent way and then he's
20:12 talking of course about agape as the
20:14 most excellent way and then he says
20:16 remember in order to try and get you to
20:18 understand that the transformation when
20:20 I was a child I thought like a child I
20:23 spoke like a child that acted like a
20:25 child but when I became a man I put
20:26 childish things behind me and remember
20:29 we talked about that when your child
20:31 your your deeply tempted by toys your
20:34 salience landscape automatically
20:36 organizes in a certain way but when
20:39 you're an adult when I'm a man I come in
20:41 and I see Spencer's toys I know that
20:43 they're there I know that I can play
20:45 with them but they have no pull on me
20:47 they do not call me they do not tempt me
20:50 and as the child is to the adult the
20:53 adult is to this age this age has a
20:56 salience landscape in which they are not
20:59 tempted to self-deception in the ways
21:02 that we so readily are that's soft
21:05 person it is to have a salience
21:09 landscape that has gone through a kind
21:11 of fundamental reversal it is not I mean
21:15 these are all differences of emphasis
21:17 but like the way our seance landscape is
21:20 less oriented towards the self
21:23 deceptiveness of a child the sages
21:27 salience landscape is less oriented
21:30 towards our prevalent and pervasive
21:35 forms of self-deception they see through
21:37 illusion and into reality
21:39 so this is of course deeply perspectival
21:41 and and I want to add a little bit more
21:45 to it because it it's not just write it
21:52 sorry you see the seat like in Taoism it
21:55 comes through right
21:56 the idea that right well look once
22:01 you've trained enough you just have to
22:02 you just have to let you the sage can
22:05 just let things unfold naturally
22:07 and you see this and you know even in
22:11 Augustine you know love God and then do
22:13 what you want of course you have to love
22:15 God it that means if you really truly
22:16 love God if agape is flowing through you
22:19 as paul recommends then you have
22:21 sovereign and then you will just you
22:23 will and this is what I want to say you
22:25 will be tempted to the good you will be
22:28 tempted just like you can be tempted
22:30 right your salience landscape naturally
22:34 self-organizes towards self-deception
22:36 your salience landscape if you're wise
22:40 naturally self-organizes towards seeing
22:43 through illusion zeroing in on what's
22:45 relevant and important and how it is
22:48 relevant to the project of becoming more
22:52 virtuous and having a more meaningful
22:54 life you're tempted you're naturally
22:57 tempted to the good that's some person
23:00 and so we argued that what's what you're
23:03 doing here is your call to you know you
23:07 are internalizing the sage and what
23:11 that's doing is helping to overcome ego
23:14 centrism in this deep sense of helping
23:17 you to realize software son and so this
23:20 means we argued that there's deep
23:22 connections and I don't think these have
23:24 been explored enough between wisdom and
23:27 sorrow soon and of course our forsen is
23:30 a kind of optimization of your
23:31 perspective of knowing it's that I've
23:34 optimized my perspective all knowing so
23:36 it's always certain service and this is
23:39 what was to some degree missing from
23:41 this theory right it's in the service of
23:43 my agent arena relationship and how that
23:45 is being developed being developed that
23:49 reciprocal realization so that I can go
23:52 through the import
23:53 transformations that are needed to
23:55 become a wise person we argued that what
24:02 the softer sin is directed towards were
24:04 three M's obviously morality more
24:07 broadly construed as not just knowing
24:10 the rules but the capacity for being
24:13 virtuous realizing meaning in life now a
24:16 deficit there is we only we only had
24:23 self-determination Theory ricey and DC
24:26 and Ryan on this kind of stuff and much
24:29 more work much more significant work has
24:31 been done with meaning life working on
24:33 doing with tally of rancid Asst Jensen
24:35 Kim for the grass wick and we're
24:37 presenting at APA this year and so this
24:42 theory needs to be revised and I've
24:43 tried to show you that in the course to
24:48 more directly connect this machinery to
24:50 meaning in life so this needs
24:52 significant improvement we did argue
24:55 that meaning in life is irreducible alla
24:57 wolf to morality and then something we
