Posted by
Phil Henshaw-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/just-curious-tp522932.html
After general systems theory, non-linear thermodynamics, catastrophy
theory, complexity, and lots of other creidble attempts to explain the
vaguries of complicated things and their surprisingly ways of suddenly
transforming into others, my approach is to sort of (conditionally)
scrap all that and start over with a rigorous method of unbiased
observation. It doesn't stop there, but it starts there and goes
where anyone takes it.
What's wrong with that? And more particularly, why doesn't anyone
seem concerned that maintaining explosively accelerating change in our
world (by promoting continual positive feedback for multiplying
investment, our 'null hypothesis' and guiding principle for 'adapting'
to the earth) might be problematic? Is it possibly that we're stuck
without a common model from which to refer?
I don't think the issue is a matter of which point of view is right and
to scratch out all the others. I think it's to connect the views from
all the sides of the subject into a whole picture that's actually
useful. The six wize men will have better luck getting the idea of
'elephant' if they talk rather than fight!
Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com <
http://www.synapse9.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061105/ad989616/attachment.html