Define "inflammatory." On the surface it appears to mean opinions you don't like.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 7:25, X Acto wrote: > > Platt, > Just to refresh your memory your original inflammitory post direct > from the archives: > [MD] Reductionismplattholden at gmail.com plattholden at gmail.com > Mon Jun 1 07:46:08 PDT 2009 > * Previous message: [MD] Reductionism > * Next message: [MD] Reductionism > * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] > ________________________________ > > On 1 Jun 2009 at 9:42, Krimel wrote: > > > [Marsha] > > Systems thinking: > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NCpdLKhY04&feature=related > > > > [Krimel] > > Thanks Marsha, that really was a simple and concise explanation. I hope you > > will notice that I am almost always talking about systems. Platt has > > explicitly criticized me and Ian for that at least as often as Dave has > > accused me of be a reductionist. Notice what the guy says about engines and > > spark plugs. He says, "What would you say if I told you I knew all about > > spark plugs but nothing about engines?" This I think is what Dave is > > accusing me of; focusing on spark plugs. But I don't see how anyone can > > claim to know about engines if they know nothing about spark plugs. We can > > know a lot about engines and what they do and how to operate them without > > mentioning the parts involved. But to gain a deeper understand not only of > > how to operate an engine but how it works and how to fix it we are going to > > have to look at the parts. > > > > Engines are pluralistic. From the point of view of the engine operator the > > parts are irrelevant, as long as the engine runs. When it stops running we > > have to look for another point of view. It seems wrong to me to claim that > > the operator's point of view is "better" because it is holistic and a > > mechanics view is wrong because it is reductionistic and riddled with > > philosophical error. After all mechanics can run the equipment too. There is > > nothing about their knowledge of engine detail that stands in the way of > > their holistic understanding of the value of engines. In fact the holist > > view of the engine helps them tune the parts to make it function and > > function better. > > > > This, I think, is the whole point of ZMM and Pirsig's take on the > > romantic/classic split. The romantic may enjoy driving an elegantly designed > > motorcycle but they will always be dependent on someone else to keep it > > running. The classist can not only keep his cycle running but can write a > > book about how all those motorcycle parts relate to everything from the open > > road to western philosophy. > > Human beings are not spark plugs. That's the problem with systems > thinking. Another word for it is collectivist thinking. It killed millions of > human beings in the 20th century under fascist and communist regimes. > Another example: eco-systems thinking banned DDT, killing millions in > Africa. > > When you think of people as motors, jellyfish or state waves instead of > individuals capable of responding to DQ, you not only get murderous > governments, you get ideas like Bohm's that social "fragmentation" is > bad. By contrast, it's believing that individual differences are good that > provides the foundation of liberty. > > Systems thinking applied to human society is a recipe for disaster. > We're witnessing its negative effects in the U.S. today as we are > marched by egomaniacs down the road to serfdom. > > Platt > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > 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/ 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/
