Doing academic work you often find yourself trolling through mounds of material to find other opinions and what you can of fact. There can be whole mountains to shift and maybe no nugget to find. When a paper does look like a possibility from an abstract it will be one your institution doesn't subscribe to and you have to wait for interlibrary loan. It comes weeks later and is actually dross. The dullness of philosophy is not discussing around it between ourselves Justin, but the mounds of paper, the effort to read enough to understand. This understanding is often disappointing. At more prosaic levels, my mate did his dissertation with me years ago on TQM. He's blind and I had to scan papers so his screen-reader could handle them back then. He'd been an engineering manager before he went blind, so knew TQM was a crock. The first two papers contained devastating critiques of Michael Porter and TQM-style initiatives - pretty empirical findings such as no of the guff ever working unless the company was already successful (same findings 20 years on). There is gold under the dross, but whether at this level of alleged practical study or esoteric philosophy the sheer hard work to get at what you want, or better that stuff that really surprises you wears you down. There's a point too where you know everyone is talking or just being there to avoid what really needs doing. The mosr boring stuff of all, of course, comes from enthusiastic tutors you can tell don't give a damn under the encouraging smiles.
I estimated the actual cost of a $7 plastic water tank under an ISO 9001 scheme as $2790 by the time the relevant forms had been filled in. I particularly noticed as it didn't have the hole for the pipe from my section of the power station, but did carry 20 separate certifications of quality glued to it which needed to come off. The UK is full of these phoney schemes from America (just as we have had ritual abuse scares with expert links to America). I am wary of this distant, difficult to absorb knowledge from other cultures, but not on the basis of the superiority of my own. I know what you mean about the excitement of ideas Justin, and don't care where they come from. I just curse there are so few. On 26 Nov, 23:40, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > I knew of a high performance TQM work team empowered to improve > things... if you know what I mean. They had frequent meetings that > they had to attend on the east coast and found that the corporate jet > was flying often empty out to DC. So, before booking a flight they > would call and ask if it was going empty and hitch a ride saving some > budget. Hey! They were a high performance work team! Empowered to save > money! > > Then, one day a wife of one of the executives showed up for a ride and > had to share the jet with them. > > Next thing you know.... no... you can't use the jet.... actually hell > no.... > > But we are empowered! And all the TQM guys got worried about the > message...but ordinary engineers?..on the executive jet!... that > wasn't going to happen...TQM or not.... when they meant empowered they > meant empowered to stay in their places - not really em-POWERED. > > So they said... you can use the jet whenever you don't have budget.... > and then... if that wasn't clear enough... they tripled the travel > budget for that department. Just to get the message across if you know > what I mean. > > Long live TQM! Long live high performance work teams! Empowerment! > > The only thing better than being empowered is having the power to > give! - Just kidding of course.... Now I am a six sigma guy looking > for that last decimal place ...God I love that kind of talk! > > On Nov 26, 3:47 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Confuse me with the kind of pettifogger or carpet bagger satisfied > > with TQM at your peril Irishman. Anywhere graced by my ruthless > > managerial munificence would have enforced ISO 9001 even to the levels > > of toilet paper supply and removal. Our Orns would have all the right > > stamps and certificates. > > > ov, 19:59, fran the man <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > And, of course, as part of a TQM organisation you would have to > > > produce documentation proving that the Orn-brain had been supplied > > > from a certified source with a secured complaints mechanism ... > > > > On 26 Nov., 19:58, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > A careful reading of the above might raise the question of what body > > > > parts the Ethics Committee thought to eat. We could assume they were > > > > a bunch of prawns and mioght as well have asked what an Orn tatsed > > > > like. > > > > > On 26 Nov, 16:21, fran the man <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > *laughing* > > > > > > I once heard Hell defined as an interminable committee meeting. Just > > > > > when you think you're starting to get somewhere on something, Satan > > > > > pipes up, "Mr. Chairman, with regard to the subject being discussed, I > > > > > would like to raise a point of order ..." Personally, I think he feels > > > > > most at home as a member of an Ethics Committee (where he's usually > > > > > the member appointed by the people financing the business, with an > > > > > unwritten veto-right). > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > On 26 Nov., 16:54, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The classic modern argument for at least some subjective knowledge > > > > > > (for facts only to be apprehended from subjectivity) is in Nagel, > > > > > > Th., > > > > > > 1974, “What is it like to be a bat?”, Philosophical Review 83: 435– > > > > > > 50. I was looking more recently at a prawn that can see in 16 > > > > > > colours. I can tell you how I can reasonably validate that it does > > > > > > (behavioural observations), but which amongst us can say what the > > > > > > subjective experience of such colours is for the prawn? We can, of > > > > > > course, compare and contrast the reception mechanisms. > > > > > > I can see a meeting of the Ethics Committee looming already. The > > > > > > conversation might run like this: > > > > > > > 'So what do you want to do now Neil'? > > > > > > 'Study Orn's brain'. > > > > > > 'How'? > > > > > > 'Dice it'. > > > > > > 'Why'? > > > > > > 'To compare it with prawn brains'. > > > > > > 'Would you intend to dice the prawn brains too'? > > > > > > 'Most certainly'. > > > > > > 'Thank you doctor, we will inform you of the decision in writing'. > > > > > > > Some months later, long after actual experiments have been done, a > > > > > > letter will arrive in my pigeon-hole. 