Welcome back Doug. We've missed you. -- Robert On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Douglas Roberts <[email protected]>wrote:
> Let me make sure I understand what you just said, Owen, by paraphrasing > what I thought I heard: > > *Owen: "There are more people on this list who want to talk about doing > things then there are people who actually want to do things, or, perhaps, > even have relevant experience at doing things." > * > Or, an even shorter synopsis:* Talk is cheap.* > > If that is in fact what you were suggesting, I wholeheartedly agree. IMO, > the latest chatter about philosophy certainly meets this description. I > openly admit a bias against philosophy, and in particular against > philosophical discussions about philosophy because they invariably come > across as giant exercises in mental masturbation. > > Not, mind you, that I have anything against masturbation, mental or > otherwise. It's just that nothing ever comes of it, so to speak. > > If you meant something else, sorry to have misunderstood. Otherwise, I > believe I share your preference to actually engage in interesting work, > rather than just talking about the philosophies of how to accomplish work. > > --Doug > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Owen Densmore <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I'm not clear on why there is such a culture clash on this list around >>> Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science... >>> >> >> I think the conflict may be nearly trivial: constructing things. >> >> Many of us, especially at the sfComplex, were hoping to create a >> synergistic community, where the whole was greater than its parts. >> Specifically, cross-discipline projects (Stephen's Hollywood model) >> creating fascinating technology with complexity being a foundational piece. >> The TED conferences in the complex domain. >> >> The philosophical conversations thus far have not contributed to this, and >> indeed have created a second culture: folks who want to talk about things. >> >> Talking is great, but for some of us becomes a distraction when not >> helping create a foundation for creating things. >> >> There is a good example of a middle ground. Nick had the Moth (My way or >> the highway) alternative to the traditional iterated prisoner's dilemma. It >> was concrete enough to result in a project and a couple of papers. >> >> So my hunch is that the "Please God No" reaction is along that line: many >> if not most of us are interested in creating things. >> >> Thus to make the conversations more acceptable, it would be reasonable for >> it to suggest an investigation or project. The failure to summarize is just >> an example of how non-constructive the philosophic conversations have been. >> >> -- Owen >> >> >> >> On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >> >> I'm not clear on why there is such a culture clash on this list around >>> Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science... >>> >>> I know only of one specific person on the list who has a significantly >>> alternate perspective. >>> >>> Whether we know of them (formally) or not, there are philosophical >>> traditions which we are products of. >>> >>> Most of us here are interested in the topics of mathematics, science, >>> language, etc. *because* we were exposed to these ideas and modes of >>> thought from an early age and from many angles. Even if we grew up in a >>> household where there was a modicum of magical thinking and animism around >>> us, the larger world, and most *any* practical-minded western family today >>> is going to be acting and speaking with a lot of rational and empirical >>> modes. >>> >>> We got that way by being raised in a time and culture where that is how >>> most people (try to) understand the world. If were were trained in >>> mathematics or the sciences, we were almost surely trained by people who >>> were grounded deeply in this philosophy. >>> >>> >>> Most of us here are empiricists and rationalists, which roughly implies >>> that we are logical positivists. These are philosophical traditions. >>> Philosophy (in this case, Western tradition) is a method or system of >>> organizing the human experience. >>> >>> Epistemology is the branch of (Western) Philosophy concerned with the >>> nature and the limitations of human knowledge. Metaphysics is the branch >>> concerned with the fundamental nature of being and the world. Science and >>> Mathematics reside almost exclusively within Metaphysics and Epistimology. >>> There are aspects of both which touch on (or are informed by) Aesthetics >>> and Ethics, but the meat is in the study of knowledge and the study of the >>> world. >>> >>> Most criticism I hear (here and otherwise, explicit or implicit) seems to >>> come down to one of two (mis)understandings: >>> • Serious sounding talk about anything we don't understand is >>> "Philosophy" and we either therefore hold it in awe or (more often) dismiss >>> it. For some folks (few on this list), the same treatment is given to >>> "Mathematics" and "Science" for approximately the same reasons. >>> • The "white males" who show up most notably throughout our >>> history as the shapers of Philosophy (and Mathematics and Science) were >>> products of their social/cultural milieu and their personal failings in the >>> realm of human and social equality, justice, etc. do not necessarily >>> discredit the work that is associated with them. >>> Why can't we simply accept that most of us have a particular attachment >>> and fondness for the empirical and rational subsets of philosophy and that >>> the *rest* of it is mostly outside of our experience and perhaps interest. >>> And *within* these subdomains of Philosophy, why can't we admit that our >>> specific methods are derived from the more general ones of metaphysics, >>> epistomology, and sometimes aesthetics and ethics? >>> >>> For those who have experience/interest in other systems than Western >>> Philosophy, I think similar things are true, with the most notable exception >>> (in my observation) that empiricism and rationality do not play as central >>> of a role. It seems *precisely* this which draws many (not so many here, >>> but many in the larger world) to other traditions... >>> >>> It is outside the scope of this particular posting to go into the merits >>> of Empiricism and Rationality _vs_ other modes of knowledge and experience >>> except to say that this particular Choir (FRIAM members) who for the most >>> part sings *only* in the keys of E and R to be squabbling as if some of us >>> are in a completely different key when in fact, the only problem is that few >>> if any of us have perfect pitch. >>> >>> - Steve >>> >>> I think I need to take a long Motorcycle Ride (stopping to clean my >>> plugs, adjust my valves, synchronize my carburators, lubricate my chain, and >>> tear down and rebuild my forks at least once along the way). >>> ============================================================ >>> 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
