Dear Ornamentalmind ( I wish I knew Your real given first name), Anyone, first encountering the model may feel a bit uneasy, as its architectures can *seem* "formidable." Your mind is used to the meta-cognitive reasoning that is required to entertain new models so don't sell yourself short. I should point out that this model is over two decades in the making... it dialectics "arrived at " only after countless sojourns into the required "HRDs" (Human Reconnoitering Dialogues) -or PADM dynamics observed in numerous contextual backdrops.
>>>I should have suggested some thought experiments to help these ideas resonate, so in the future, I'll be certain to include that - *my sincere apologies*. It IS my groups hope to make the model's internalization as "painless" as possible > that is often "easier said... " At any rate it may be helpful to keep in mind that this model represents the*"unencumbered" * *collective human intellect*, in theory, *cross-culturally valid*. In example, supposedly, the Balinese have no word for "ART" but have you SEEN their pottery, temples, and dances??? Just as the Eskimos have 20(+) words for "white." Our perceptions, though contextually bound, are the same in the ways formulated. The words we use to "assign" "semantic carriage" are somewhat "arbitrary." > Ah, yes, SEMANTICS! Focus *is* that *formed*mental craft of bringing linked concepts together for review & assessment... "process to structure" & vice versa. IOW, ***reflexivity.* Hope this helps. If you get to our blog, this may also help to clarify. On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:03 PM, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > First, I admit general ignorance in this realm. > Next, I'll ask you whether you mean for us to read the article you > wrote back in 2006 or not. > IF so, the truth is that, so far, I find little compelling and/or of > great interest. > This said, this clearly could be my cursory gloss of the article. > While I embrace and find compelling metaphysics in general, I'm not > clear as to what realm(s) you are attempting to explore. > I was going to ask something else specific but find myself unable. > Sorry. > > On Sep 22, 3:39 pm, chreodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The human mind attempts to seek & maintain the various ecologies upon > > which it must rely. Of course, this means multi-goal orchestration in > > lieu of numerous shifting contextual backdrops. The repertoire of > > established sensibilities - or library of acquired acumen (FES), spell > > out the relative impetuses of the system's "efficacious capabilities." > > Integral to all of these ongoing & somewhat protean processes, is the > > acquired ability to achieve reliable & viable FOCUS: Our model > > achieves focus via the implementation of an OCTAHEDRAL MATRIX. As we > > present the various "level one" operative cyber-system concepts - > > which are, by necessity of "semantic carriage," nebulous, archetypal, > > ubiquitous "primitives," we engage the octahedral matrix to facilitate > > this need. > > > > The structural dynamics of this 'platonic' allow for eight legitimate > > "families" of holistic and complementary perspectives to be > > entertained. The more "perspectives" the cyber-system is able to > > entertain, the greater the reliability, in theory, of the established > > sensibilities. Moreover, it should be noted that all the system > > concepts that comprise any focus make up three sets of complementary > > dialectics - NOT oppositional or "Hegelian," as oppositional > > dialectics are meant to be considered only at the cognitive level and > > not the meta-cognitive. >>A good example of misplaced oppositional > > dialectics can be reviewed in C.H. Waddington's book, "Tools for > > Thought." >>>As a further aside, we feel compelled to assert that this > > is in NO way to be seen as a criticism of this man's wonderful, ground- > > breaking contributions to the science of systems analysis & theory. > > The dialectics he established for the mechanical review of "Moral > > Philosophy" were understandable, given his pioneering status, and this > > book should be seen as one of the "primers" for anyone seriously > > considering investigations of system behaviors. Our adulation for this > > great thinker could take up a whole post, but perhaps at a later time > > - we're sure that those acquainted with his writings, would concur. > > > > For brevity's sake, I encourage anyone interested to review our blog's > > entry that's entitled "The Pivotal Role of Epistemology" in which an > > example of "level one" complementary dialectics , i.e., process & > > structure, are displayed at the end of the entry. Check out "Time to > > Think" athttp://collectiveintellect.blogspot.comthis should give you > > a foundational understanding of "focus," as we explore the > > "COIAS" (see my last discussion thread) referred to as Recursive > > Dimensional BOUNDEDNESS, or "RDB." LATER, TJM > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