'My dear Neil, the committee > > > > > > struggled long and hard on the fate of the prawns and some thought > > > > > > your methods a tad cruel. After months of deliberation we are > > > > > > hungry > > > > > > and have decided to give your research the green light, with the > > > > > > proviso you organise a barbecue with the unwanted body-parts. By > > > > > > the > > > > > > way, old boy, what is an Orn?' > > > > > > > Some think the ancient wisdoms have bee subjected to fair and > > > > > > considerable criticism over many centuries and have been discarded > > > > > > because they are dross, classic examples of circular thinking and > > > > > > words to catch the gullible. We should be open to this. The > > > > > > literature is vast. I'm aware of ten books and over 100 papers on > > > > > > 'The Matrix' and this nears out for all kinds of trivia. > > > > > > > On 26 Nov, 15:10, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > You forgot the bathchairs and Zimmers Gabbers, and bring some of > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > dry biscuits everyone tries to feed to old people. I don't advise > > > > > > > sharp sticks, as we might get poked back. > > > > > > > > I think Orn is right about trying for something in immediate > > > > > > > experience and beyond 'normal experience'. I could, of course, > > > > > > > produce a long line of idiots who tried this out and ended-up at > > > > > > > Her > > > > > > > Majesty's Pleasure as we have banned the possession of 'relevant > > > > > > > substances'. In conversation with one speedball freak, he was > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > disappointed his illegal experiences did not match mine after a > > > > > > > mere > > > > > > > period of sensory deprivation. I assume we mean something else. > > > > > > > > Justin is probably wrong on what Western philosophy has been up > > > > > > > to, > > > > > > > and when it started the 'Eastern turn' - the Greek origins > > > > > > > themselves > > > > > > > are false (much is plagiarized from earlier civilizations) and > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > more Middle Eastern than we understand now. I may be able to > > > > > > > explain > > > > > > > this, but I'd be much more interested in the difference between > > > > > > > us in > > > > > > > experiencing the ancient readings. I find them and most > > > > > > > philosophy > > > > > > > dull! Husserl is claimed by many and read by almost no one - > > > > > > > he's an > > > > > > > agony. He is the standard reference for half-wit researchers > > > > > > > claiming > > > > > > > qualitative research is something science doesn't do. In fact, > > > > > > > he is > > > > > > > just a convenient and tame source, an excuse for not finding out > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > hard science is to do. What could e more qualitative than > > > > > > > thinking > > > > > > > about what light actually is, including whether it is 'real' or > > > > > > > not? > > > > > > > There remains something important in what Justin says, but I don't > > > > > > > feel we necessarily dismiss ancient wisdom and texts lightly. > > > > > > > Some of > > > > > > > this reminds me a bit of debriefing detectives who have been out > > > > > > > doing > > > > > > > the leg-work. Many will come up dry, but knowing what has been > > > > > > > explored does aid the enquiry. > > > > > > > > On 26 Nov, 13:48, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Wanting to discriminate between dissolution and disillusion > > > > > > > > sometimes > > > > > > > > demands the call for an hearing aid, is what I understand. > > > > > > > > > On 26 Nov., 13:40, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You got all that right DJ - the problem with competitive > > > > > > > > > learning and > > > > > > > > > rewards as one of human interests. The idea is to make the > > > > > > > > > choice > > > > > > > > > available in decision at the personal level coincide with > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > > > > interest. I'd go some way down this route, but we need a fix > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > personal virtue. Orn and Vam often seem to be saying the > > > > > > > > > answers are > > > > > > > > > more in the latter. The ancient wisdoms have, of course, > > > > > > > > > been around > > > > > > > > > a long time. Are they solutions or part of the problem? I > > > > > > > > > used to > > > > > > > > > love cricket, but have seen this fine tradition lapse under > > > > > > > > > competitive pressures. One can play for the wrong reasons. > > > > > > > > > > On 26 Nov, 06:04, dj Briscoe <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Oh......... > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Vamadevananda > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " ... ancient methods of fully understanding a complete > > > > > > > > > > > thought." > > > > > > > > > > > > One of which as defined in Patanjal Yoga : > > > > > > > > > > > > Savitarka Samadhi | > > > > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > > > > Nirvitarka Samadhi | pertaining to gross material > > > > > > > > > > > objects > > > > > > > > > > > > Savichar Samadhi | > > > > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > > > > Nirvichar Samadhi | pertaining to subtle mental ( > > > > > > > > > > > subjective ) > > > > > > > > > > > objects > > > > > > > > > > > > and, Kaivalya Samadhi >>> the Supreme Truth of truths. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 8:26 am, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes Neil, it is common to not have enough ‘facts’ to > > > > > > > > > > > > make wise > > > > > > > > > > > > decisions. In fact, some people do consciously > > > > > > > > > > > > withhold, some lie, > > > > > > > > > > > > some are ignorant, some obtuse…and this is just with > > > > > > > > > > > > themselves! Of > > > > > > > > > > > > course there are those who suggest one can never have > > > > > > > > > > > > enough in the > > > > > > > > > > > > way of facts to make a good decision. I don’t agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > And, there are > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient methods of fully understanding a complete > > > > > > > > > > > > thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 25, 5:36 pm, archytas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
