Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
> "FishFood" <d...
@home.com> wrote in message
>> Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>> Trust me, i know lazy blustering when i see it. God knows i've cook
>> a few of those stews myself. Nop, you've set me on a train of thought
>> which i might not have considered on my own, and i thank you for that.
>> I'd like to explore the "essentialism" angle you've hinted at, but
>> i wouldn't know where to start. Have you any bread crumbs to share?
> I'm a little stuck with preparing the case and throwing some intellectual
> spaghetti around might be a little fun. While it may not be of value in
> itself the sound and rational and good intent is a mental break and good
> for morale. I'm rather grateful myself for that so thank *you*.
> I don't know too much about essentialism. It's defined adequately on
> wiki, and there's a handful of essays kicking around that can be searched.
> Beyond that things get complicated as essentialism is a political and
> psychological view. It's core is founded on opposing the oppression of
> authority and arguments follow an extremely female gendered psychological
> process. Set theory, distribution curves, and homeostasis are other layers
> of complication because you can't separate people from the system.
> Another key word to look out for is "intersectionality".
> Not to trivialize its value you could get lost in that naval gaze forever.
I recognize some of your points, ie Homeostasis, where stability
or equilibrium of a dynamic system, has any action bound to its
opposing reaction. Pain, bound to the ways one release ourselves
of pain, as one example. Yin and Yang as as opposing elements of
an organic system, if you like. Trouble occurs when the system as
devised and peopled, can't see the value or consequences of these
Now throw in our technologies and our increasing connectedness, and
one wonders if there is still room in our thinking for this natural
dynamic. Would the opposite be part of the same formula, or subject
to approval by committee?
Digital now defines our explanation of the system. Digital as oppose
to the quirks and 'predictable irrationalities' of an analog machine.
Based on the digital model, we think of ourselves as discrete
functions, because digital is clean like that. We as flesh and blood
organic machines, are more akin to analog machines, where influences
between functions goes beyond what might be designed on paper.
I wonder if we see this? Any divergence between theory and practice,
would only be noted where it allowed feedback on the practice, in the
manner of Cybernetics. The same might be true for our legislation and
its ramification. The system needs an element of wisdom, which you
won't necessarily find if you simply go by the rule book.
As tie-in, I wonder what are the natural limits of a selfish system?
ie the smallest element of the system, how would it fit in with the
whole. Imagine DW in such a world, taken to its ninth degree? That's
the kind of drama or comedy i'd like to see more of. The alternative
is drama designed on a theme to force our unwitting compliance. Does
one simply force the system to work by complying with whatever agenda
is foisted upon us. Or is the system robust enough to accept contrary
thought, wherever it might be found?