24:59 talked about as mastery we use the three
25:02 ends because they're helpful we did I'm
25:08 not I'm not comfortable that term
25:09 anymore because of all of its political
25:13 connotations we were thinking of it more
25:16 like in almost in the academic sense
25:18 like when you get your MA on the end and
25:20 when you know in the oldest sense like
25:21 when you did your masterpiece what we
25:23 met here was you know a terrific
25:25 capacity for caring and coping with
25:27 reality you had sets of skills you had
25:30 sets of psycho technologies you had
25:32 sense of roles that you could take so
25:35 this gives you roles like propositional
25:37 sorry propositional knowing gives you
25:39 rules your procedural knowing gives you
25:42 you know various routines this is a
25:44 perspectival knowing gives you various
25:46 roles and being able to use you know
25:48 rules and routines and roles you know
25:51 with with mastery in coping and caring
25:54 was central again always guided under
25:58 the governance under the regulation of
26:01 sovereign
26:02 so I've already I I mean so this is a
26:05 processing account
26:06 you how to become wise you cultivate
26:09 active open-mindedness you cultivate
26:11 mindfulness you cultivate internalizing
26:13 this age we used sports psychology here
26:16 as a way of trying to get what that
26:20 looks like or we also used of course
26:21 developmental psychology but got ski but
26:24 sports psychology talks about very much
26:27 how people go through a process of
26:28 internalizing the coach and that's
26:30 strongly analogous to internalizing this
26:32 age and so we talked about you call
26:35 debate active open mindedness you
26:36 cultivate mindfulness you cultivate
26:40 internalizing this age and you're guided
26:44 overall by trying to become softer cynic
26:47 in that and so this is a processing
26:51 theory as I've mentioned I think there's
26:53 a deficit in it it does not take you
26:56 into account it it's what's absent from
26:60 it is transformational experience
27:03 transformational development these are
27:05 all very telling things the role or
27:10 relationship between this and altered
27:12 states of consciousness who is not
27:13 properly developed the participatory
27:17 knowing which of course connects to the
27:19 transformational experience is missing
27:22 so wisdom is not connected to gnosis and
27:24 here in any important way so those are
27:31 some important criticisms I would have
27:35 the relationship between the kinds of
27:37 knowing wasn't well developed we sort of
27:41 just argued that well perspective on our
27:44 sort of synthesizes these together I
27:46 think that's too simplistic a much more
27:49 complex relationship I you see me argue
27:52 for in this course I think needs to it
27:54 is being developed and needs to be
27:56 developed two things that were strongly
28:03 implicit in other people I should
28:06 mention a core aspect of this theory
28:09 that I think is still central is that
28:11 all of this all of this and we made this
28:15 very explicit all of this is and this
28:18 came out I
28:19 so part of this conversation that I
28:21 forgot to take a moment and explicate it
28:23 that all of this is about enhancing
28:25 relevance realization our main argument
28:27 is that wisdom is some kind of
28:29 comprehensive optimization of cognition
28:32 and then I would extend that now
28:33 consciousness character etc and that in
28:36 order to optimize cognition in a
28:39 comprehensive fashion and of the
28:41 developmental fashion that means that
28:44 what you're doing is enhancing relevance
28:46 realization and we all we all ready saw
28:48 that at work throughout this and we saw
28:51 that relevance realization is central in
28:53 the theories that the explicit
28:55 psychological theories that we've
28:56 already examined now in connection with
29:01 that there's another serious
29:05 lacunae in this theory which is that
29:09 although it does something I think this
29:11 is very important it connects wisdom to
29:16 to insight let's start here I mean it's
29:19 it's it would be odd to say you know Sam
29:23 is very wise but he's not very
29:25 insightful that seems wrong we could we
29:27 could say things like you know Sam is
29:29 very wise and he's maybe not very
29:31 educated he might not be sort of super
29:34 intelligent that's fine right but to say
29:37 that Sam is wise and not insightful well
29:40 that seems to trespass on that McGee and
