[MD] Reductionism

[X Acto]

That post was not an invitation for a discussion.
It was more like a dare.

Lila quotes at the ready, standard issue Platt responses ready to be fired off.

I think we know how you feel already.

It's just become so routine.

No thought to furthering a view or coming to a mutual agreement
just line drawing in the sand and a dare to cross.

It's like you love to argue about this stuff more than actually making a contribution
toward understanding.

There is a point where arguement just turns into alot of bitching just to bitch.
and if thats what you need, vent, thats fine. just vent. But a close freind
of mine used to listen to Rush and the "G" man and it used to get him all worked
up. To a point where he was just angry ALL the time, at the time we shared
alot of political views but hanging out with him was like sticking my head in a vice.
He ended up taking some of my advice and gave it a break for a few weeks
and he felt alot better. His response was ingnorance is bliss, I said getting
yourself worked up over stuff you can't control is hell, why put yourself there?

-Ron





 



________________________________
From: "plattholden at gmail.com" <plattholden at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 12:46:54 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism

On 1 Jun 2009 at 7:51, X Acto wrote:

> you start this inflammatory bullshit Platt, then cry when you 
> get responses in opposition.
> 
> every god damn time
> 
> give it a break
> 

What inflammatory bullshit?

Platt


> ________________________________
> From: "plattholden at gmail.com" <plattholden at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 10:46:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism
> 
> 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.  
> 
> 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
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
>      
> 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/


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/