immediate experience doesn't need explaining, just describing. --- 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, 6:32 PM > 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/ > 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/
