Krimel,
That was reductionism, not rationalism. Sorry.
Marsha
At 11:00 AM 6/1/2009, you wrote:
Greetings Krimel,
At 09:42 AM 6/1/2009, you wrote:
[Marsha]
Systems thinking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NCpdLKhY04&feature=related
[Krimel]
Thanks Marsha, that really was a simple and concise explanation. I hope you
will notice that I am almost always talking about systems.
Sometimes you do, and sometimes you don't, sometimes you can seem to
talk from both perspectives in the same post. It can be
frustrating, and you almost never tie it back to the MoQ perspective
unless it is to disagree with something RMP has written. If someone
asked if you were a reductionist or a systems thinker, I'd
answer: a reductionist. That's how experience your posts. But
maybe you care deeply for the System Theory, but are a detail
thinker. I'd don't know. Something doesn't jive. I have you
pegged as being of the Rationalism and Scientific Realism
persuasion. Look them up in Wikipedia, and see if you disagree with
me. It's not enough to mention systems now and then, System Theory
is a very different approach.
imho
Platt has
explicitly criticized me and Ian for that at least as often as Dave has
accused me of be a reductionist. Notice what the guy says about engines and
spark plugs. He says, "What would you say if I told you I knew all about
spark plugs but nothing about engines?" This I think is what Dave is
accusing me of; focusing on spark plugs. But I don't see how anyone can
claim to know about engines if they know nothing about spark plugs. We can
know a lot about engines and what they do and how to operate them without
mentioning the parts involved. But to gain a deeper understand not only of
how to operate an engine but how it works and how to fix it we are going to
have to look at the parts.
Engines are pluralistic. From the point of view of the engine operator the
parts are irrelevant, as long as the engine runs. When it stops running we
have to look for another point of view. It seems wrong to me to claim that
the operator's point of view is "better" because it is holistic and a
mechanics view is wrong because it is reductionistic and riddled with
philosophical error. After all mechanics can run the equipment too. There is
nothing about their knowledge of engine detail that stands in the way of
their holistic understanding of the value of engines. In fact the holist
view of the engine helps them tune the parts to make it function and
function better.
Science has been ignoring the operator's point-of-view for so
long. It's laughable to suggest otherwise. - And are you trying to
reduce this to an either/or situation? Seeeee.
If something seems wrong from the MoQ point-of-view, that doesn't
mean it is WRONG and should be destroyed. Patterns are patterns.
This, I think, is the whole point of ZMM and Pirsig's take on the
romantic/classic split. The romantic may enjoy driving an elegantly designed
motorcycle but they will always be dependent on someone else to keep it
running. The classist can not only keep his cycle running but can write a
book about how all those motorcycle parts relate to everything from the open
road to western philosophy.
Again, it doesn't have to be either/or. I would think that RMP is
an all-a-rounder, or at least that was the impression I have from reading ZMM.
Marsha
.
_____________
The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
.
.
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/
.
_____________
The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
.
.
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/
