[MD] Reductionism

[MarshaV]

Krimel,

That was reductionism, not rationalism.  Sorry.


Marsha


At 11:00 AM 6/1/2009, you wrote:

>Greetings Krimel,
>
>At 09:42 AM 6/1/2009, you 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.
>
>Sometimes you do, and sometimes you don't, sometimes you can seem to 
>talk from both perspectives in the same post.  It can be 
>frustrating, and you almost never tie it back to the MoQ perspective 
>unless it is to disagree with something RMP has written.  If someone 
>asked if you were a reductionist or a systems thinker, I'd 
>answer:  a reductionist.  That's how experience your posts.  But 
>maybe you care deeply for the System Theory, but are a detail 
>thinker.  I'd don't know.  Something doesn't jive.  I have you 
>pegged as being of the Rationalism and Scientific Realism 
>persuasion.  Look them up in Wikipedia, and see if you disagree with 
>me.  It's not enough to mention systems now and then, System Theory 
>is a very different approach.
>
>imho
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>Science has been ignoring the operator's point-of-view for so 
>long.  It's laughable to suggest otherwise. -  And are you trying to 
>reduce this to an either/or situation?  Seeeee.
>
>If something seems wrong from the MoQ point-of-view, that doesn't 
>mean it is WRONG and should be destroyed.  Patterns are patterns.
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>Again, it doesn't have to be either/or.   I would think that RMP is 
>an all-a-rounder, or at least that was the impression I have from reading ZMM.
>
>
>Marsha
>
>
>
>.
>_____________
>
>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.
>
>.
>.
>
>
>
>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/


.
_____________

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.

.
.