NEVER MIND THE PAINS. That's MY problem, not yours. adrian
ornamentalmind wrote: > Not so much uneasy as perplexed. > Overall, I'm more familiar with trialectics and integralism, so, even > though they are only terms and concepts, I admit to some resistance. > When it comes to 'unincumbered intellect', are you addressing anything > other than thought/cognition/concepts? > Process I'm well aware of...perhaps you are only meaning to deal with > words/concepts.... > > On Sep 22, 4:48 pm, "Timothy Monicken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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.comthisshould 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- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
