Krimel writes:
Gentlemen, mind if I jump in? This raises a few
issues I have pursued at
length here in the past. Perhaps I will have better
luck this time...
Jorge: I, for one, don't mind at all your jumping in.
I don't know in which way you were unlucky before but
your observations make a lot of sense to me in their
present version.
Krimel: Whatever system of thought one adopts will
include elements that cannot be defined by the system.
This lack of definition introduces a degree of
uncertainty into the system of thought. Logical rigor,
precision of
measurement, meditative practices, prayer and flipping
coins are all
frequently used to reduce uncertainty but that is all
they can do.
Jorge: just a cautionary note: When talking about well
defined systems regarding the question of energy
absorbed or released by the system, I was talking
about systems as in Thermodynamics and not so much
'systems of thought' . In principle, such systems can
be far better specified than systems of thought. That
said, your point still holds: the system does not
define its elements (components?) or its boundaries;
it is the person that designs the system the one that
decides what is going to be inside it and what is left
in "environment" or "surroundings", which variables
are included and so on.
Just to be in the safe side and be sure we are
talking of the same thing, by "system of thought" you
mean the likes of Marxism, Catholicism, Positivism,
etc.?
Krimel: Uncertainty (the undefined) can not be undone.
It can only be managed.
Jorge: Quite so. But if I may amplify? Uncertainty
does not arise solely from difficulties in definition
but also stems from difficulties in predicting the
outcome of a certain process (the outcome of a game of
poker for instance). I interpret your sentences above
in the sense that, for an actual process, whose result
is, to some degree, uncertain, we cannot ignore
(undo?) uncertainty but only manage it?
If it were so (and correct me if I misread you) an aim
of Science, as a system of thought, is to minimize
uncertainty, whereas Art, as a system of thought,
manages uncertainty by "playing with" it and does not
strive to minimize it.
Jorge(previous):
Quality, particularly as it is seen by the MOQ,
resists definition and measurement and we'd better
leave it like that. Little is to be gained, and much
to be lost, by attempts to encompass it in precise
(and hence, necessarily narrow) formulations. In this
it stands together with Beauty which has lost nothing
of its power as an idea for being equally reluctant.
[Krimel] :
When we say for example that Quality can not be
defined, I take that to mean
that Quality can not be precisely defined. Any
definition will exclude
something important or include something false.
Jorge: Agreed that any definition, by its very nature,
is bound to exclude something potentially important.
However, I did not say that Quality cannot be defined;
anything can be defined, I said that it 'resists
definition' meaning that it's not easy for us to
formulate a good definition, so does Art by the way.
Krimel: To say that Quality is undefined is not a
demand for perfect precision; it
is a recognition that there are fundamental
limitations on how precise we can be.
Jorge: I tend to agree in that too. And, on this
amiable note, I cut here and leave the rest for
tomorrow. The second part is to be longer than this
one.
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Inbox. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
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/