29:42 barber point about seeing through
29:44 illusion right wisdom definitely has to
29:49 do with you know gaining knowledge in
29:52 the best way theoretical knowledge
29:54 obviously gaining procedural knowledge
29:56 so the wise person knows how to believe
29:59 well and that seems also deeply deeply
30:03 right the the wise person is overcoming
30:07 ego centrism
30:09 internalizing the sage the traditions
30:11 point to this very clearly and they
30:13 point towards software son the most
30:16 excellent way and and of course one way
30:20 in which this we could understand this
30:23 is exactly the Paul line recommendation
30:26 right that the best form of software sin
30:28 is agape
30:31 so but what's missing so I've already
30:34 pointed many things a minute but
30:35 something that central here is a theory
30:38 of understanding to say that you know
30:41 like Oh bill is very wise he's so
30:44 insightful
30:45 he's you know he's so capable of
30:47 self-transcendence and overcoming ego
30:49 centrism he believes things really well
30:52 like he's not easily duped but he
30:56 doesn't understand he doesn't have deep
30:58 or profound understanding of things see
31:00 no no that's not right why speak one of
31:03 the ways people zero in on relevant
31:05 information is by being more insightful
31:07 yes one of ways they zero in on relevant
31:11 information is like like avoiding bias
31:14 and fallacy in their inferential changes
31:17 of their beliefs right one way in which
31:19 they over write one way in which they
31:21 zero in on relevant information and
31:23 overcome egocentrism is all of the the
31:25 respect rival internalization the
31:28 cultivation of sovereign but what's
31:32 missing and we saw this you know our
31:35 delt work very clearly we saw it implied
31:38 in Sternberg's
31:40 and so right we should have taken this
31:45 into account wisdom should also have
31:47 within it a clear theory or connected to
31:50 a clear theory of understanding and so I
31:57 think that's also missing what is it to
32:01 enhance understanding what is it to
32:05 develop a profound understanding so I
32:09 want to try and at least discuss that or
32:13 not I'm not in the place where I have a
32:17 complete theory of understanding I've
32:19 been doing a lot of work on it work that
32:21 I'm actually doing with Leo Ferraro and
32:27 I and because that theory is still very
32:30 much a work in progress I'm also not
32:32 clear quite how right it would fit into
32:35 this what would be the cognitive style
32:37 for tapping into the participatory
32:40 knowing and how does that relate to
32:42 enhanced under
32:43 Danny I'm not sure I don't know I don't
32:45 know
32:47 so the criticisms have shown me many
32:49 ways in which there's important lacunae
32:53 there's things that are underdeveloped
32:55 and things of which I am ignorant
32:58 however and I'm going to try and address
33:01 the understanding issue in a moment I
33:03 would like to say nevertheless we we can
33:08 see how all of the theories right
33:12 converge including this one on relevance
33:16 realization intelligence rationality
33:19 these different kinds of knowing and
33:21 integrating them together optimization
33:23 they're all zeroing in on this so that
33:26 we see remember back to this old diagram
33:28 everything converging onto our R and
33:31 then coming out into all these aspects
33:33 of human spirituality and here's one
33:35 I've made I think a plausible case for
33:38 that it really helps plays a crucial
33:41 role in helping us to give a
33:43 naturalistic account of what wisdom is
33:46 that I think I made a plausible case for
33:51 now what about understanding well we
33:58 already saw it invoked with this
34:00 grasping of significance and it's
34:03 interesting in a completely independent
34:05 and convergent manner when you look
34:06 through a lot of the current philosophy
34:08 of understanding this is where people
34:11 are now distinguishing understanding
34:13 from knowledge distinguishing
34:14 understanding from just possessing an
34:16 explanation because of an explanation as
34:18 a set of propositions right so there is
34:22 the idea that understanding is something
34:24 beyond possessing an explanation
34:28 it's something above and beyond simply
34:31 knowing we already saw with Keeks this
34:33 idea of grasping the significance and I
34:36 pointed out to you that that could be
34:38 understood in terms of control and
34:41 relevance realization what I am saying
