Carl Tollander wrote: > the G guy is trying to discredit the other guy by > showing that he is just on a power trip of some sort. I tend to look at > them as subtractive (G) and additive (T) sculpture - complementary if > some common goal is in mind, but the G guy never gets there, as he has > no motivation or handy mechanism to do so. Yet the Will to Power is served by discovery and invention, as well as by criticism. A risk for the T guy is that the `intellectuals' in his community are not acting in good faith and not trying to do more than just refine a self-consistent story, which can then be passed on as the canon. So it could be the reverse, the T guys are the subtractive or inhibitory player.
Imagine optimizing a function of many variables using hillclimbing. In a bumpy landscape, the single trajectory (the community) will soon get stuck at a local optimum, even though up to that point progress was being made. Better not to follow any search rules and just randomly pick points for a while (multiple trajectories/communities/individuals). Put another way, there are countless questions to ask, and certain communities may serve just to create a comfortable consensus reality which then fails to explore a problem thoroughly enough. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
