Sorry Timothy, BUT -Anyone, first encountering the model may feel a bit uneasy, as its > architectures can _seem_ "formidable." SOME of us have formidable minds, that's a false and wild generalisation. I don't care how long it took for the egg to hatch, chickens are quite patient. Dialectic is a magical word well used in antiquity. Thank you but I don't need any help for any ideas to "resonate" though I deplore how few people manage to do this. You are laying handicaps in your own urge to spread the good news. SO SPREAD IT. Like the biblical parable of the seeds, some of them fall on stony ground, SO WHAT? ""Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken Stop dithering around with your own worries, don't under-estimate yourself. What you are communicating is your own uncertainties, so cut those out and deliver the message. What the heck does knowing people's first name do?
adrian Timothy Monicken wrote: > Dear Ornamentalmind ( I wish I knew Your real given first name), > > 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] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
