Yea Adrain, Thanks again for the straight-up, constructive input... you're
right about the piecemeal approach being more than most can tolerate. I'm
gonna put Sam's and your suggestions to heart... stay in touch, my last post
prettyu much explains every thing... You gotta recognize that words like
"epistemology," metacognition, dialectics, synergy, tensegrity, etc are NOT
"pink panty removers." >>> I was initially trained in Cultural Anthropology
( ah gee, can ya tell???) and my classmates had this standing joke that
anyone in his right mind would never " talk shop" at a party, as it was a
social deathstroke to proclaim your major, and then they would add "Yea,
Monicken 's got it doubly difficult 'cause he's really into "epistemology"
and that's sure to put the women to sleep. This stuff is awfully "dry" and
it is "no cake walk" to push this brand of cyber-medicine, *despite* my
sincere beliefs that it would only serve to further extricate the human mind
from its "baggage" - emotional & otherwise. How do you make this stuff
exciting??? I need Hollywood's finest to do dog & pony show to get any real
interest in a short amount of time. And Adrian? I know you know who Kurzweil
is and maybe you don't take much stock in his proclamations regarding the
approaching singulrity, but trust me, humanity needs to act on the side of
caution on this one it needs to be anticipatory like never before... it
needs to realize that hte researchers who bring this ultimate OS to the
marketplace first are going to probably reap the riches that approach or
surpass that of Bill Gates. Even my group, who is steeped in ethics and
"moral imperatives" only wants to give this outreach a "fair shake" before
working in earest toward the "prototype." If the public doesn't want to
consider the PROBABILITY of its advent "that's not our problem." But I tell
them, what if it's our approach that's turning them off?" Their retort?--
"There is NO fool-proof way to get the message across. Soft sell may seem to
weak-minded, hardsell, too aggressive. what are ya gonna do? Humanity has
always resisted and even denied the approach fo change. case in point,
genetics research. remember the knee-jerk reactionism after the human genome
project was realized?" Give my best to the group & please tell them I regret
if I got the shackes up on a few backs; TJM
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:46 PM, adrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, never mind the thought police. they falsely imagine "we" want to win,
> when it's them who
> do and we don't want to lose, which is quite different eh!
>
> adrian
>
> Timothy Monicken wrote:
> > WOW, I in NO way intended to "talk down" to anyone in this group... HELL
> > NO! In fact I HATE that kind of "posturing." This model is just a wee
> > bit "esoteric" BUTT ("...and it's a big BUTT, Simone!" - sorry you gotta
> > be a fan of Pee-wee Herman to get this obscure attempt at levity/humor),
> > BUTT, we are giving it "our best" to make it "exoteric." The language
> > used, is often given to "example" /because/ of the broad spectrum of
> > "familiarity" with this kind of model... but hell yea, *you're right!*
> > >>* It ain't "rocket science"* and the /only/ reason it took /us/ 20
> > years of research, is 'cause we're a tad bit slow on the "uptake." No,
> > it is for this reason that we are absolutely convinced that we _cannot_
> > be the only group out there with a completed model. We are just the only
> > one fool-hearty enough to bring it out for public perusal. I hope this
> > helps to ameliorate any misgivings about the approach we've adopted.
> > It's just that I've felt it necessary to bring some members who've
> > displayed "kneejerk reactionism" to task... so maybe it seems I've been
> > a bit severe in my treatment of them. NO, I do NOT lump the membership.
> > I'm assuming these are just the frustated "thought-police" trying to
> > control what is "acceptable fodder" for their psuedo-intellectual
> > exploits> one of your members called them "Hyjackers?" maybe it was you?
> > - couldn't have said it better! Sorry Adrian, I will /try/ to explain
> > any of your questions as time allows AND I hope that you can forgive any
> > lapses in trying to cover the spread of familiarity... yes, much of this
> > WILL BE "prima facie" for you, but you must remember that you're
> > probably in the 90th percentile and my group's efforts are aimed at
> > /whoever/ shows interest... not just the "gifted." Again. sorry if I
> > unintentionally bruised any intellectual sensibilities of yours. LATER<
> TJM
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:28 PM, adrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Timothy, post us urls, urls, urls, SOME of us don't like getting
> > things dished out in selective
> > dribbles. I am quite able to handle intuitve stuff, understand
> > systems theory quite well thank
> > you but don't think its the be all and end all. Your octahedral
> > model is a copy of a way to
> > model earth magnetic field so that's no great shake. Just don't
> > falsely generalise from SOME
> > idiots that they are all idiots. Nor think of it as a great secret
> > only fit for the elected.
> > adrian
> >
> >
> > ornamentalmind wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
