[MD] The Academy is Evil! Here's what I'd do instead...

[118]

Hi Platt,
Thanks for the post.  I comment below.

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Platt Holden <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:13 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> There has been little written on the process of natural selection
>> itself, except that it may be somewhat random.  So random mutation
>> facing random selection, causes ordered life.  In my opinion, any
>> proclamation of randomness is simply another word for God.  If we do
>> not understand it, we call it random.  In this way, the theory has not
>> evolved either, it is still based on mysticism.
>>
>
> Platt
> Exactly. Also, if we do not understand it we call it "emergence."

[Mark]
Yes, understanding is a creative process.  With certain theories we do
our best to fit all the observable data into that theories system.  We
then confuse the reality for the theory.  This is classic Western
encapsulation.  This is something that Quality is against.  Ways to
break out of this circular self-enforcement is to try different
paradigms.  I do my best to provide these, but it requires a change in
perspective, not looking through the same set of rules.  The classical
Chinese view is one of emergence, which does not require the notion of
"where do we come from?".  This is replace by "we grow".

There is certainly a bewitchment of this "understanding" which is good
since it provides a sense of meaning.  The notion is that as it
stands, is Western thought is at a dead end and must change.  For
this, a new "understanding is required".  This is of course objected
to strenuously, more from the subjective sense than any where else.
Because to accept this, one must suddenly realize that much one knows
is not fixed.  However, it is possible to get there without having a
complete meltdown.  Changing perspective on Evolution as it currently
stands is one small step.  Resorting to ID or creationism is enveloped
by Western thought and therefore shown to be incorrect, and it would
be if everything must be random.  Again, the trouble with Truth.
>
> Mark
>> Oh, one final point on a statement of yours (that I deleted) saying
>> that nobody in the Academy fears new ideas.  I would have to disagree.
>>  There is constant fear that one's own position will be destroyed by a
>> new idea.  New ideas are suppressed much more than they are accepted.
>> This is a predominant aspect of Academia, in my opinion.  It is not
>> just a bunch of congenial professors having coffee.  The competition
>> is awesome.  Groups hold together defending each other.  Dissenters
>> become outcasts.  I have seen this.  Personally I have always stayed
>> out of this group behavior.
>>
>
> Platt
> Then there are those professors who base their course on a book they
> have written and require their students to buy it, otherwise known as
> a protection racket.

[Mark]
>From my experience, academics is very insular and small minded.  This
is not different from any other society formed by people.  There is
strength in agreement, and distaste for intrusion.  There are of
course many exceptions, but the herd mentality dominates.  I would
also call you example above a "projection racket".  The brain washing
of the main character in Clockwork Orange comes to mind.  A great
movie, by the way.

Cheers,
Mark

> 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/md/archives.html
>