Krimel,
I should say first, I admire the breadth of your knowledge. I often
learn from your posts. I, on the other hand, know very little, which
I demonstrate daily on this list.
Systems theory to my understanding is about the relationships within
the whole, for example the relationship between human beings and
trees by the exchange of oxygen, the relationship between human
beings and earth with the exchange in nutrients, or the relationship
between automobile exhaust and air required by both trees, plants and
human beings. It might be very interested in a discarded automobile
battery's affects on the the water supply. Rather than the
hierarchical/evolutionary model it is reflected better in the Net of
Jewels model. And it seems to me that the point of the MoQ is that
both the Romantic and Classical points-of-view are both a product of
Quality. Isn't the point of the MoQ to heal that division?
You show a preference for Tao over Buddhism, but both are a MoQ
consideration. With some additional considerations
Emptiness/Nothingness are Dynamic Quality, while the Conventional is
static quality, and their relationship is one of mutual
dependence. Do you want to argue about that? Want to tell me this
is a mistake? On what basis other than your own preference? Yin
and yang, while an important aspect of Tao, has not been incorporated
into the MoQ.
I've asked you to present some sort of entity that is not
conceptually constructed? I cannot imagine why this challenge
doesn't interest you. There is direct experience, and there are
patterns that are conceptually constructed and labeled. To me this
has been the most profound discovery.
Btw, using the 'Aw Gi' label is not a legitimate argument.
I both admire you and find you frustrating.
Marsha
At 04:55 PM 6/1/2009, you wrote:
>[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/
.
_____________
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/
