From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Aug 03 2004 - 04:04:02 BST
Hi Mark, Paul, DavidM, and all,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: MD DQ & emergence
> Hi Mel, Paul, DavidM, and all,
>
>
> 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.
>
mel:
Us, is anyone benefiting from the use of calculus, however, don't get bogged
down by the example. The point of the original answer was to look at the
possible intersection of Emergence and DQ. Does emergence in the context
of complex systems make sense to you, from the earlier discussion, Mark?
I don't know your background and we need to make sure our terminology is
in agreement.
------------------------------------------------
> 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.
mel:
Not anti-academic, but rather recognition of the static SOM oriented
pursuits and practices, that have settled into far too much of academia.
(Are you familiar with some of the extreme deconstructionist literary
currents?) What would you call the deliberate pursuit of the Static in the
face of your knowledge of the Dynamic? Decoration seems mild.
I agree with decoration as more a part of other areas to a high degree.
Although, in the first three years outside of academic life, I found the
commercial and private world more dynamic and creative than most of
what I'd found in academia. .More enthusiastic and passionate
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
mel:
Fascinating! How is it you see a pejorative implication in the
answer to Paul's question? My use is but observational. e.g. The
conservative capitalist/liberal socialist flavor of some of the debate
IS a personal view. Personal views are often passionate.
------------------------------------------------------------------
msh:
>Any system of thought is an ideology, even the MOQ.
mel:
After reflecting on this statement, I have to disagree.
Not all systems of thought are ideologies, with the social
needs and aspirations, the personal commitment of a 'cause'.
Many are or can be methodologies, with higher potential and
actual value. I see MoQ in this light.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> msh says:
> Is this related to your idea of the undesirability of "hot-button"
> issues?
mel:
Hot-Button issues are, in my lexicon, those where a person's
response is reactive without thought - knee-jerk. Always a
behavior worth watching to avoid the undesirability of unawareness.
Personal ideologies can fall into this category --
e.g. Pro-life/Pro-choice rarely debate dispassionately.
===============================================
> msh says:
>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:
It seems that if a meta-physic fits the spiritual qualities of
my life it is worthwhile. The real world problems and
solutions seem to fit in a more a more philosophical place
and the technologies of life's systems. (technology in as how
things are done, not the 'hardware'.)
Discussion to me exists to "interpenetrate" thought and the
pattern which is the goal of the learning.
<snip>
> msh says:
> I agree completely. What would someone who has completely broken
> away from SOM be like, I wonder.
>
mel:
Hopefully we will find out. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
thanks--mel
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 : Tue Aug 03 2004 - 04:08:07 BST