Yes.  But corrected implies some sort of coherent controller-controlled 
separation and relation.  When the feed-back and -forward relations get too 
numerous and intertwined, the concept of "correction" dissolves.  For example, 
when the cure fundamentally modifies the patient so that they're a very 
different person afterwards, that's not a correction so much as an evolution.

I can testify anecdotally that my therapy changed me in fundamental ways, some 
good, most bad.  Even if the scans continue to fail in finding lesions, it's 
debatable whether this particular intervention was a "cure," which implies 
"return to normal", versus a de- followed by a re-construction.

On 10/18/2016 10:00 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Or corrected.   I don't want to go to the hospital and get a different 
> loved-one.   I want the cancer cured, the organ replaced, or whatever.    
> It's harder to do that than make more babies.  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [] On Behalf Of ?glen?
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:54 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Disruptor
> It seems to me that new usage patterns always evolve out of old usage 
> patterns.  If that's true, then the old way isn't destroyed, but repurposed, 
> adapted, abused, and evolved.
> On 10/18/2016 09:48 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
>> I read recently that it was economist Joseph Schumpeter who observed 
>> that originality is an act of creative destruction.  We have to 
>> demolish the old way of doing things when we advocate for new systems.  
>> As someone who applies complexity to changing public policy, I feel I 
>> have no other choice.


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe

Reply via email to