I find this a very interesting overview, and I think the author addresses well the issues of "pure cognition" vs. the dynamic cognition of actual lived experience. However, while the reference to Heidegger was apt, I would also suggest people interested in this seemingly unbridgeable difference between the world and its representation read Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation, and if that doesn't fully satisfy you, also Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy. The trouble that philosophy has always come across is the issue of how we are able, in a world which is at the bottom totally unrepresentable, to apply structural order and communicate with one another and affect things in the world and ourselves with such structural order--this is the basis for the philosophy of Plato. I think that so-called "analytic" philosophy, and the crude description of type-2 cognition (artistic, literary?) falls very short of this problem, as both fail to see how the so-called type 1 and 2 are intimately connected in our experience of the world. There is no "pure" rationality disconnected from reality, and yet there is also no pure reality which has not already fallen into a particular structural order.

(Anyway, I think the person who most rigorously attempts to grapple with this problem is Lacan; though given the difficulty of even discussing it--since its a question of symbolic structures itself--his writing can be very confusing at times and probably isn't an ideal place to start.)

It grows in bunches, I've got my hunches It's the best, beats the rest, cellular, modular, interactivodular Ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, bananaphone