O.K. but Don's shoot-from-the-hip style requires that I adapt my approach
somewhat, if only to send the message that, if I retire from the fray, it
will not imply an acknowledgement of defeat by overwhelming strength -
certainly not by any force of facts or logic. Part of my own interest is in
sorting out confusions and puzzles, and I find puzzles of this kind
marginally more interesting than cross-words, and, who knows, perhaps a
discussion that makes progress (dialectic) may be possible. So here goes
nothing.
>Yes, I have trouble with this medium. I like to deal with one idea at
>a time. All the conversations I've participated in result in an abrupt
>end with no idea what might have been the reason (disinterest,
>disagreement, etc.).
Many of the themes and ideas involved in cybernetics simply cannot be dealt
with one at a time. This would be to bring too narrow a focus, or perhaps
too high a resolving power, on one item where the object of interest is the
pattern of relationships among items (facts, configurations, principles..).
This is related to the idea of levels, that each level of complexity may
have its own methodology and discipline, so that it is premature at the
least to try to simplify or reduce all ideas to simple ones.
Please don't take offense at what may seem to you to be insultingly obvious
statements. I am just trying to be clear. I am not being condescending. If
one cannot express one's honest views in this medium it cannot be good for
much else.
>. . .You are going to pretend to not be judgemental because
>you choose to play the "value free" objectivity game? Sorry for trying to
>be honest.
Don't be sorry for the wrong reasons! I said that a "a judgemental view
tends to block perception" because that is the fact in terms of
communications theory and practice, and I think it may also apply to the
present misunderstandings.
I do not and did not pretend to be non-judgemental, i.e. to be "value
free". Indeed if you read my previous posting that was its main point! It
was to indicate where I think the firm reference point of values should be,
i.e. in supporting dynamic processes of creative freedom. What you have
done is to classify my postion in terms of one previously known to you,
which is not what I said or meant, implied I was playing games, and put
yourself in the position of being "honest"! These would be the tricks of a
con game. This can be a real problem for persons who can only see what they
already know - present company of course excepted! - and have no broader
response repertoire for new perceptions and ideas.
>Science is at least three things.
>1) what scientists do.
>2)what scientists believe.
>3)some collective of ideas accumulated over time in the name of science.
Thank you for leaving this description still somewhat open! While I would
not disagree with the above I would also say they fail to "characterize"
science as distinct, let us say, from religion. The distinction of science
lies more precisely in the defining ideas of scientific methodology and
openness to ongoing evidence and dialogue. Some scientists believe in
bizarre things, and scientists often disagree, but they have methods and
criteria that tend to bind them to what is accepted as science. My view is
that these methods themselves should be governed by similar criteria, i.e.
be open to revision in the light of broader considerations.
>>We work within a belief structure so effective that most of
>>us believe that we don't.
[and then]
>I was refering to us scientists with the "we". I don't see how any of
>what you say pertains.
Scientists are human beings with certain specialized education. There is no
evidence that this specialized training changes the nature of the belief
structures and associated problems that belong to all human beings. My
point was that the general principles involved in excessive faith in
rational appraoches to life and human relationships apply to all human
beings.
>>. . .with fundamentalism on the rise everywhere,
>>I won't venture a prediction of the outcome.
[and then]
>There is a "fundamentalism" in the scientific religion as well.
O.K. but this is not the fundamentalism implied in your previous statement,
and seems to me argumentative in relation to the nature of science.
To me a "scientific religion" is very paradoxical. Science does not include
the possiblity of knowledge by direct revelation, whereas many religions
consider it of the essence.
>The "suffer" I meant was that which comes from neglecting something
>important, not that which comes from struggling to understand.
But this is not relevant to the point I was making, which was that the
avoidance of suffering, while certainly desirable, is not necessarily a
higher value of life. Again, far from being "value-free", my subject was
precisly concerned with governing purposes and values.
As I said, I see this discussion as somewhat of a puzzle, and I am
providing some feedback according to my lights, for what it's worth, which
must depend as much upon the reader as upon me. I hope that it may have
some general interest, but I think it is probably exhausted for a general
forum.
Cheers!
Bruce B.
"We are all in this together!"