[MD] Reductionism

Tue Jun 2 04:33:56 PDT 2009

At 07:20 AM 6/2/2009, you wrote:

>immediate experience doesn't need explaining, just describing.

Gav,

That sounds correct.  If not explained or described, at least 
acknowledge rather than dismissed as irrelevant.  I know very little 
about Systems Theory.  My first exposure was in the movie, 
MINDWALK.  I brought in  the idea of 'immediate experience' because 
David Bohm talks about it.  He seems to be one of those scientists 
who has an interest in Systems Theory.

Marsha

>--- On Tue, 2/6/09, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
>
> > From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> > Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Received: Tuesday, 2 June, 2009, 6:32 PM
> > At 04:19 AM 6/2/2009, you wrote:
> >
> > >is systems theory a theory?
> >
> > Hi Gav,
> >
> > It's a theory in that its definition can be found in
> > scientific
> > journals and wikipedia, but it also seems a better
> > explanation of the
> > immediate experience.  It represents a new, scientific
> > world-view.
> >
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >--- On Tue, 2/6/09, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> > > > Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism
> > > > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > > > Received: Tuesday, 2 June, 2009, 4:50 PM
> > > >
> > > > Krimel,
> > > >
> > > > I should say first, I admire the breadth of your
> > > > knowledge.  I often
> > > > learn from your posts.  I, on the other
> > hand, know
> > > > very little, which
> > > > I demonstrate daily on this list.
> > > >
> > > > Systems theory to my understanding is about the
> > > > relationships within
> > > > the whole, for example the relationship between
> > human
> > > > beings and
> > > > trees by the exchange of oxygen, the relationship
> > between
> > > > human
> > > > beings and earth with the exchange in nutrients,
> > or the
> > > > relationship
> > > > between automobile exhaust and air required by
> > both trees,
> > > > plants and
> > > > human beings.  It might be very interested
> > in a
> > > > discarded automobile
> > > > battery's affects on the the water supply.
> > Rather
> > > > than the
> > > > hierarchical/evolutionary model it is reflected
> > better in
> > > > the Net of
> > > > Jewels model.  And it seems to me that the
> > point of
> > > > the MoQ is that
> > > > both the Romantic and Classical points-of-view
> > are both a
> > > > product of
> > > > Quality.  Isn't the point of the MoQ to heal
> > that
> > > > division?
> > > >
> > > > You show a preference for Tao over Buddhism, but
> > both are a
> > > > MoQ
> > > > consideration.  With some additional
> > considerations
> > > > Emptiness/Nothingness are Dynamic Quality, while
> > the
> > > > Conventional is
> > > > static quality, and their relationship is one of
> > mutual
> > > > dependence.  Do you want to argue about
> > that?
> > > > Want to tell me this
> > > > is a mistake?  On what basis other than your
> > own
> > > > preference?   Yin
> > > > and yang, while an important aspect of Tao, has
> > not been
> > > > incorporated
> > > > into the MoQ.
> > > >
> > > > I've asked you to present some sort of entity
> > that is not
> > > > conceptually constructed?  I cannot imagine
> > why this
> > > > challenge
> > > > doesn't interest you.  There is direct
> > experience, and
> > > > there are
> > > > patterns that are conceptually constructed and
> > > > labeled.  To me this
> > > > has been the most profound discovery.
> > > >
> > > > Btw, using the 'Aw Gi' label is not a legitimate
> > argument.
> > > >
> > > > I both admire you and find you frustrating.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marsha
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 04:55 PM 6/1/2009, you wrote:
> > > > > >[Krimel]
> > > > > >Thanks Marsha, that really was a simple
> > and
> > > > concise explanation. I hope you
> > > > > >will notice that I am almost always
> > talking about
> > > > systems.
> > > > >
> > > > >[Marsha]
> > > > >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.
> > > > >
> > > > >[Krimel]
> > > > >Actually I use systems theory as a fish uses
> > water. It
> > > > is so integral to how
> > > > >I think that I don't notice it or see any
> > need to go on
> > > > about what is self
> > > > >evident to me. Part of the problem is that to
> > see how a
> > > > system works you
> > > > >have to have some concept of the parts.
> > These
> > > > conversations typically get so
