The Socratic method is quite the opposite. It emphasizes the process, rather than the end result. In a Socratic dialogue, nobody has the absolute authority. The ultimate truth, or something fuzzily and convergently approaching the truth, is to be co-discovered through the exchange of ideas.
In the internet era, with the advent of communication tools such as twitter, the Socratic method is finding a new significance. Now it is easy to exchange ideas with people over a large physical distance. The sheer density and purity of the dynamics of exchange is contributing to the amassing of the critical mass.
The Socratic method needs to be studied and practiced in earnest, in search of the new principles of distributed enlightment.
The Socratic method.
7 comments:
Yesterday I came back from one month stay in Tokyo. During my stay, I managed to meet more than twenty of my dear friends while visiting my hospitalized father who had been recently diagnosed fatally ill almost everyday.
I wonder if I had enjoyed the Socratic method with my friends, but through lots of conversations with each of them, I certainly felt some parts of my brain had been activated by old memories buried for a long long time somewhere in my unconsciousness.
The joy of conversing with dear old friends will remain again as unforgettalble memories as long as I live, and I know now how desperately did I want these occasions.
It was a shame that Yabusoba was closed when I visited with my friends and my daughter, and I couldn't manage to visit EST this time.
The surprising thing is, even in the small circle of my friends, two of them have said that they had actually seen you on the subway, or in Shinjuku, and one friend had said her husband was two years senior to you at your high school.
The world is small, isn't it!?
I heard a tsukutsukuboshi cicada singing.
The poignant vibrato is lovely.
One of the goodness of the Socratic method is drawing out one's vitality.
People will speak earnestly when they have someone to talk to heartily. Their thinking takes life by the zeal and desires to improve itself.
I feel your twitter began to assume a new aspect as a private school. People who convince themselves that they are minority and powerless seem to have a frank talk with you.
I have a hunch that it changes each resignation into opinion and action.
I am interested in how two flows of the thought which are located in opposite poles equal to The South Pole and The North Pole of The earth can meet each other in a friendly process and practice a faithful dialogue in a Socratic method by the attitude which can open its heart for each other's world.
Dr.Mogi once wrote in the qualia journal“Ebizo keeps a dragon” as follows …（I quote）
The combination of embodied practicality and the vivid imagination of a dragon is the chemistry behind the phenomenal great acting.
Now I would like to try to comment on your blog by borrowing the writing style from this sentence.
There are two opposing approach to the concept of consciousness.One is those who research about mind-brain problem.They intend the possibility of "the science of consciousness".They try to explain human consciousness through the quest for the function of the brain or the Psychophysical law connecting various kinds of qualia and the neural network of the brain.such a perspective is generated by philosophers of mind such as Daniel Dennett, David Chalmers, Jorn Searle, and brain scientists.They assume human mind to be biological.
And the other approach is clearly different.They consider the idea of spirituality as important.such a viewpoint is generated by the three schools,which are Analytical Psychology of Carl G Jung, Transpersonal Psychology of such as Stanisrav Grof and Integral Psychology of Ken Wilber.They think human mind as essentially spiritual.
From my point of view, the former is regarded as orthodox,while the latter is thought unorthodox.
My Strong Wish is that the combination of the two approach turns in the chemistry behind something fundamentally new that cannot be imagined by anyone including any participant.
Dear:Mr.Mogi
I feel relaxed with your qualia journal.
Your talking is like Socratic method.
Thank you so much.
I am very interested in HOW two flows of the thoghts which are located in opposite poles from each other can meet in a friendly process and practice a faithful dialogue in a Socratic method by the mental attitude which can open its heart for the each other's world.HOW do you think such a seemingly difficult thing can be realized?I would like to highly appreciate your dialogue on the internet with psychiatrist Tamaki Saito.
According to my perspective,
If we classify roughly,there are two approach to what human consciousness is like.
