[MD] Reductionism

[MarshaV]

At 10:46 AM 6/1/2009, you wrote:
>On 1 Jun 2009 at 9:42, Krimel wrote:
>
> > [Marsha]
> > Systems thinking:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NCpdLKhY04&feature=related
> >
> > [Krimel]
> > Thanks Marsha, that really was a simple and concise explanation. I hope you
> > will notice that I am almost always talking about systems. Platt has
> > explicitly criticized me and Ian for that at least as often as Dave has
> > accused me of be a reductionist. Notice what the guy says about engines and
> > spark plugs. He says, "What would you say if I told you I knew all about
> > spark plugs but nothing about engines?" This I think is what Dave is
> > accusing me of; focusing on spark plugs. But I don't see how anyone can
> > claim to know about engines if they know nothing about spark plugs. We can
> > know a lot about engines and what they do and how to operate them without
> > mentioning the parts involved. But to gain a deeper understand not only of
> > how to operate an engine but how it works and how to fix it we are going to
> > have to look at the parts.
> >
> > Engines are pluralistic. From the point of view of the engine operator the
> > parts are irrelevant, as long as the engine runs. When it stops running we
> > have to look for another point of view. It seems wrong to me to claim that
> > the operator's point of view is "better" because it is holistic and a
> > mechanics view is wrong because it is reductionistic and riddled with
> > philosophical error. After all mechanics can run the equipment 
> too. There is
> > nothing about their knowledge of engine detail that stands in the way of
> > their holistic understanding of the value of engines. In fact the holist
> > view of the engine helps them tune the parts to make it function and
> > function better.
> >
> > This, I think, is the whole point of ZMM and Pirsig's take on the
> > romantic/classic split. The romantic may enjoy driving an 
> elegantly designed
> > motorcycle but they will always be dependent on someone else to keep it
> > running. The classist can not only keep his cycle running but can write a
> > book about how all those motorcycle parts relate to everything 
> from the open
> > road to western philosophy.
>
>Human beings are not spark plugs. That's the problem with systems
>thinking. Another word for it is collectivist thinking. It killed millions of
>human beings in the 20th century under fascist and communist regimes.
>Another example: eco-systems thinking banned DDT, killing millions in
>Africa.
>
>When you think of people as motors, jellyfish or state waves instead of
>individuals capable of responding to DQ, you not only get murderous
>governments, you get ideas like Bohm's that social "fragmentation" is
>bad. By contrast, it's believing that  individual differences are good that
>provides the foundation of liberty.


Platt,

Motors, jellyfish, state waves and 'system theory' are not things 
separate from individuals.  There's no problem here.

Marsha



>Systems thinking applied to human society is a recipe for disaster.
>We're witnessing its negative effects in the U.S. today as we are
>marched by egomaniacs down the road to serfdom.
>
>Platt





.
_____________

The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and 
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.

.
.