34:44 is if you take a look at the philosophy
34:45 understanding literature this idea that
34:47 understanding goes beyond knowledge and
34:49 explanation in the grasping of the
34:52 significance of the knowledge is
34:55 something to which you can make you can
34:58 draw a quite powerful convergence
35:00 argument many people are converging on
35:02 this idea there's there's some variation
35:05 on what they think right what they think
35:09 this grasping the significance is I
35:13 think to go back to smellin right that
35:18 it has to do like we saw with grasping
35:21 the relevance of what you know that he
35:24 remember that was one of the key
35:25 features of his account of understanding
35:27 so in addition to all the implication
35:29 relations and logical relations
35:32 there were relations of relevance non
35:35 propositional and then I argued that
35:37 that construal plays a central role and
35:41 that control can be understood in terms
35:44 of problem formulation the relevance
35:47 realization machinery that's found
35:49 within problem formulation so I would
35:54 argue that what we're talking about is a
35:58 particular is a really good construal
36:05 and we have a way of talking about that
36:06 already right we have the notion of an
36:09 optimal grip I have a really good con
36:13 stool has a structural functional
36:15 organization I've sized up the situation
36:17 well you know featural to get all the
36:20 right degree of transparency opacity I'm
36:22 getting an optimization on my grip on
36:26 things so this is good contact right
36:30 that's the good control and then what it
36:32 does is it affords me to write to grasp
36:36 the the the what's relevant in this
36:39 situation how I sized up the situation
36:41 and got an optimal grip on it affords
36:44 remember inmates and good problem
36:46 formulation right now we also saw
36:51 something else if you remember we the
36:54 connection to good problem finding and
36:59 that's what I talked about the problem
37:00 nexus and I promised to come back I
37:03 talked about Arland but I also mentioned
37:06 at that point the work of very recent
37:14 work all my markers are running out of
37:18 two reget and I've never met this person
37:22 so I hope I get their name right I just
37:24 want to copy this very carefully
37:29 Pittsburgh I'm not sure if that's right
37:32 or not this is work from 2017 and then
37:35 there's also direct
37:37 own book on understanding and there's a
37:42 lot of good work going on about this
37:45 it's very exciting stuff they point
37:48 towards what they call the standard of
37:51 effectiveness for understanding I
37:55 understand something
37:56 what's the contrast here okay you don't
38:00 want to say that somebody has understood
38:02 something and what that means is they've
38:06 they've grasped from the truth now they
38:09 they have to be trying to grasp the
38:11 truth that's important but and and that
38:14 will come out in a moment right
38:16 but you can't say well if they didn't
38:18 grasp the truth they don't understand
38:19 because then you're faced to say the
38:21 following thing that you know most
38:24 people have never understood anything
38:26 because most people's beliefs in the
38:28 past are faults and most of my beliefs
38:30 right now are fault so I'm actually not
38:32 understanding you don't want to try
38:34 understanding too tightly to truth in
38:36 that fashion so instead of trying tying
38:39 it to truth you might want to try it
38:40 more to something like rationality where
38:43 you are trying right you're using the
38:46 best methods for trying to get out the
38:48 truth that's more plausible and this
38:51 would also help to explain why in the
38:55 prototypical instances within science we
38:59 use things that aren't true in order to
39:00 generate understanding you go at you
39:01 open a science textbook and they'll show
39:03 the atom with this little circle and
39:05 things going around it right and that's
39:08 all that's pretty much completely false
39:11 it doesn't matter that it's false it is
39:16 effective for helping you to grasp the
39:18 significance of the scientific model of
39:21 the atom to draw as journey AK would say
39:23 the right implications look for the
39:26 right connections it helps you zero in
39:28 on the relevant information in the right
39:30 way and that's why it's used nobody
39:34 right you're making a mistake if you
39:36 think most of the diagrams and the
39:38 idealizations that are at work in
