From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue Aug 03 2004 - 07:09:06 BST
On 2 Aug 2004 at 21:04, ml wrote:
Hi Mark, Paul, DavidM, and all,
> msh asked:
> 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?
msh says:
I guess not. But I do know a little about Calculus, and it sounded
like you saw in the development of Calculus "the technique of an
outside confirmation of an operational mechanism," your words, which
I don't really understand.
Here's Paul's question and the relevant portion of your response:
>Paul:
>An interesting post, Mel, but I'm not sure what your main point is.
>Is it about the parallels between "emergence" and Dynamic evolution?
>mel:
>YES!
>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 continues:
I thought you might be able to elaborate on this technique and help
me in my understanding of the "intersection of Emergence and DQ."
Continuing...
> paul asked:
> >Is it that intellectual argument about the MOQ's finer points is
> >"insignificant decoration?"
>
> mel responded:
> 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 said:
> 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.
msh:
As a matter of fact I am familiar with deconstructionism in literary
criticism, and I agree that this is often self-serving decoration.
I'm not sure that I'd agree that this is "deliberate pursuit of the
Static in the face of knowledge of the Dynamic" because I think those
MOQish S/D terms are unknown to the the major decorators. The
humanities, with the possible exception of Philosophy/Logic, are
hopelessly and beautifully and profoundly subjective, and should be
proud of it. I was thinking more of the hard sciences when it comes
to knowledge-base contributions.
mel:
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
msh:
I'd be interested to know what changed after three years. Sure, the
private sector can be creative and dynamic, but so can the public
sector. The differences between the two sectors is about funding and
subjects of study. The private sector is not likely to study
anything that can't be justified in terms of the bottom line. This,
to me, is the pursuit of profit, not truth.
Continuing...
paul asked:
Are (some of) our discussions holding the MOQ back?
mel responded:
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 said:
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?
msh says:
It's quite clear. You value discussion of the MOQ. You say the
expressions of "personal ideologies" retards such discussion. Read
his question and your response.
mel continued:
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 says:
All views are personal. Not all personal views are held
passionately, and, even if some are, your implication seems to be
that passion destroys rationality. This may be true for some, but
certainly not all.
msh continued:
Any system of thought is an ideology, even the MOQ.
mel responded:
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'.
msh says:
Your use of the word "ideology" is highly idiosyncratic. The
dictionary definition of the word suggests nothing about needs,
aspirations, commitments, or causes. So in your phrase "personal
ideologies" maybe it's the word "personal" that you believe carries
this extra weight. I see no reason why it should.
msh asked:
Is this related to your idea of the undesirability of "hot-button" >
issues?
mel replied:
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:
So it's the response, not the issue, that may be "Hot-Button",
reactive without thought, knee-jerk. Might be better to say "Hot-
Button responses." Tons of people are capable of providing cold-
button, rational analysis of a wide variety of views, even if their
views are passionately held. Just try me. Or, if you really want a
lesson in the art of passionate rationality, try Chomsky.
msh said:
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 replied:
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.
msh says:
Fair enough. Your position is that of the vast majority of this
forum's contributors: discussion/learning is an end in itself.
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 : Tue Aug 03 2004 - 08:56:29 BST