At 04:19 AM 6/2/2009, you wrote:
is systems theory a theory?
Hi Gav,
It's a theory in that its definition can be found in scientific
journals and wikipedia, but it also seems a better explanation of the
immediate experience. It represents a new, scientific world-view.
Marsha
--- 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/
.
_____________
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/
