So formulating goals and making plans to achieve those goals -- A and B -- are important. How often do they lead to real action -- which is what I emphasize? I'd say it depends on how hard B is. Take losing weight. Plenty of diet plans one can follow, and most will give results -- *IF* one follows them. The fact that some people don't follow the plan doesn't necessarily invalidate the plan itself, right? — Xtrix

I think if a plan isn't followed or is ineffective it indicates that there's a problem with A and/or B. If a plan isn't followed it suggests that there may be an issue with motivation or with correctly evaluating desires. Perhaps the pleasure of eating outweighs the desire to weigh less and improve health. In any case, I would say that A is far more challenging than B. For one thing, we live with so many false assumptions. I have a recent personal example.

Getting older, I've been experiencing in the last few years what are generally considered age-related health issues. Chronic inflammation, with soreness, aches and pains after vigorous activity, arthritis in fingers, increasing eczema, pre-diabetes, and brainfog. This with a lifelong "healthy diet", plenty of exercise, and I've never been overweight. All that changed within a month of being on what is actually a healthy diet, or rather, a diet that our species is adapted to, a diet that is low in lectins.

I know that I'll never willingly go off this diet because the cost of doing so is too high. Also, because of the nature of the diet, I don't crave unhealthy foods and don't get hungry like I used to.

I like to think that if I knew what I know now that I would have eaten better in the past, but not having experienced the cost of a "healthy diet", I doubt that I would have changed.

So false assumptions and motivation play a significant role, I would say.

If B is sound then C validates A and advanced chess playing could not have been achieved without A. — praxis

I see what you mean now. But I know many people who desperately want to change and can’t do it, despite all kinds of plans and support. Diets are one example, addictions are another. I don’t always attribute failure as a problem with A, or B. Although I see how one could argue that.

Do you have any views about what a phenomenological approach to this model might be? In the light of the process of being and becoming and how we are constantly changing and reinventing self - how does this sit alongside your more pragmatic model which seems to rest upon a realist worldview? Does this make sense?

Do you have any views about what a phenomenological approach to this model might be? In the light of the process of being and becoming and how we are constantly changing and reinventing self - how does this sit alongside your more pragmatic model which seems to rest upon a realist worldview? Does this make sense? — Tom Storm

It would help by defining what you mean by phenomenology. In my view, phenomenology is the awareness of beings, particularly those which are absent. Here I'm influenced by Heidegger. I think this framework I outlined above has very little to say about any of that.

We're constantly changing, yes. I don't see any problem with this fact and what I said above. Maybe I'm missing something?

:roll:

:ok:

Both Xtrix and I are trying to figure out your objection and he gets the okay sign and I get a show of contempt. That’s not fair. :sad:

It would help by defining what you mean by phenomenology. — Xtrix

Nothing specific - I'm thinking more of the phenomenological disposition (especially how it might relate to self and identity) as you might see it. I have little knowledge of the subject, but I read Josh's post with interest (I understand he is also postmodernist). I've also read smatterings of Michel Bitbol, Evan Thompson, Merleau-Ponty (which I failed to understand) Hubert Dreyfus on Heidegger.

Maybe I'm missing something? — Xtrix

I'm not hinting at anything. My limited understanding of phenomenology is that experience is not what it seems to be, so I'm simply wondering if this may have broader implications for how your approach might be understood. If I'm not making sense to you we can move on. :smile:

:ok: Nothing personal, just ... we disagree.

I’d just like to understand the disagreement, but I suppose it’s too much of a bother and that’s :ok: