Well, lots of absolutes there, Phil. Let me just pick up on a couple.
First, don't most ideologues (and that would be all of us in some context or other, wouldn't it?) speak with the 'clarity of one's own understanding' of things? Economist, anarchist, Christian, Muslim, phrenologist, eugenicist, intelligent design aficionado. . . (Dang, I wish that last term hadn't been co-opted.) What does that have to do with any kind of objective 'truth'? Unless, as I suggested in my earlier post, 'truth' is simply whatever matches up to the pattern seeking heuristics of the culture / creature that claims it. We could perhaps also flip it, and frame it in terms of an identity group or possibly even the organizing principles of a CAS – or more properly, a CASS, a Complex Adaptive *Social* System, since I don't think 'natural' (non-human) systems really worry much about such things. So, again, I would suggest that 'truth' is an emergent property of the culture / system that births (or, one might say, 'fabricates') it. First example that springs to mind here is, 'We hold these truths to be self evident. . . ' In that case, the answer to 'Whose truth, which truth?' is simply, 'Ours'. Whatever random belief / operating system / imaginary being that might encompass. It's self-validating without any objective reference points. (And it's better than yours, so there!)
*Anyone who observes the process by which the 'insurgency' in Iraq
developed can't possibly conclude it was not an organic response of the indigenous culture*, however counter productive it may appear to us, or deny that literally everyone in Iraq is valiantly defending their own sacred honor, and that the imposition of our culture on their way of life is meeting widespread vigorous rejection. Oh, gosh. I could. A few points here – One, I think you vastly oversimplify the 'insurgency'. (As do the bushistas.) It's hardly homogeneous, nor even indigenous. It embraces, and at times has been driven by the actions of, a significant number of salafists from beyond the borders of Iraq. Saudis, Algerians, Syrians, Jordanians (remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the 'face' of the insurgency and his Egyptian successor?), Afghanis, Pakistanis, Chechens . . . It also includes the *Saddam Fedayeen* (who were planning for this and laying in logistics well before the invasion, which kind of kills the entirely organic theory), various tribal / ideological entities trying to get ahead or get even, bored young men with no other vision of a future, and no small amount of enterprising gangs, kidnapper / extortionists and other random criminals. I certainly do agree that we're using the wrong tools for the wrong purposes. We're fighting an emergent fourth and fifth generation war using an awkward blend of third and fourth generation strategies and tactics. 4/5GW for a state actor is essentially armed social work, or armed propaganda. Since you can't fight ideas with firepower, increasing the number of air strikes five-fold is more than a bit counterintuitive. (But we must! How else can we justify our absurd defense budget and investing in big, spendy, redundant and largely useless weapon systems?) But 'disgracing the ideals of democracy'? Well . . . Let me suggest that 'democracy' is another 'truth' or 'perceived common good' that has emerged from the collective narrative – something we tell ourselves to justify our actions. Or were you thinking of the good old days in Athens, when the slaves carried the patricians down to the Agora for a little civilized debate? (Often over whom to invade next, if I remember my history.)
I perhaps speak with more conviction of my own perceptions about these
complex natural system (cultural) events because I have a very helpful rigorous method of observing the development of events in such things to see what's coming and where it came from. I highly recommend it. You just trace the continuities and it tells you oceans of things. The best starting point I can offer at the present my consulting service outline, www.synapse9.com/hds.htm If you want to know what's happening with complex natural systems all you need to do is learn how to watch. Well . . . is 'perception' not just another word for 'my truth'? (Or worldview, mental model or paradigm?) Ummm . . . interesting page. A little predictive for a simple country complexity head. (Or perhaps it's just the altitude here in Santa Fe.) In 'truth', I've kind of given up on 'systems engineering'. That damn nonlinearity thing keeps screwing up my best laid plans. I'm also kind of unclear on how you use a 'rigorous exploratory technique for seeing things coming' in a CASS. Doesn't shi(f)t sometimes just happen? Are there really no Black Swans? Can we simply reduce them to ugly ducklings?
'You just trace the continuities . . .'
It's actually the discontinuities I find more interesting. What if they are really the orderly manifestation of some fractal pattern or algorithm we haven't yet perceived? What if all the fun stuff is going on at the edges? What if entropy is irrelevant in scale free networks? What if Elvis has not left the building? OK, I'm ranting. No more caffeine and pastries at Cloud Cliff on Sunday mornings before opening FRIAM mail. Please recycle these electrons. jdg On 7/14/07, phil henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think the issue is how to know what the 'truth' is, but whether one speaks with the clarity of one's own understanding of things. Whatever anyone else says, I want to hear what people genuinely believe they understand, not some miss mash of compromises intended to make them appear to be 'considerate' or 'balanced' or whatever. Anyone who observes the process by which the 'insurgency' in Iraq developed can't possibly conclude it was not an organic response of the indigenous culture, however counter productive it may appear to us, or deny that literally everyone in Iraq is valiantly defending their own sacred honor, and that the imposition of our culture on their way of life is meeting widespread vigorous rejection. It's unequivocal that we are using entirely the wrong tools for entirely the wrong purposes, totally disgracing the ideals of democracy, and that lots and lots of people see this clearly and are not speaking their own clear understanding of it. I perhaps speak with more conviction of my own perceptions about these complex natural system (cultural) events because I have a very helpful rigorous method of observing the development of events in such things to see what's coming and where it came from. I highly recommend it. You just trace the continuities and it tells you oceans of things. The best starting point I can offer at the present my consulting service outline, www.synapse9.com/hds.htm If you want to know what's happening with complex natural systems all you need to do is learn how to watch. Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of steve smith > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:55 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. > > > > On Jul 10, 2007, at 8:32 AM, John Goekler wrote: > > > While I don't disagree with the broad assessments of the Iraq fiasco > > presented here, I think we have to very careful about valuing 'our' > > truth more highly than 'their' truth. > > > > There is, after all, a universe for every physicist. > > > > Is it not possible that 'truth' is no more than an emergent property > > of the CAS we might call the observer? (Or the 'reporting > party' as > > they say in the police logs.) > This is a very interesting thread... considering "truth" to be an > emergent property... it seems compelling on first blush. > > One of the important features of CAS would seem to be that it > inherently studies subjective phenomena. Not subjective in > the sense > that every observer can see something different, so much as > subjective > in the sense of highly contextual up to and including the observer. > > > Or as they say in the spook biz, 'Whose truth? Which truth?' > This kind of relativism (especially in the spook business) is really > awkward "spiritually" but I do look to CAS, etc. to help provide a > more scientific handle on epistimological considerations of complex > systems. > > > As for the Iraq war, I know plenty who are pro-war, both on principle > and in practice with this war. They are either hawkish in their > nature or overly pragmatic (in my opinion). I personally > have no use > for this war (or any systematic act of violence) and find most of the > rhetoric and value systems around it extremely questionable... but > most of my anti-war friends are not much help either... they make up > their own lies about the lies and then believe *those* lies > are better > than the ones they are fighting (they are only better for me > in that I > am sympathetic with their spirit). > > Lies and Truths are "duals" but not opposites, not symmetric. > I wonder > what your (collective and individual) take on what Lies are in CAS as > compared to Truths. > > > ============================================================ > 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
============================================================ 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
