Re: System/metasystem control & Values
DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY@VCUVAX.BITNET)
Sun, 5 Feb 1995 10:58:50 -0400
Don Mikulecky, Medical College, Virginia Commonwealth University
<Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu> reply to bruce B.'s reply
>
>>I see a real flaw in the idea that we are so much in control.
>>Rationalisation after action and hipocracy seem to suggest it is not as
>>it appears. Dennet seems to suggest that consciousness works in this
>>ratification after the fact way and thereby makes self deception quite normal.
>
> I agree. I think that we are very little in control, perhaps only at the
> margins, and we don't really know where the best leverage is.
>
> However the real issue is whether or not we keep working on it.
> It is an age-old problem, but life with hope and projects is better than
> the alternatives!
Yes, we need to keep plugging away. But do we need to keep trodding
the same old worn paths? I keep seeing us dragging this legacy of Cartesian
Reductionist science up the hill with us and then having us fall back
down due to its weight. We ARE in the middle of a revolution, but we
behave as if the way to deal with it is with the old ways. We deal
with an amazing set of reveelations about complexity, systems,super-
organisms, etc. and then set out to proceed as if the world were
the machine like thing Descartes saddled us with.
I have to admit that i don't really know what cybernetics
is, nor do I really want to! Disciplinary boundaries are
artificial and are of limited usefulness. The issue I am
trying to confront is to see if we can at least begin to
understand what is going on. I know that my computer, the
internet, recent writings on complexity, etc. have profoundly
changed me in ways I never intended. I also know that the
seeds for those changes were already there due to a variety of
ideas and experiences from the past. I suspect that the revolution
proceeds because of events like those I am experiencing. It seems
to be very regresive for us to pretend that our task and our
goals remain the same. In fact, these are, in a big way, ALSO being
shaped for us whether we like it or not. Just for an attempt to
be more specific, I'd suggest we consider:
1. Erasing the distinction between hard and soft science, and even
between scientific and nonscientific approaches. There is a lot of
stuff out there being dismissed because of these distinctions.
2. Working hard to understand how our questions and answers are
shaped by our biases(training is a part of this). We see what we
were trained to look for, and more important, fail to see much
of the rest. A good example is the math training of the average
scientist. Totally analytical, shaping us to be reductionist.
What about the rest of Math? It's been deemed less important.
Thus now if I write about topological properties in system organization
it seems forwign to many of my very well trained colleagues.
3. Realizing that we are not going to predict and control as much
as we had hoped, and therefore we will be seen as less useful to
those who thought it important to support what we do. This
may be the tough one!
Well, enough on this. Best regards, Don Mikulecky