More Than You Know, by Michael J. Mauboussin has been sitting, quitely ignored, on my nightstand during my illness. I'm revisiting it. What I wanted to do here is talk about some of the themes of the book--similar to The Zürich Axioms.
My immediate thought in reading the synopsis of the book was the similarity in precept to that of E. O. Wilson's Consilience. One of the benefits of being in a book club, is that you read outside of your normal patterns. I've always had eclectic reading interests, and I find an amazing thread that often runs through seeming disparate subjects. One example was our recent reading of Spell of the Sensuous. I was reminded of Eliade's scholarly work on shamanism. I've included a bit of a blurb. You may think it an odd reference, but if you seriously want to understand the genesis of religious thought and ritual rather than just take your own faith/belief practices as de facto whatever, then you endeavor to be a student of ritual and belief practices over various cultures over time. What you'll find are similarities that are seemingly startling--and I think that's a good foundation for cultivating a broader perspective that leads to real understanding.
"First published in 1951, Shamanism soon became the standard work in the study of this mysterious and fascinating phenomenon. Writing as the founder of the modern study of the history of religion, Romanian émigré--scholar Mircea Eliade (1907-1986) surveys the practice of Shamanism over two and a half millennia of human history, moving from the Shamanic traditions of Siberia and Central Asia--where Shamanism was first observed--to North and South America, Indonesia, Tibet, China, and beyond. In this authoritative survey, Eliade illuminates the magico-religious life of societies that give primacy of place to the figure of the Shaman--at once magician and medicine man, healer and miracle-doer, priest, mystic, and poet. Synthesizing the approaches of psychology, sociology, and ethnology, Shamanism will remain for years to come the reference book of choice for those intrigued by this practice."
I don't say any of that to sound preachy, but rather to provide a illustrative point regarding the cultivation of our perspectives and the interdependence of various disciplines--to include our role in the values and beliefs that we bring to whatever it is that we are tackling whether it is religion, investing, parenting, etc.. Here's the Wilson quote from Mauboussin's book:
A balance perspective cannot be acquired by studying disciplines in pieces but through the pursuit of the consilience among them. Such unification will come hard. But I think it is inevitable. Intellectually it rings true, and it gratifies impulses that rise from the admirable side of human nature. To the extent that the gaps between the great branches of learning can be narrowed, diversity and depth of knowledge will increase.
A long winded lead end, eh? Mauboussin's book is divided into several parts:
Part 1: Investment Philosophy
Part 2: Psychology of Investing
Part 3: Innovation and Competitive Strategy
Part 4: Science and Complexity Theory
So I'll hope that you join me as I tackle pieces of this book. Having read just a couple of chapters already, I would recommend that you add this to your investing bookshelf.
2 comments:
I have not read Shaminism, nor any similar book.
An interesting parallel is the very similar meditation-mystical experiences across many religions and cultures.
There are many such intersects should people take the time to explore. What's interesting to me is that the mystical element--wholly experiential in it's nature--really embodies the sense of "being filled with the Spirit".
In shamanistic practices, and think about many indigenous practices as being the precursor to more organized religion, the leading precept was man's connectedness with the Spirit world; man's action which cut off his connection; man's attempt to re-connect to the whole. Of course they way in which they go about doing that may seem very coarse and foreign to our more "refined" views, but it's remarkably similar in its intent.
The great irony is that our different ways (process if you will) of getting connected to the whole seems to divide us. But the misguided focus of being "right" in a venue that is beyond any sort of empirical proof of being right or wrong, makes for enduring strife which only seems to esclate.
Post a Comment