One is constituted by those who research about mind-brain problem.They intend to the possibility of “the science of consciousness".They try to explain consciousness as the function of the brain or somthing which is caused by the function through the Psychophysical law connecting various kinds of qualia which characterize consciousness and the brain.
They consider consciousness as depending the brain.That is to say,from their perspective, human mind is biological.This position seems to me an orthodox thing style,and is generated by philosophers of mind such as Daniel Dennet or David J Chalmers, Jorn Searle, and brain scientists.
Another is quite different.This approach arose from people who practice psychotherapy,which regard the close relationship between therapist and the client as important.This attitude has essential dfference from strictly scientific attitude.They assume the concept of spirituality to be the kernel of human existence.The thought are three schools,which are Analytical Psychology of Carl G Jung,Transpersonal Psychology of such as Stanisrav Grof,and Integral Psychology of Ken Wilber.Thier position seems unorthodox.From thier viewpoint,human mind is spiritual.
Both two thing style can be compared to the very position relation of The South and The North pole.But I regard two flows of approach as equally important so that we can know the substance of human consciousness.
My Strong Wish is that these two styles realize friendly meeting and Socratic dialogue and as consequence they come to learn somthing essentially important from each other's insight.
Dr.Mogi once wrote in the qualia journal“Ebizo keeps a dragon” as follows...(I quote)
The combination of embodied practicality and the vivid imagination of a dragon is the chemistry behind the phenomenal great acting.
Now I would like to comment on your blog by borrowing this writing style of the sentence!
The combination of the two opposing approach to the human consciouness might turn in the chemistry behind fundamentally new understanding of human existence that cannot be imagined by anyone including any participant.
What kind of qualia of impresion comes to your consciousness?
I am very interested in HOW two flows of the thoghts which are located in opposite poles from each other can meet in a friendly process and practice a faithful dialogue in a Socratic method by the mental attitude which can open its heart for the each other's world.HOW do you think such a seemingly difficult thing can be realized?I would like to highly appreciate your dialogue on the internet with psychiatrist Tamaki Saito.
According to my perspective,
If we classify roughly,there are two approach to what human consciousness is like.
One is constituted by those who research about mind-brain problem.They intend to the possibility of “the science of consciousness".They try to explain consciousness as the function of the brain or somthing which is caused by the function through the Psychophysical law connecting various kinds of qualia which characterize consciousness and the brain.
They consider consciousness as depending the brain.That is to say,from their perspective, human mind is biological.This position seems to me an orthodox thing style,and is generated by philosophers of mind such as Daniel Dennet or David J Chalmers, Jorn Searle, and brain scientists.
Another is quite different.This approach arose from people who practice psychotherapy,which regard the close relationship between therapist and the client as important.This attitude has essential dfference from strictly scientific attitude.They assume the concept of spirituality to be the kernel of human existence.The thought are three schools,which are Analytical Psychology of Carl G Jung,Transpersonal Psychology of such as Stanisrav Grof,and Integral Psychology of Ken Wilber.Thier position seems unorthodox.From thier viewpoint,human mind is spiritual.
Both two thing style can be compared to the very position relation of The South and The North pole.But I regard two flows of approach as equally important so that we can know the substance of human consciousness.
My Strong Wish is that these two styles realize friendly meeting and Socratic dialogue and as consequence they come to learn somthing essentially important from each other's insight.
Dr.Mogi once wrote in the qualia journal“Ebizo keeps a dragon” as follows...(I quote)
The combination of embodied practicality and the vivid imagination of a dragon is the chemistry behind the phenomenal great acting.
Now I would like to comment on your blog by borrowing this writing style of the sentence!
The combination of the two opposing approach to the human consciouness might turn in the chemistry behind fundamentally new understanding of human existence that cannot be imagined by anyone including any participant.
What kind of qualia of impresion comes to your consciousness?
When a lady says no, she means perhaps; when she says perhaps, she means yes; when she says yes, she is no lady.
Post a Comment