39:40 science are attempts to represent the
39:43 truth accurately they are not they are
39:45 attempts to effectively get you to zero
39:47 in on the relevant implications make the
39:51 relevant connections as mental and would
39:54 say this is what is meant by
39:55 effectiveness all right effectiveness is
39:59 exactly doing and then they talk about
40:01 how what what it is to say that somebody
40:05 understands something is that they're
40:07 good at you know being able to apply
40:08 their knowledge right find new domains
40:11 open up new areas of research so of
40:14 course it's this multi apt ability to
40:17 apply what they're they're good problem
40:21 formulation here to transfer it and
40:23 transform it and specify it in many
40:25 different ways and what's implied in
40:28 here of course is in
40:29 important capacity for problem finding
40:32 somebody who has good understanding can
40:36 facilitate a need for they can motivate
40:38 and facilitate a need for cognition
40:40 because they can use that to go out and
40:42 find and formulate problems perhaps zero
40:45 in an important important problem Nexus
40:53 so and of course this optimal grip is
40:56 giving me something that regret the
40:59 regret or dirige it i don't know how he
41:02 pronounces his name also talks about a
41:05 many people talk about the idea that
41:08 understanding is contextually sensitive
41:10 it's contextually relative to know that
41:14 I understand something is relative to
41:16 the situation at hand and relative to
41:19 the person at hand you and I can both
41:21 know the same things right but if you're
41:25 in situation in situation you're in
41:27 situation a in situation B you might
41:30 understand those things because you can
41:32 apply them in a I know I couldn't be
41:34 said to understand them as well cuz I
41:35 can't apply them in situation B also
41:40 right we could be in the same situation
41:42 but I have a different set of skills and
41:44 so I can apply my knowledge better than
41:47 you can I understand better than you can
41:49 right so there's very much that this is
41:52 context relative and I would then of
41:58 course context sensitive and you write
42:01 and that of course is the context
42:03 sensitivity whereas this is the ability
42:05 to do things in a much more context
42:07 general way and of course I'm invoking
42:08 the machinery of relevance realization
42:10 I'm invoking in in in good control and
42:13 then the ability to transfer it right
42:14 insightfully
42:20 I would also argue that one more thing
42:22 is needed right and you know where this
42:28 because we've already got the idea that
42:35 when if I am making these kinds of
42:38 forward commitments cognitive
42:40 commitments they need to be backed by a
42:44 law of convergence so that my construct
42:50 is also trustworthy I've done a lot and
42:53 of course to overcome self-deception
42:57 so if basic understanding is to grasp
42:60 the significance grasp right through
43:02 relevance realization the relevant
43:04 implication the relevant connections
43:06 right this is what I'm trying to suggest
43:09 to you the basic understanding becomes
43:12 profound understanding when basic
43:15 understanding is used to generate
43:17 plausibility
43:28 I don't think that's enough because if
43:34 you'll allow me a sort of schematic way
43:36 of putting it this is very horizontal it
43:38 tells you how to bring different domains
43:41 right together into your good Const role
43:44 and then apply them to many domains and
43:45 you're doing the compression right and
43:47 then you're doing the variation you're
43:49 doing the relevance realize the
43:50 compression variation right good problem
43:53 formulation optimal gripping right this
43:55 is contextual e sensitive this is
43:57 effectively right applied across in a
43:60 cross contextual manner etc etc right
44:04 but I think understanding also has if
44:07 you'll allow me a vertical domain
44:09 because I think part also of what
44:12 profound understanding does is it aligns
44:16 and optimizes the relationship but so if
44:20 this is plausibility generation what's
44:27 being aligned and optimized here I think
44:29 are right the propositional knowing
44:33 right the procedural perspectival and
44:41 the participatory
44:48 I mean this goes back right somebody who
44:53 really knew physics wouldn't just be
44:54 grasping the propositions of physics
44:57 they would be able to they'd have the
