is systems theory a theory?
--- On Tue, 2/6/09, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism > To: [email protected] > Received: Tuesday, 2 June, 2009, 4:50 PM > > 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/ > Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline 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/
