From: Douglas Roberts <[email protected]>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:00:19 -0600
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364996038748e2046e702fa9
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, of the two-wheeled variety
Message: 1
The FRIAMers were philosophizing when I left,
they're still philosophizing now that I'm back:
some things do not appear to change very much.
Speaking of which, Pirsig really does present a
lot of good observations in the areas of
perception, world-view, perspective, and plain
good common sense and the complete lack
thereof. This passage in particular has always
resonated with me. I know people like John, the BMW rider:
So it is with John. I could preach the practical
value and worth of motorcycle maintenance till
I'm hoarse and it would make not a dent in him.
After two sentences on the subject his eyes go
completely glassy and he changes the
conversation or just looks away. He doesn't want to hear about it.
Sylvia is completely with him on this one. In
fact she is even more emphatic. "It's just a
whole other thing," she says, when in a
thoughtful mood. "Like garbage," she says, when
not. They want not to understand it. Not to hear
about it. And the more I try to fathom what
makes me enjoy mechanical work and them hate it
so, the more elusive it becomes. The ultimate
cause of this originally minor difference of
opinion appears to run way, way deep.
Inability on their part is ruled out
immediately. They are both plenty bright enough.
Either one of them could learn to tune a
motorcycle in an hour and a half if they put
their minds and energy to it, and the saving in
money and worry and delay would repay them over
and over again for their effort. And they know
that. Or maybe they don't. I don't know. I never
confront them with the question. It's better to just get along.
But I remember once, outside a bar in Savage,
Minnesota, on a really scorching day when I just
about let loose. We'd been in the bar for about
an hour and we came out and the machines were so
hot you could hardly get on them. I'm started
and ready to go and there's John pumping away on
the kick starter. I smell gas like we're next to
a refinery and tell him so, thinking this is
enough to let him know his engine's flooded.
"Yeah, I smell it too," he says and keeps on
pumping. And he pumps and pumps and jumps and
pumps and I don't know what more to say.
Finally, he's really winded and sweat's running
down all over his face and he can't pump
anymore, and so I suggest taking out the plugs
to dry them off and air out the cylinders while we go back for another beer.
Oh my God no! He doesn't want to get into all that stuff.
"All what stuff?"
"Oh, getting out the tools and all that stuff.
There's no reason why it shouldn't start. It's a
brand-new machine and I'm following the
instructions perfectly. See, it's right on full choke like they say."
"Full choke!"
"That's what the instructions say."
"That's for when it's cold!"
"Well, we've been in there for a half an hour at least," he says.
It kind of shakes me up. "This is a hot day,
John," I say. "And they take longer than that to
cool off even on a freezing day."
He scratches his head. "Well, why don't they
tell you that in the instructions?" He opens the
choke and on the second kick it starts. "I guess
that was it," he says cheerfully.
And the very next day we were out near the same
area and it happened again. This time I was
determined not to say a word, and when my wife
urged me to go over and help him I shook my
head. I told her that until he had a real felt
need he was just going to resent help, so we
went over and sat in the shade and waited.
I noticed he was being superpolite to Sylvia
while he pumped away, meaning he was furious,
and she was looking over with a kind of "Ye
gods!" look. If he had asked any single question
I would have been over in a second to diagnose
it, but he wouldn't. It must have been fifteen
minutes before he got it started.
Later we were drinking beer again over at Lake
Minnetonka and everybody was talking around the
table, but he was silent and I could see he was
really tied up in knots inside. After all that
time. Probably to get them untied he finally
said, "You know -- when it doesn't start like
that it just -- really turns me into a monster
inside. I just get paranoic about it." This
seemed to loosen him up, and he added, "They
just had this one motorcycle, see? This lemon.
And they didn't know what to do with it, whether
to send it back to the factory or sell it for
scrap or what -- and then at the last moment
they saw me coming. With eighteen hundred bucks
in my pocket. And they knew their problems were over."
In a kind of singsong voice I repeated the plea
for tuning and he tried hard to listen. He
really tries hard sometimes. But then the block
came again and he was off to the bar for another
round for all of us and the subject was closed.
He is not stubborn, not narrow-minded, not lazy,
not stupid. There was just no easy explanation.
So it was left up in the air, a kind of mystery
that one gives up on because there is no sense
in just going round and round and round looking for an answer that's not there.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Steve Smith
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
Douglas Roberts wrote:
My style of philosophy, which is more the vein
of Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance:
<http://mc-canada-trip-2009.blogspot.com/>http://mc-canada-trip-2009.blogspot.com/
Nicely done... makes me sorry I haven't replaced my last bike.