44:59 skills they know how to do physics and
45:02 they'd have the situational awareness
45:04 they would know you know which skills to
45:08 apply and which skills to develop in
45:10 order to do physics well there might
45:13 even be a participatory aspect to it
45:14 they might have come to identify with
45:18 the physicalist worldview and taken up
45:21 their agency with respect to that
45:24 although that might be problematic given
45:25 arguments from the meaning crisis but
45:28 the the more there's right so the more
45:32 deeply these are aligned and
45:34 interconnected and mutually facilitating
45:37 each other the more capable they are I
45:40 would say of understanding the material
45:42 so I think what needs to be developed is
45:46 a way of theoretically integrating the
45:49 horizontal that understanding is to
45:52 generate at least profound understanding
45:54 is to take basic understanding grasping
45:57 the relevance connections and make those
45:60 relevance connections convergence and
46:01 elegance optimal gripping so that
46:04 profound understanding is to generate
46:06 plausibility that's the horizontal but
46:09 profound understanding is also to align
46:11 so you're getting grounding downward and
46:14 you're getting emergence upward right
46:16 the relationship between propositional
46:19 knowing procedural knowing prospective
46:21 all-knowing and participatory knowing
46:22 and then all of that needs to be of
46:26 course integrated into an account
46:33 of wisdom
46:39 as I said what also needs to be aligned
46:42 is transformational experience and that
46:48 means an account of nasus needs to also
46:51 be integrated into the account of wisdom
46:59 so
47:13 that notion of transformative of
47:16 transformation of knowing through
47:18 transform transformation and becoming so
47:21 that knowing and becoming knowing
47:24 oneself and knowing the world and
47:25 becoming a different agent in a
47:27 different arena bound together right
47:29 we've talked about this that
47:30 transformative knowing that
47:33 transformative experience there's of
47:39 course many instances in which it's
47:41 rather sudden or somewhat sudden and I
47:45 and so it has very much important
47:48 features of insight and we've taken a
47:50 look at that and that of course is again
47:52 to recommend it one more time the
47:54 seminal and powerful work of the LA paul
47:58 now agnes card in her book aspiration
48:02 has I believe it's 2016 has recently
48:06 argued that there are also instances
48:10 where people go through this
48:12 transformative knowing that are much
48:15 more incremental in nature
48:18 she doesn't deny this but she argues
48:22 that there are very many instances about
48:26 this so all of the the all of the stuff
48:29 we talked about here hasn't been
48:30 dispensed with this is being added as a
48:33 complement and a supplement so what's an
48:36 example of this more incremental process
48:39 she gets she gives many examples let's
48:42 do one you join a music appreciation
48:44 class okay and so we're using the word
48:48 appreciation here not in the sense of
48:49 gratitude but how it's used when we
48:50 people talk about music appreciation art
48:53 appreciation so you joining music
48:54 appreciation for class class what would
48:57 make you a good student and the music
48:59 appreciation class if you're there
49:00 because you want to impress your
49:02 girlfriend or your boyfriend or you're
49:05 there because every time you go you pass
49:08 the chocolate store and you buy some
49:10 chocolate right and that sort of or
49:12 you're there because you're just trying
49:14 to get a credit the person teaching the
49:17 music appreciation is not going to
49:18 regard you as a good student because why
49:20 because the goal of music appreciation
49:22 is to come to value music for its own
49:24 sake it's it's to come to front it is to
49:26 come to finding music intrinsically
49:28 valuable and therefore something that is
49:30 directly relevant to your meaning in
49:32 life something that you directly care
49:34 about now the thing is if you were a
49:38 good now think of the paradox here and
49:40 this is so beautiful the way keller
49:42 brings it up if I was a good student I
49:44 would appreciate music for its own sake
49:46 but if I appreciated music for its own
49:48 sake I do not need to take the music
49:49 appreciation class right do you see the
49:54 paradox here and then Keller points it
49:57 this is the same thing when you decide
