Good morning Gregg,

Thanks again for sharing our blog posts!

I understand the distinctions you're making and the wider range of wisdom
models you're drawing on. Indeed, the sage (and the indigenous shaman you
mention) are archetypal examples of wisdom holders.

But in posing an implicit "you thought wisdom was this, but it's really
that" framing, Brooks is leaning on the conventions of persuasive
exposition within an op-ed within a limited amount of print newspaper space.

As a fellow journalist and essayist, I'm very familiar with such
conventions and boundary conditions. I can feel his pain! 😉

So he's trying to expand the definition and connotation of wisdom from a
"wise man who speaks profound propositional knowledge" to a person with
graceful second-person skills who can help others feel valued and thereby
be open to growth and change from within their own sphere of reference and
agency.

Obviously you get this point; you mentioned the therapeutic setting with
patients as exemplifying this very dynamic.

But to use an epistemological context we're both very familiar with, in
Vervaeke terms this approach uses procedural skillful means via
intersubjective rapport and support/challenge leading to perspectival
expansion and shifts. Then as an agent in the social and cultural arena,
the person supported and challenged can engage in participatory knowing,
hopefully a co-creative collective intelligence beyond solo monads and
interpersonal dyads.

Also within Brooks' journalistic frame of reference is his elevation of the
editor as an exemplar of wisdom. This is a very significant archetypal
extension and elaboration. Analogous to the role of coaches in sports and
business, the role and function of editors is to bring out your best and to
help you grow into the same.

I've worked with mediocre editors and with masters of that craft such as
the Village Voice rock critic Bob Christgau. OMG, to be a young writer in
the hands of a master editor is bliss.

For me, that was wisdom-in-action.

So I don't think Brooks would disagree with you, Gregg. I think he'd agree
that it's both/and rather than either-or.

And as that form of wisdom is more aligned with what's called soft skills
(as it's in the domain of the feminine), I think we should give it even
more exposure now than the sage/shaman per se, traditionally male
archetypes.

That form of wisdom hasn't prevented or  led us out of the meta-crisis. The
relational form of wisdom just might.

Best,
Greg



On Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 6:16 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
>   A central focus of the UTOK Garden philosophy is how to turn knowledge
> into wisdom. I saw this op ed piece from David Brooks and had mixed
> reactions:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nytimes.com_2021_04_15_opinion_wisdom-2Dattention-2Dlistening.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7rIJW7hwFEBPs9JuwX9mIKxywrSY-nUxnCap3rcp3q4&s=hrg_xfXMcvoC1Bv4lbeMfd97bkLFY0F7lS766KuBrrw&e= 
>
>
>
>   My basic reaction was that Brooks is writing about what might be called
> “relational wisdom”. Indeed, much of what he describes here represents the
> way I try to teach people to position themselves in the psychotherapy room.
> Namely, you want to hear someone’s story with deep attention, honor it, and
> reflect on aspects of it such that they might digest a new perspective and
> find pathways for growth. This is, indeed, a key part of wisdom and
> something that we should all seek to cultivate in ourselves to the extent
> possible.
>
>
>
>   However, from my knowledge-into-wisdom vantage point, the analysis
> misses the wisdom of the sage/shaman. The capacity for esoteric analysis
> that allow one to see through the fog of conventional understanding and
> elucidate patterns that escape the masses and point to new ways of being.
> The knowledge-into-wisdom of Einstein’s vision of the cosmos, for example.
> Or the classic Greek philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
>
>
>
>   Bottom line is that wisdom is, of course, many things. But Brooks
> article sparked in me the difference between wise relating and wise seeing.
> It was an interesting connection precisely because the central bridge that
> the UTOK forms is between wise relating in the therapy room and wise
> knowledge that frames and guides it.
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Department of Graduate Psychology
> 216 Johnston Hall
> MSC 7401
> James Madison University
> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>
>
> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>
> Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7rIJW7hwFEBPs9JuwX9mIKxywrSY-nUxnCap3rcp3q4&s=MP-s-_61pkOKWTPqUDOkrLSZYDnIdCcdD8DZK1Rwo4M&e= 
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1