--- 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/
