Waddington always warned of wanting too much from complex systems theories other than as rules of thumb guides to be used in awareness of the likelihood of unintended consequences and forgetting complexity is not generally predictable. PM essay generators are usually more accurate in the language of meaninglessness than this.
On 25 Sep, 23:38, chazwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Correct me if I am wrong but all this sounds like class A post- > modernist Bullshit to me. > > Did you generate this crap using an online PM essay generator or are > you just a nut-case? > > On Sep 22, 11:39 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
