Just not very much...
;-{
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Robert Holmes <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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
