Re strong positionalities to observed (e.g. social) phenomena; "vision quests" and implications of Complexity, Heisenberg etc. and collectively digesting them. Is anybody here familiar with say Alfred Korzybski's - late 30s "Science and Sanity" and the work built on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics) or David Hawkins (http://www.veritaspub.com/) work for example? Bests, Alex
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 9:24 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. Matthew Francisco wrote: > A system for knowing, for reflecting on reality; that's science, isn't > it? A social system for reflecting on reality also fits the > description of religion too (assuming that you accept a belief in what > one is refleciting on is reality). We all know that there is a > difference. I'd say religion tries to rationalize reality (apparently in a way that fits with certain human psychological needs) while science predicts aspects of reality. Rationalization is one way to build models, but the models need to be testable for it to be science. ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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
