From: Andrew Phelps <phelps@cwnet.com>
To: RadPsyNet-Members@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon Dec 29 10:26AM PST
Subject: Re: [RadPsyNet-Members] Re: Kant and morality
Lmn:
More "jargon" talk, so to speak. [!] I'll try to be brief and to the point, anyway.
On Mon Dec 29 15:32 GMT, Lmn sent:
I'm not a linear thinker and as my co-author constantly reminds me can go off at obscure tangents - these do eventually hook up with each other but I apologise for any confusion caused.
Curious metaphors here. I got my Ph.D. in "nonlinear control theory" in mathematics, sought to handle the above cognitive dynamism. Hehehe my advisor's wife was a psychiatrist and the County M.H. Director soon moved on to run Calif. Dept. of M.H. (has since 92).
Re rhetoric of invention, Bergson also has a rhetoric of invention which he calls creative evolution.
You do not seem to identify "rhetoric of invention" as a term from classical humanism. It's not that Nietzsche or Bergson or whoever invented a term, rather they are falling back on a major aspect of classical and medieval thinking in lieu of which Ramus and Descartes have brought us a culture of "social science denial."
The problem with this argument is that it doesn't work at all if you are a Hindu or a Buddhist for whom future active structures of action are not mindful enough (that is being in the doing of the now). So I am a little bit stuck at this point in the argument
Well the [U.C.Berkeley] Cognitive Science group included Dreyfus the specialist in Heidegger and Slobin the specialist in Vygotsky and Lakoff the student of Chomsky who specializes in ?elephants but it also included Eleanor Rosch, a cognitive psychologist who taught graduate seminars in Buddhist psychology. I audited one of her seminars. :-)
Andrew