On Apr 28, 2009, at 8:51 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
On Apr 28, 2009, at 8:31 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
I wish the hell some you smart folks were reading this book with me:
Bedau and Humphreys, EMERGENCE. MIT 2008.
Does anybody know a good philosopher or two with time on their hands?
Just out of curiosity: why a philosopher? Why not a scientist/
mathematician? The book looked interesting when you brought it to
Friam.
Why not all of the above (scientist, mathematician, and philosopher)?
From one point of view philosophers are students of perception. A
20th century example would be Edmund Husserl and a decent/recent book
mentioning both might be David Abram's "Spell of the Sensuous". I
think the world owes a lot to Plato, Aristotle, René Descartes and a
few others. Regardless of whether one agrees with their works, the
consideration thereof has influenced various disciplines for 2,500
years or so.
Is the study of the perceptions that motivate groups political
science, systems theory, psychology or philosophy? Or, is it all or
none of the above? I don't know; in lieu of an answer I'd say all
aforementioned disciplines are valid methods of approaching the
questions...to the extent that they inform.
It seems to me (and I am more or less publicly saying it's my guess
because I really don't know) that what little systems theory stuff
I've read suggests that if you really want to change a system, since
systems (involving humans) are created and run by people, that the way
to do it most effectively and potently is to change people's
perceptions around the system, of the system, etc. Most of what we
have created existed as thoughts or beliefs in individual or
collective minds before manifestation (architect dreams up house,
draws house, builds house).
I don't think science is the problem...but I think a problem is my
(our) perception and the belief's arising therefrom, whether we are
talking anthropogenic environmental problems or any number of other
issues we face individually and collectively. If the political
movements that have altered human history stem from individually held
and mass-held philosophies and the material practices they engender,
then I think perhaps philosophy is a bit more impactful/relevant than
one might think, or am I mistaken? (whether we are discussing the
formerly widely-held view that the Earth was flat, the 5th century
(B.C.) origins of democracy, or totalitarian and/or fascistic
movements). Is political science not in part the study of political
philosophy?
I guess some of my questions are, is philosophy irrelevant because it
may be viewed by some as less desirable than other disciplines or are
the subjects and perceptions mentioned matters of political science/
psychology and not philosophy? Or, are these disciplines anachronisms
that should yield to the application of methods of complex systems
analysis or other academic/scientific disciplines? (I don't know the
answer to that question and am interested in the answer). What are
the most effective and constructive ways to influence group perception
and group dynamics/behaviors? Cognitive Neuroscience? Economics?
Marketing?
Is the most successful way to influence the power-brokers at the
Governor's Task Force on the College of Santa Fe a successful
marketing of a desired philosophy aimed at producing a given outcome?
Or, is it a matter of demonstrating the economic benefit behind the
continued presence of higher education in Santa Fe?
-Nick
----------------------------------------
Nicholas S. Frost
7 Avenida Vista Grande #325
Santa Fe, NM 87508
[email protected]
----------------------------------------
============================================================
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
