You're too kind David, Definition in that very broad sense - dialogue being part of the whole activity of defining - I am OK with. ie Keep talking.
Being definitive as in "a definition", or worse still "the definition", is where I suggest beware getting too hung up (beyond a very specific context or purpose) And yes of course sq has value - it's where most value is "locked-up" at any given time - the stability of static latches. The problem with reductionism is the same wariness I suggest above. The more removed the smaller pieces of pattern are away from the whole, the harder it is to realise their value - a castle built entirely of static patterns has a lot of value firmly locked-up with a great deal of latching in your way. In Dennett's words reductionism is OK, just avoid "greedy reductionism" - the kind of reductionism where you believe that having found all the smallest indivisible parts, you somehow "know" the whole. Reductionism is OK as part of the explanatory process, but not as the answer, the explanation itself - eg to a question of definition for example. Ian On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:11 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ian, > >> What's wrong with reductionism ? It has diminishing value. Ever more >> precisely defined objects in smaller and smaller contexts, which lose >> sight of the fact that the patterns and unpatterned whole are more >> valuable than those well defined objects. > > I think that reductionism applies to more than just objects and while it may > have diminishing value it is still valuable. Especially when looking at > something as fundamental as: "Is art Dynamic Quality or isn't it?" In my view > such a question strikes at the heart of what Dynamic Quality is not. > > To reduce something to parts of something is basically an act of creating > static quality and while Dynamic Quality is fundamental, static quality is > still valuable. What do you think? > >> (Incidentally whilst I don't subscribe to Ham's essentialism, I >> effectively agreed with him there in that I had already said DQ could >> be seen as a term for the undefined - or the unpatterned - to answer >> your specific additional question. So, no DQ, is not a pattern.) >> >> Can I "define" my answers ? >> Yes I could, but no I can't. >> An answer is what is given when you ask a question. >> That's a definition, but not much use I suspect. >> Why the fixation with definition ? > > Because everything is a definition. By my writing these words now I am > defining out this post to MD. All intellectual static quality is really just > one definition after another. > >> I'm losing the will to take your further questioning seriously, since >> you obviously know the answers to your own questions - so I need to >> know where you're headed with this. What's the point - where's the >> value ? >> >> Ian > > Where's the value? While it may appear that I know the answers to these > questions, and yes I have my own ideas about them, and even about your > potential ideas; I have no real way of knowing what will come out of your > mouth until you have spoken. Maybe your ideas are better than mine? This is > the creative discussion that is MD. > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
