>[Krimel] >Thanks Marsha, that really was a simple and concise explanation. I hope you >will notice that I am almost always talking about systems.
[Marsha] 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. [Krimel] Actually I use systems theory as a fish uses water. It is so integral to how I think that I don't notice it or see any need to go on about what is self evident to me. Part of the problem is that to see how a system works you have to have some concept of the parts. These conversations typically get so bogged down in the parts that the system gets lost. For example with regards to consciousness I have tried many times to talk about specific brain functions and how they are parallel processes which are synthesized into perception. Among these parallel processes are the five sense, emotions and memory. I have talked about how disruptions in any of these systems can have a profound effect on the whole. I don't see this as reductionistic and never have but we do tend to get sidetrack by trees so much that the forest is often forgotten. I think scientific realism is way more extreme than the kind of naturalism that I actually do favor but again we never really get to that kind of discussion so that my arguments against idealism, which I really do think is stupid, get interpreted as extreme. But in the end all this does is reinforcement the point I have been trying to make: communication is a lossy process. I would have to agree that I have been frequently unkind and overly critical of Bob. But this is typically in response to various interpretations of his phrasing. As I have also said, I think his instincts for the really critical issues are uncanny. But I don't think he always comes down on the right side of some these issues or sometimes he doesn't grasp the full implications of what he has said. His focus on native American values, random access, chaos, Taoism and evolution are all very valuable. My often strident objections as I see them are quibbling over details but those details are the kind of "extraneous variables"/"inexhaustible riches" that give a system its mature form. [Marsha] 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. [Krimel] Well here is where I not only think you are dead wrong but that the wrongness colors your patterns a murky shade of gray. Systems theory grows out of science or even more perniciously out of those step children of science: technology and engineering. It results from attempts to implement fragmentary scientific findings into working models of both products and social structures. Even more than that; ecology is systems theory integrated into biology. Ethnology is systems theory integrated into anthropology and sociology. Your Mindwalk physicist spends a lot of time expounding systems theory in physics. Systems theory is so much a part of modern scientific thinking, I cannot imagine how you could miss it without exerting a lot effort. [Marsha] If something seems wrong from the MoQ point-of-view, that doesn't mean it is WRONG and should be destroyed. Patterns are patterns. [Krimel] If this is an invitation to expound on your misconceptions about conceptualization I am going to have to pass. But thanks for the invite. [Marsha] 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. [Krimel] It is only either/or for the romantic and then only results from a kind of warped and regressive, Aw Gi aesthetics. But yes RMP is an all-a-rounder and that, as I see it, was the whole point of ZMM. 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/
