Re: MD DQ & emergence

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon Aug 02 2004 - 21:08:53 BST

  • Next message: johnny moral: "Re: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise"

    Hi Mel, Paul, DavidM, and all,

    mel:
    Just as contrast from a second light source helps sharpen images in
    photography, so to does the technique of an outside confirmation of
    an operational mechanism help strip unneeded steps away in arriving
    at the core of a thing you are studying. (This mechanism gave us us
    calculus from algebra.)

    msh asks:
    By "us" I guess you mean Newton or Liebniz. Could you expand on how
    "the technique of an outside confirmation of an operational
    mechanism" helped either of them invent the Calculus? This might
    help me understand what you're getting at.

    paul:
    >Is it that intellectual argument about the MOQ's finer points is
    >"insignificant decoration?"

    mel:
    The insignificant decoration I refer to is the Static Accumulation
    concomitant with intellection on nearly any subject. Universities
    are full of people who make careers of placing the decoration on any
    branch of knowledge and pretending they are contributing
    significantly to the body of knowledge.

    msh says:
    Curious anti-academic trend here, Mel. People at Universities are
    also responsible for tremendous contributions to knowledge. And the
    "decoration" you speak of exists to a much higher degree in other
    areas of life, in politics or advertising, for example, which are
    just about 100% pure decoration, IMO.

    paul:
    >Are (some of) our discussions holding the MOQ back?

    mel:
    Only when we bog down in personal ideologies, but on the whole
    I'd say quite the opposite. We are still reaching for fluency as
    individuals until we "GET IT", then we should burn everything we've
    written to avoid creating a DOGMA of Quality.

    msh says:
    Not sure I agree with your pejorative sense of "personal ideologies,"
    and wonder why you're interested to convey it. Any system of thought
    is an ideology, even the MOQ.

    Is this related to your idea of the undesirability of "hot-button"
    issues? For me, if a metaphyisics is not useful in real-world
    problem clarification and solution, then spending a lot of time
    discussing it is, well, ego-driven at least, if not pure intellectual
    self-gratification.

    mel:
    Moving from SOM to MoQ is a pretty tectonic shift in the world
    view we are taught to hold. Staring out my window this morning,
     while sitting at a red light, I looked out at the bank and shopping
    mall. I thought how little I get MoQ in daily life and the bricks
    and mortar at which I stared and the institutions supporting them
    would have no appreciation of the MoQ distinctions.

    msh says:
    I agree completely. What would someone who has completely broken
    away from SOM be like, I wonder.

    Thanks,
    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)

    -- 
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
    "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is 
    everything."  -- Henri Poincare'
    MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward  - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 02 2004 - 21:03:03 BST