[MD] The first division of the MOQ. - dynamic or Dynamic Quality?

[David Harding]

Hi Ian,

> Being definitive as in "a definition", or worse still "the
> definition", is where I suggest beware getting too hung up (beyond a
> very specific context or purpose)

Yes, SOM can cause people to believe that there is only one 'true' definition and be very closed minded about anything better - Ham's essentialism comes to mind.

> The problem with reductionism is the same wariness I suggest above.
> The more removed the smaller pieces of pattern are away from the
> whole, the harder it is to realise their value - a castle built
> entirely of static patterns has a lot of value firmly locked-up with a
> great deal of latching in your way.
> In Dennett's words reductionism is
> OK, just avoid "greedy reductionism" - the kind of reductionism where
> you believe that having found all the smallest indivisible parts, you
> somehow "know" the whole.

This is the same when searching for an 'elegant solution' to a problem in mathematics. The simple one is better than the complex one.

> Reductionism is OK as part of the
> explanatory process, but not as the answer, the explanation itself -
> eg to a question of definition for example.

Can you please rephrase this concluding sentence? I am having trouble understanding exactly what you mean.
>>