All my long trips have been a lot less civilized!
Welcome back to the funny farm!
- Steve
============================================================
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>http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Steve Smith <[email protected]>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: aku <[email protected]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
References:
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:11:00 -0600
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
Message: 2
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).
From: Owen Densmore <[email protected]>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Cc: aku <[email protected]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
References:
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:32:00 -0600
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
Message: 3
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
From: Douglas Roberts <[email protected]>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: aku <[email protected]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:56:40 -0600
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364d1dab88dbd8046e7600f1
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
Message: 4
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
<<mailto:[email protected]>[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>http://www.friam.org
From: Robert Holmes <[email protected]>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:04:01 -0600
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174bee88f68ad6046e761ba6
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
Message: 5
Welcome back Doug. We've missed you.
-- Robert
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Douglas Roberts
<<mailto:[email protected]>[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
<<mailto:[email protected]>[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>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>http://www.friam.org
From: Douglas Roberts <[email protected]>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:07:29 -0600
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6dbea5b33e8a1046e762795
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
Message: 6
Just not very much...
;-{
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Robert Holmes
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
Welcome back Doug. We've missed you.
-- Robert
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Douglas Roberts
<<mailto:[email protected]>[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
<<mailto:[email protected]>[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>http://www.friam.org
From: Owen Densmore <[email protected]>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Cc: aku <[email protected]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:24:41 -0600
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-74-619225322
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
Message: 7
Bingo!
-- Owen
On Jul 11, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Douglas Roberts 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
From: Victoria Hughes <[email protected]>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:43:11 -0600
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-620335425
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
Message: 8
Big sighs of relief from others of us as well...
Direct action, that's the ticket. Bring it all
down out onto the material plane.
The Complex plays around with direct, effective
action in areas that have not been represented
very well so far. We can do more.
[ I do realize this is the Friam list and not
exactly the Complex list, but we are in a sense
an incubator for the ideas that Friam discusses,
and obviously there is a symbiotic relationship here. ]
Unknown synergies are possible.
Doesn't matter the domain (science, art, technology, etc etc) .
The initial point of contact is that we can do
what many others can't by using this hands-on
synergy to create. Like the SimTable does.
Tory
"Thunder is good, thunder is impressive, but
it's lightning that does all the work."
-Mark Twain
On Jul 11, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
Bingo!
-- Owen
On Jul 11, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Douglas Roberts 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
============================================================
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>http://www.friam.org
From: Owen Densmore <[email protected]>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:13:14 -0600
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-68-499738536
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: [sfx: Discuss] Projected Light
Message: 9
The complex is hosting Projected Light .. this weekend (Friday,
Saturday, Sunday) are the last days for the show:
http://sfcomplex.org
Drop by!
-- Owen
Begin forwarded message:
From: Orlando Leibovitz <[email protected]>
Date: July 10, 2009 9:58:31 AM MDT
To: SFx Advisory Discuss <[email protected]>
Subject: [sfx: Discuss] Projected Light
Reply-To: General topics & issues <[email protected]>
This is the final weekend for Projected Light. If you have not sent
an email to your contacts, now would be a good time. Attached is a
PDF of our press release. I am sending it along with a link to the
Complex. Anything you can do is much appreciated. Thanks. O
--
Orlando Leibovitz
Studio Phone: 505.820.6183
http://www.orlandoleibovitz.com
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html
The complex is hosting Projected Light .. this
weekend (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) are the last days for the show:
<http://sfcomplex.org>http://sfcomplex.org
Drop by!
-- Owen
Begin forwarded message:
From: Orlando Leibovitz
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
Date: July 10, 2009 9:58:31 AM MDT
To: SFx Advisory Discuss
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
Subject: [sfx: Discuss] Projected Light
Reply-To: General topics & issues
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
This is the final weekend for Projected Light.
If you have not sent an email to your contacts,
now would be a good time. Attached is a PDF of
our press release. I am sending it along with a
link to the Complex. Anything you can do is much appreciated. Thanks. O
--
Orlando Leibovitz
Studio Phone: 505.820.6183
<http://www.orlandoleibovitz.com>http://www.orlandoleibovitz.com
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
<http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html>http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html
_______________________________________________
Friam mailing list
[email protected]
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
