Ron,
Matt didn't say this below. I did.
thanks.
SA
> Matt:
> I'm in the middle of trying to define what is an
> 'emergency' at work. What we end up using and
> enforcing as an 'emergency' will probably differ
> than an emergency in Iraq.
>
> Ron:
> Coincidentally I've been doing some observations
> along this line.
> An emergency is that which emerges from the system
> of social processes.
> If the emergency is of high enough urgency to be
> addressed, it is
> addressed by The appropriate emergency response
> systems set up in anticipation.
>
> Emergency response teams are typically set up to lay
> out a
> System onto a dynamic chaotic emergent situation.
> They layout a pattern in which to understand
> Effectively contain and process the event into
> The social system by qualified individuals
> Who are trained to recognize and respond to
> particular
> Qualities associated with these particular events.
>
> In our culture Emergency has become synonymous with
> urgency.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Matt Kundert
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [MD] subject/object: pragmatism
>
>
> SA, Ian, Ron, Arlo,SA said:Exactly my point. You
> even say here, "we aren't defining_completely_,".
> I've also said on other posts we do try to define
> these levels, and it is an on-going process. I'm not
> contradicting myself. I've been holding the same
> view. As I said above, "This is how improvising
> works so well on the day to day events." I'm in the
> middle of trying to define what is an 'emergency' at
> work. What we end up using and enforcing as an
> 'emergency' will probably differ than an emergency
> in Iraq. So, when I say we can't define intellect,
> this is a statement that will work around the world
> due to diversity and why I believe it holds well
> with democracy. This statement emphasizes the
> openness where creativity can sprout. When I say we
> can try to define intellect (and we do and will) and
> it is an on-going process....Matt:As a point of
> logic, the only way you don't contradict yourself is
> if you switch definitions of "define," which allows
> you to say both "can" and "can't." As a point of
> etiquette, I wouldn't stress the non-contradictory
> nature of your statements if doing so requires you
> to be explicit about a concerted effort to employ
> such a switch. It's what they call
> sleight-of-hand.Which doesn't matter all that much,
> because I see that you're saying something similar.
> We can't define, in the sense of define that Plato
> thought we could do. We can define, in the sense of
> define in which pragmatists suggest is all we need
> (and most people wander through their lives doing
> without worrying about philosophy).SA said:I realize
> you've placed language in the same area as the moq's
> intellectual level. Yes, you've defined language as
> being what's on this level, but I would say a better
> understanding of all the languages would be to know
> all the diverse languages. Some languages do some
> 'things' for some cultures, that other languages of
> other cultures don't do. Yes, they are all
> languages, but each language is diverse enough (some
> more than others of course) to demonstrate a diverse
> realities. How does this fit into what your
> saying?Matt:I'm not positive what you're saying
> here, but it doesn't sound adverse. I agree that
> each language does different things, which is why in
> English we pick up other phrases from other
> languages in toto, rather than translate. It is
> easier sometimes to just incorporate the foreign
> word or phrase into the mother tongue to use it the
> way the foreigners use it. Using the singular
> "language" has its pitfalls certainly, but it's
> easier when you are trying to talk about the
> commonality between all the diverse ones.SA said:By
> the way, I see language on the intellectual level,
> too. I see language as another kind of paint brush
> or musical instrument, poetry if you will. Language
> is a very creative intellectual tool.Ian
> said:Agreed. But the point is it's a creative tool
> on the social level too ... so in itself ....
> language, symbol manipulation, communication ...
> does not help distinguish what is
> intellectual.Matt:Yeah, language is inherently
> social, which is why I tend to boot "social" and
> "intellectual" as level-monikers.Ron said:Perhaps
> intellectual is the individual manifestation of
> culture Or culture of the individual.Matt:"Culture
> of the individual" is far closer to what I like to
> think of as what happened in Greece. I think this
> culture is what you get with democracy (as you later
> referenced). But Ian is absolutely right that
> "collective v. individual" is far too simplistic to
> get at the difference between a putative social and
> putative intellectual level. (Though I think Ian
> and I may have different reasons for thinking so.
> For instance, though I think Ian's continuum between
> authority and critical thinking is an important one,
> I think it is at cross-purposes with my view of
> level-making. My reasons for rejecting the
> "collective v. individual" as the contrast that
> gives meaning to "individual" are pretty much those
> of Arlo, though my reasons for keeping the word
> around are because I'm emphazing the _culture_ bit.
> I should also add that there is very good reason to
> think there is a contrast between cultures in which
> everything is up for political grabs--a _culture_
> that could under strain be called "collective"--and
> cultures in which there is an inviolable sphere of
> action, a culture that creates a public/private
> distinction. This latter distinction is what I
> think creates the culture of the individual, and the
> best wisdom on the subject is still found in Isaiah
> Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty".) On my account,
> the invention of politics was the invention of the
> individual, and there's nothing called "politics"
> without at least the idea of democracy
> (authoritarianisms do not allow politics by
> definition, since there's nothing political about
> rule by fiat).Matt
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the
> Messenger Café. Stop by today.
>
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
