On 6/27/07, Glen E. P. Ropella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Phil Henshaw wrote: > Well, the 'fault' of considering things from multiple points of view is > not contradiction, but confusing all those who don't! Well, for us Discordians, it is certainly not a fault to confuse! In fact, it is our holy obligation. Hail Eris! =><=
I think I may have been mistakenly half serious in my above comment... A consistent reality is always complex enough to have multiple points of view that are really inconsistent only in the projections, like top view and side view are hoplessly contradictory unless your realize you're looking at a physical object and not just some interesting projected 2d display. It does confuse that we seem to need to look at real systems with simplifying projections that look different from each other. The answer as to which 2D projection is the correct one is what seems most confusing.
Speaking of your observation that "Internal loci of control are > sometimes useful" wouldn't it be wise for us to switch the exponential > growth of exploiting the earth to refining our uses of it before it's > too late? No. It would not be _wise_ to switch because all we'd be doing is switching from one misconception to another. If you can: a) clearly describe the goal of the switch, b) clearly describe what's happening now, c) clearly describe what _will_ happen if we switch, and d) show how (c) leads to (a), _then_ I would be capable of determining the wisdom of a switch. Until then, it's just change for change's sake... or perhaps it's a mild form of revolution just to wrest power from those who currently have it (which, by the way, I'm all for if I'm one of the ones that will come into power after the switch ;-).
Same error on my part. Just thinking at this point, considering where things are headed, it might be better to look at cooling change down a little rather than continuing to heat it up explosively as an obsession and commmitment to a steady exploding state... Just maybe... The interesting thing about growth systems is that they're not composed of information, but physcially real things that we see as information because that's what we view them with. A useful principle is that growth systems always have a recoil, like hitting the rubber band and snapping back. It's one of the complete certainties of nature (100% +/- 0%). You can't see it in the curves (the information) until it hits, but you can learn to read it early in the process, in the higher derivatives. It's an extremely consistent signal, and allows time for collecting options for ready use when feedback's switch and the information as to where they're going is better. I'm talking about predictive observation, watching things coming by closely observing the processes on nature. When I said "wouldn't it be wise", I certainly meant it loosely, and your interpretation is entirely appropriate. I'm only concerned that the general discussions of otherwise competent thinking people in no way appear to contemplate easing off on the exponential (% adding) accleration of ever more complex change until we do actually do 'hit the wall' and completely loose control of the shock waves of multiplying repercussions. It's generally better to turn the wheel before hitting the wall. Not all steering would be good steering, naturally, but you don't need to have all knowledge to have useful clues and uncertainty, and things that are 100% certain are useful clues. It's better than no clue at all anyway.
On whether this confusion we all experience between information and > action is robust or not, I certainly accept and observe some > inconsistency, but think most people remain hamstrung by generally not > knowing when. The simple case in point is how easily and confidently > we understand some things going out of control, as with a singer's voice > cracking, or a businessman not getting expert help until it's too late, > or a party or a friendship erupting in thrill that changes to tragedy, > and see nothing wrong at all with the speed, complexity and magnitude > of unknown impacts of decision-making about our permanent life support > system, doubling, regularly, forever. It's the inconsistency! All > forms of excess look to be much the same problem to me, and can be read > with the same metrics. It shouldn't be a tough problem, well except for > confusing information and action. The trouble is that we _all_ view only a tiny portion of what's out there. And that includes those who believe they have a more synoptic view than other people. Actually, those who believe they're smarter than other people are usually _more_ stupid than the people they accuse of myopia because they have arrogance convoluted in with their inherent myopia. The humble myopic is less myopic than the arrogant myopic.
yep, always with a grain of salt. Supreme confidence that there is nothing to know wouldn't seem to fit that principle though.... - --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com Seek simplicity, and distrust it. -- Alfred North Whitehead -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGgrD6ZeB+vOTnLkoRAgUFAKC0lzOTJA3BsoUraUBy9kZMaJyh0wCeLTzk TiF7TjVbMaeATInwhEeExs8= =mEUX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ============================================================ 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