> > > > >bogged down in the parts that the system gets
> > lost. For
> > > > example with regards
> > > > >to consciousness I have tried many times to
> > talk about
> > > > specific brain
> > > > >functions and how they are parallel processes
> > which are
> > > > synthesized into
> > > > >perception. Among these parallel processes
> > are the five
> > > > sense, emotions and
> > > > >memory. I have talked about how disruptions
> > in any of
> > > > these systems can have
> > > > >a profound effect on the whole. I don't see
> > this as
> > > > reductionistic and never
> > > > >have but we do tend to get sidetrack by trees
> > so much
> > > > that the forest is
> > > > >often forgotten.
> > > > >
> > > > >I think scientific realism is way more
> > extreme than the
> > > > kind of naturalism
> > > > >that I actually do favor but again we never
> > really get
> > > > to that kind of
> > > > >discussion so that my arguments against
> > idealism, which
> > > > I really do think is
> > > > >stupid, get interpreted as extreme. But in
> > the end all
> > > > this does is
> > > > >reinforcement the point I have been trying to
> > make:
> > > > communication is a lossy
> > > > >process.
> > > > >
> > > > >I would have to agree that I have been
> > frequently
> > > > unkind and overly critical
> > > > >of Bob. But this is typically in response to
> > various
> > > > interpretations of his
> > > > >phrasing. As I have also said, I think his
> > instincts
> > > > for the really critical
> > > > >issues are uncanny. But I don't think he
> > always comes
> > > > down on the right side
> > > > >of some these issues or sometimes he doesn't
> > grasp the
> > > > full implications of
> > > > >what he has said. His focus on native
> > American values,
> > > > random access, chaos,
> > > > >Taoism and evolution are all very valuable.
> > My often
> > > > strident objections as
> > > > >I see them are quibbling over details but
> > those details
> > > > are the kind of
> > > > >"extraneous variables"/"inexhaustible riches"
> > that give
> > > > a system its mature
> > > > >form.
> > > > >
> > > > >[Marsha]
> > > > >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.
> > > > >
> > > > >[Krimel]
> > > > >Well here is where I not only think you are
> > dead wrong
> > > > but that the
> > > > >wrongness colors your patterns a murky shade
> > of gray.
> > > > Systems theory grows
> > > > >out of science or even more perniciously out
> > of those
> > > > step children of
> > > > >science: technology and engineering. It
> > results from
> > > > attempts to implement
> > > > >fragmentary scientific findings into working
> > models of
> > > > both products and
> > > > >social structures. Even more than that;
> > ecology is
> > > > systems theory integrated
> > > > >into biology. Ethnology is systems theory
> > integrated
> > > > into anthropology and
> > > > >sociology. Your Mindwalk physicist spends a
> > lot of time
> > > > expounding systems
> > > > >theory in physics. Systems theory is so much
> > a part of
> > > > modern scientific
> > > > >thinking, I cannot imagine how you could miss
> > it
> > > > without exerting a lot
> > > > >effort.
> > > > >
> > > > >[Marsha]
> > > > >If something seems wrong from the MoQ
> > point-of-view,
> > > > that doesn't
> > > > >mean it is WRONG and should be destroyed.
> > > > Patterns are patterns.
> > > > >
> > > > >[Krimel]
> > > > >If this is an invitation to expound on your
> > > > misconceptions about
> > > > >conceptualization I am going to have to pass.
> > But
> > > > thanks for the invite.
> > > > >
> > > > >[Marsha]
> > > > >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.
> > > > >
> > > > >[Krimel]
> > > > >It is only either/or for the romantic and
> > then only
> > > > results from a kind of
> > > > >warped and regressive, Aw Gi aesthetics. But
> > yes RMP is
> > > > an all-a-rounder and
> > > > >that, as I see it, was the whole point of
> > ZMM.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >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.
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >       Need a Holiday? Win a
> > $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter
> > > 
> now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
> > >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.
> >
> > .
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
>
>
>       Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter 
> now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
>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.

.
.