What you think I said is not what I meant to say or was trying to say. Where did I say that we could comprehend the whole or even the idea of the whole of the numinous? You can find what I'm saying in Whitehead's Aims of Education, James' "Talks to Teachers" The works of David Krahenbeuhl and Francis Clark, Richard Chronister, John Warfield, and that wonderful out of print "Art of Teaching" by Oscar Handlin. This is not esoteric Steve, it's just my work for the last fifty years. Boundaries are found in Frost's Vermont farmers, in teachers and in engineers needing to keep a bridge from falling. People who fuzzy the boundaries, most of which are in the mind and its inadequacies, are trying to do something else, invoke some other system or to make people look away for some inner goal on the part of the person pointing. As for blowing off Santa Fe or any of these other institutes? I don't have time or interest. If they want to do something serious, work on it for free and use their funds for instruments to do the research. Most of these folks will do nothing unless it provides a salary. Only the very finest and most lucky of artists make a living at their discipline in this world. Let these folks go by the same rules and lets see how well they do without shmoozing. You don't seem very hopeful about them yourself when it comes to population.
REH PS: "Spirit" means breath. I'm a sculptor of the breath, a singer but I do know Iron workers who work with the mind as I said. They are Mohawks from Canada who drive to NYCity every week to work on ground zero since their work at Time-Warner is done. From: futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca [mailto:futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca] On Behalf Of Steve Kurtz Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 3:57 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] OMG! OMG! Joe Stiglitz is a SOCIOLIST Ray, I do not accept your proclamations of perfect knowledge and understanding. I agree with Mike S. Ray, You may carry on seeking adherents to your view of reality without my further attempts at discussing alternative views. You are the oracle, it appears. If you believe that a human can comprehend boundless reality, you are not alone! 80% plus have the spirit in the gene. No boundary has ever been evidenced; big bang may be part of a big bounce of a universe, and many cosmologists including Martin Rees think infinite multiverses are likely. You blow off The Sante Fe Institute, The New England Complexity Institute, and others globally. OK, as you can't help it. May the force be with you. Steve On Sep 14, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Ray Harrell wrote: The word complexity springs from the root meaning a layered braid. It implies nothing beyond the inability of an observer or user to do something with that braid. As they learn to use it, it becomes less complex without change except in the mind of the user/observer. My point is that its ambiguity means so many different things as to be a useless concept in the description of something external to ourselves. Complexity is not a description of a state of nature but speaks to the competence of the human mind observing it. Nothing is complex if you understand it, comprehend its structure and know how to use it. The problem is the mind, not nature. Nothing is outside nature but systems are constructs of the human mind observing a part of the universe. Although the word/symbol "Universe" is a English/human construct the reality it names is beyond a projection of the human body and is the ground from which the human body itself interacts and conceives and springs. The religious concept of God shares a similar problem. God is a symbol from humans but what it describes can only accurately described as the greatest of mysteries because it is beyond our language, our minds and our experience. (But although a parallel problem of complexity, it is not the same since the Universe does not include what we call consciousness and relatability.) There are no constructs that we recognize that are not bounded by the limitations of our minds. Lowering complexity means that we move our understanding and virtuosity forward. It means little or nothing for the universe for or as a description of the external universe. That does not mean that the spiritual projection from our minds does not have some corollary external to ourselves. It just means that we have no hope of understanding it if it is so. REH From: futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca [mailto:futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca] On Behalf Of Steve Kurtz Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 6:34 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] OMG! OMG! Joe Stiglitz is a SOCIOLIST No. Natural systems are examples of complexity. They overshoot, test then current limits, retreat as conditions change, and can undershoot. Control is a flexible and imperfect attempt when intentionally sought. The current parameters of the situation continuously control each other in my systemic view. Humans are not outside the system. Steve On Sep 14, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Ray Harrell wrote: Do you believe alignment and balance is the same as control? REH _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
