After general
systems theory, non-linear thermodynamics, catastrophy theory, complexity, and
lots of other creidble attempts to explain the vaguries of complicated things
and their surprisingly ways of suddenly transforming into others, my approach is
to sort of (conditionally) scrap all that and start over with a rigorous method
of unbiased observation. It doesn't stop there, but it starts
there and goes where anyone takes it.
What's wrong with
that? And more particularly, why
doesn't anyone seem concerned that maintaining explosively accelerating change
in our world (by promoting continual positive feedback for multiplying
investment, our 'null hypothesis' and guiding principle for 'adapting'
to the earth) might be problematic? Is it possibly that we're
stuck without a common model from which to
refer?
I don't
think the issue is a matter of which point of view is right and to
scratch out all the others. I think it's to connect the views
from all the sides of the subject into a whole picture that's actually
useful. The six wize men will have better
luck getting the idea of 'elephant' if they talk rather than
fight!
Phil
Henshaw
¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯
`·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
explorations: www.synapse9.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
explorations: www.synapse9.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
