[MD] Science and the MOQ

[Krimel]

Arlo and Ron,

I do not know anything about plasma but suspect that as a very high energy
state it would not conduct well.

I think what troubles me about Platt and the Randian's emphasis on
individuality is the idea that the first to have an idea 'owns' it. I can
think of nothing more subversive to free freedom of speech than the concept
of ideas as personal property.


[Krimel]
1) Someone has to be first, but why and so what?

[Arlo]
At the risk of overstating the obvious, no one person here is 
"first". Each of these scientists worked not only in teams, depended 
on a division of labor, but likely drew their inspirations out of the 
rich dialogic interactions not only "in real time" but also 
historically. What you describe is the cultural tradition of 
assigning something to "a creator", but a closer examination shows 
this is never so. And, at the risk of knowing this will bring the 
tired old barrage of "herd mentality" and "neosocialist agenda", I 
posit that a more accurate examination of the collective activity 
from which these achievements derive reveals a systems ecology, where 
depending on your focus highlights certain individuals as "keystone 
species" but never loses sight of the larger context from which this 
activity derives.

A view similar to this (the naturalist in me prefers the ecology 
metaphor) is known as "Activity Theory", and derives from the work 
conducted by Lev Vygotsky and his 
colleagues.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_theory). This 
theory considers "socially-situated activity" and attempts to move 
beyond (what I would say is S/O) dualistic thinking. There are, of 
course, obvious parallels between this and Pirsig (who offers the 
idea that "intellect" emerges from "social patterns").

[Krimel]
2) The practice of science in terms of scientists understanding of 
what they are doing. Pursuing knowledge and or wisdom? By showing us 
two different styles of competition for advancement we get insight 
into how competition moves knowledge forward and how two very 
different styles of competition produce different outcomes.

[Arlo]
We are continually told in our culture that man is essentially 
selfish, and motivated only be self-interest and furthering 
self-capital. To this end, competition as so described is the natural 
product of two people rushing to "cash in" (either by reaping social 
status, praise, money or the idea of securing historical 
recognition). This, we are told, is the "right", natural state of 
things. Maybe it is. Apparently, pooling their resources and sharing 
their glory was an obscene thought for these scientists, as I'm sure 
the selfish-man crowd will applaud. Still, I wonder if this is a 
cultural phenomenon and not something innate or superior. I am struck 
by Pirsig's recognition of this in ZMM.

"And now he began to see for the first time the unbelievable 
magnitude of what man, when he gained power to understand and rule 
the world in terms of dialectic truths, had lost. He had built 
empires of scientific capability to manipulate the phenomena of 
nature into enormous manifestations of his own dreams of power and 
wealth...but for this he had exchanged an empire of understanding of 
equal magnitude: an understanding of what it is to be a part of the 
world, and not an enemy of it." (ZMM)

[Krimel]
3) The program provides some real insight into the nature of matter. 
Here the end goal is to place matter into an undifferentiated 
Absolute state and the results reveal some astonishing properties.

[Arlo]
Thanks for the link, looking forward to checking out the video.



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/