Jack, our "dispute" as always provides rich insight and I appreciate them.
(I also appreciate your recent posting on "vision" immensely.)
I can only relate to what you have said as enriching. I do not experience
it as argument. Nor do I experience it as different from what I said.
Yes, the language we each use is somewhat different - indicated by your
use of argument as much as by the language itself - and this is, for me,
the beauty of dialogue. By the iterative application of language (we
might use other methods as well if we were face to face) we each might
come to deeper understanding of the phenomenon of interest.
Jack says:
> Michael knows I dislike efforts to define meanings, because the
> only tool we have to define language is language itself. I am always
> fearful that discussion of definitions will lead to hair-splitting.
But that is the condition. Therefor I choose to engage with it fully.
> Nevertheless, let me say that when I used the word, "dualistic" I did not
> have in mind "either/or", but rather that form of consciousness which sees
> the subjective self as separate from the world.
I appreciate this definition and agree with the difficulties that you
point to. (I won't split the hair of "subject separate AND not
separate".)
After saying his interpretation of what I'm saying by systems, which is
largely accurate, Jack then includes something directly relevant to my
views on emergence and complexity: > The "real world" is a jumble of
incoherent events and > unconnected things upon which we impose an order
by describing them.
I am not saying this. I suspect that is it not this way. I DO say that
the world appears as a jumble of coherent events barring language,
practices and even structural coupling. I start from an assumption that
the universe is intelligible - maybe even intelligent - and that we make
our own sense of it as best we can.
I agree completely on everything that Jack adds to the conversation from
this point on.
> But I must ask: If the bones need to be
> manipulated, or if a surgical procedure is required, will the physician do
> this, or will his hands?
This question reveals the agreement and, I think, the point of departure
in the specifics. I approach the question from the point of view that it
is and/both and that I'll say (use the construct) what appears most
useful. In some instance it will be "the hands" and in some instances it
will be "the physician" and in both of these instances I will be aware
that I've chosen a construct that will not hold up as a complete
separation even then.
For example. If I'm instructing student surgeons to observe a master
surgeon on bone setting, I might instruct them to observe the hands "as
hands". While at one moment this might be the most instructive focus for
most, I will be aware that they are missing other factors that can be
observed only at the level of "physician" and that all will need to be
observed and integrated for a physician to appear where there was only a
student.
I will probably judge that the student is a physician when they can
observe the whole "in one sitting".
There Jack - are we still friends?
Mike
> >I consider Jack's example of typing a message to be an act of the
> >whole is consistent with my view of being and of my view of "hand" in
> >the process. That is, the mechanics of the hand are largely
> >irrelevent to the process. Just as the mechanics of the typing
> >machine are.
>
> Yes, indeed. In the fundamental conception of the universe as a complex
> of interactions and relationships, I believe Mike and I are completely
> attuned, even if we feel the need to use different language to convey it.
> One reason we use different language is that we differ about the
> centrality of language as a human capability.
>
> >However, Jack, is it logically consistent to say "it is an action
> >that engages signals and feedback in continuous loops between my
> >hands and my brain"? Isn't this simply a more detailed and equally
> >mechanistic and subject/object approach than the original hand
> >example I used? It seems so to me.
>
> Well, Mike, logical consistency is your criterion, not necessarily mine. :-)
>
> But in the instant case I must point out my use of the word "engages". In
> everyday life I may repeatedly confuse the description (linguistic
> construct) of the system (signals and feedback in continuous loops between
> my hands and my brain) for the thing itself. I'm only human. But when I
> think about it, or try to convey it, I will usually be careful not to make
> the mistake you describe, and I will choose my words accordingly. I
> realize now that I assumed you would make the same distinction I did.
>
> I think my main point is that when you describe an action, all you have is
> a description. But when you act, no description can capture it.
>
> Jack Hirschfeld All the lonely people, where do they come from?
> jack@his.com All the lonely people, where do they belong?
--
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbdworld.com
book cafe site : http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe
"I don't give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity
but I'd die for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."
attributed to Chief Justice Brandeis
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations
For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>