On 1 Jun 2009 at 11:08, MarshaV wrote: > At 10:46 AM 6/1/2009, you wrote: > >On 1 Jun 2009 at 9:42, Krimel 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. 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > >Human beings are not spark plugs. That's the problem with systems > >thinking. Another word for it is collectivist thinking. It killed millions of > >human beings in the 20th century under fascist and communist regimes. > >Another example: eco-systems thinking banned DDT, killing millions in > >Africa. > > > >When you think of people as motors, jellyfish or state waves instead of > >individuals capable of responding to DQ, you not only get murderous > >governments, you get ideas like Bohm's that social "fragmentation" is > >bad. By contrast, it's believing that individual differences are good that > >provides the foundation of liberty. > > > Platt, > > Motors, jellyfish, state waves and 'system theory' are not things > separate from individuals. There's no problem here. > > Marsha
Marsha, Separate, no. Different, yes. Remember the levels. Platt 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/