49:58 you're going to undertake a liberal
49:59 education the liberal education is going
50:01 to give you values and preferences that
50:04 you don't currently have right so the
50:09 idea is the music-appreciation so what
50:13 do you do there how do you how do you
50:19 break through that dilemma now let's be
50:21 very clear
50:22 colored is in agreement with la paul
50:26 that you can't get through this in an
50:28 inferential fashion for all of the
50:30 arguments we've already seen right she
50:34 talks about it she does make something
50:36 clear that I don't think this is clear
50:39 in Paul's work she talks about the fact
50:42 that this process this process of trying
50:45 to acquire right an appreciation for
50:49 something as intrinsically valuable she
50:50 calls this process aspiration where you
50:56 might call this process more inspiration
50:58 the sudden insight right inspiration
51:00 versus aspiration
51:02 so you're aspiring and she points out
51:05 something that I think is really clear
51:07 that this has to be a forum this has to
51:11 be something that can be seen as a
51:14 rational process now of course there's
51:16 ways in which we can screw this up but
51:18 what she wants to argue is that there's
51:20 a form of rationality appropriate to
51:22 aspiration she calls it proleptic
51:25 rationality probably like when you gave
51:28 when you were doing proleptic things in
51:29 the ancient world you were trying to
51:30 encourage people right to call today
51:32 particulars or values
51:35 the rationality why because if we were
51:41 to say that the person who is engaged in
51:45 aspiration who is trying to become
51:47 somebody other than they are to go
51:50 through the transformative experience to
51:52 have a perspective on knowing a
51:53 participatory knowing that they do not
51:55 currently have if we were to say right
51:58 and because they're not operation they
51:60 cannot do that inferential e they cannot
52:02 use decision theory to do that if we
52:05 just say oh therefore they're irrational
52:06 notice the paradox we fall into because
52:11 we would have to we would have to
52:13 conclude this that if I am aspiring to
52:17 rationality because you have to
52:21 that would be an irrational thing to do
52:25 if I'm aspiring to virtue that would be
52:29 an irrational thing to do if I decide to
52:31 take up a liberal education to become a
52:34 better person a different better person
52:37 then that would be an irrational thing
52:38 to do on pain of kind of a not a
52:42 propositional contradiction but a
52:44 performative contradiction remember we
52:45 talked about performative contradiction
52:47 this to call that irrational would be a
52:49 performative contradiction my aspiring
52:51 to rationality has to be itself a kind
52:55 of rationality
52:57 that's proleptic rationality or to use
53:01 something older my loving of wisdom my
53:05 loving of wisdom by aspiring to becoming
53:08 wise cannot itself be an irrational
53:10 process it has to be rational not
53:13 inferential rational for sure so first
53:18 of all she does that excellent work of
53:19 saying look this is we've got to broaden
53:22 our notion of rationality to include
53:24 aspiration I would argue we have to
53:28 broaden our notion of rationality to
53:30 include inspiration as well and that's a
53:32 way in which I'm being radically sort of
53:35 reconstructive of Romanticism so now the
53:39 issue becomes what's going on here well
53:44 I'm going through a process of identity
53:47 change
53:49 transformative experience participatory
53:52 knowing right and here's where is where
53:58 coloreds work is a little bit lacking
54:03 because well she makes a very good case
54:05 for aspiration and very very good case
54:09 that for the nature of aspiration that
54:11 it's proleptic Li rational she doesn't
54:14 give us very much towards a psychology
54:16 of aspiration and that's of course
54:18 perhaps because she's a philosopher she
54:20 does offer a couple of cues let's go
54:25 back to the music-appreciation so I want
54:26 to be I want to and think about how this
54:29 connects to Sophos in trying to tempt
54:31 yourself into the good but you could you
54:33 got to do it in this tricky way and
54:34 think about also how it's related to
54:35 gnosis and trying to get out of the
54:37 existential entrapment so what I got to
54:39 do is I've got to give myself I got to
54:42 have a value that will get me currently
54:44 engaged here's here's my frame now it'll
54:48 get me currently engaged with music
54:50 right but I will be able to give up that
54:53 value right when I actually value music
54:56 for its own sake so you see what's going
54:60 on here
55:00 you need to she calls it a placeholder
55:02 but it's actually in our sense it's a
55:04 symbol it's something that connects the
55:06 future you and its way of life or your
55:10 way of life to the to the current you
55:12 and it does it by having this
55:14 double-faced not duplicitous because
55:16 you're aware of this that's what makes
55:17 it a rational process this right this
55:20 double phase thing so right I'm a right
55:24 go to the music class because I
55:27 currently have the value of sort of
55:30 making myself do things that I find
55:32 difficult right now that's not the same
55:35 value as appreciating music but I do
55:37 that right on with the understanding
55:42 that right that is temporary that is to
55:47 try and get me into a liminal place
55:50 where I can start to play with what it's
55:54 like to value music for its own sake to
55:57 enter that world you can see right the
56:00 connections
56:01 to gnosis here you can see the
56:02 connections to symbolic enactment here
56:05 aspiration is deeply bound up I would
56:08 argue with gnosis and then something
56:12 that Callard doesn't talk at all about
56:15 but we've already talked about
56:17 I think aspiration is deeply connected
56:21 to wonder wonder gets you to question
56:25 almost like Socratic aporia your world
56:29 view your sense of self it opens up and
56:34 it motivates you right it opens you up
56:37 and motivates you to go through
56:38 aspirational change I think if you have
56:42 a wonderful kind of gnosis that's got
56:46 the appropriate placeholder in place
56:49 that's the beginnings of a psychological
56:53 account of how we can go through
56:55 aspiration so I think we can bring what
56:59 was needed for a theory of wisdom
57:00 because of course philosophy ah we
57:03 aspire to wisdom and and we always
57:06 aspire to wisdom because to claim and
57:09 this is a deep point that we've achieved
57:10 wisdom is kind of a mistake so we need
57:14 an account of understanding an account
57:17 right of gnosis and and these are all
57:20 related and an account of aspiration we
57:22 need them to be further explicate it
57:25 integrated and then integrated with the
57:28 of the accounts of wisdom that I've been
57:31 arguing for already okay I want to try
57:37 and draw this all together now so I'll
57:47 point to what's going on because I'm
57:49 going to need more time I'm gonna need
57:51 time from the next episode to try and
57:54 draw this all together what I want to do
57:56 in the drawing together is I want to try
57:58 and draw this all together into an
58:02 account of what wisdom is I'll say what
58:05 this is now so and I'll just leave you
58:06 completely hanging but I want to come
58:08 back and develop it and then I want to
58:12 try and connect this notion of wisdom
58:14 back to enlightenment and back to
58:19 responding awakening from the meaning
58:22 crisis here's the account of wisdom I'm
58:23 going to leave you with and then I'm
58:25 going to come back and try and at least
58:27 defend a develop and defend a bit wisdom
58:31 is in ecology psycho technologies an
58:36 ecology of styles that dynamically and
58:41 that means reciprocally right in a
58:44 reciprocal fashion constrain and
58:47 optimize each other such that there is
58:51 an overall optimization enhancement of
58:54 relevance realization relevance
58:57 realization within inference within
58:59 insight and into intuition it's like the
59:03 connection to implicit processing
59:05 internalization understanding gnosis
59:10 transformation and aspiration wisdom is
59:14 an ecology of psycho technologies and
59:16 cognitive styles that dynamically
59:19 enhance relevance realization in
59:22 inference insight and intuition
59:24 internalization understanding and gnosis
59:28 transformation and aspiration and that
59:31 sense what's happening right is
59:35 something that's already overlapping
59:37 with the machinery of enlightenment
59:39 we're seeing that wisdom is a dynamical
59:42 system a dynamical system that is
59:45 counteractive to the machinery of
59:47 self-deception and that helps to afford
59:50 the self organized transformation into
59:54 the life of flourishing a life
60:00 that is deeply meaningful thank you very
60:05 much for your time and attention
60:11 you
60:22 you
60:24 you