I'd suggest thermodynamic "systems"... closed, open, adiabatic...
and "processes" constant pressure, constant volume...
They actually correspond to individual, community, environment,
universal change, energy considerations of all kinds, properties or
nature / behaviour / happenings ... and even history, the kind that
overwhelmed Hegel !
On Oct 29, 10:51 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The current crisis is not one of banking or economics, but something
> much more basic. One might say this is our attitude towards 'machines
> of loving grace'. In short, we live in the fantasy that "the machine"
> will put things right, returning to an equilibrium as our
> interventions are little more than 'of mice and men'. The real world
> of the environment and the exchange world of economics return to
> equilibrium after fluctuations. It's very tempting to believe this -
> one might see Gaia as a case in point - the planet and other species
> flourishing after we've crazed ourselves to extinction through
> consumption and wars.
>
> You can pick up the ideas of 'all watched over by machines of loving
> grace' here -http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/2160186460/All-Watched-Over-By-M...
>
> A review with an economic twist can be found here -http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/the-natural-chaos-of-markets.html
>
> My own work has often focused on the difference between espoused
> theories and theories-in-action. In some subjects like chemistry the
> relationship between theory and practice is good - if you follow the
> rules and recipes you get what you intended and the explanations make
> sense if you study enough. There is a working core, you can trust or
> check the work of others and speculation can eventually be tested on
> what is not accepted as 'settled'. In the human sciences this is much
> more difficult, not least because we do not exclude much in human
> society that prevents science. Few of us have much aptitude for
> science, perhaps especially for its negation of ideology soaked up
> from community.
>
> I always noted as a teacher that I was more comfortable saying 'you
> just can't handle the maths' (unlikely for me as I'd teach people like
> that without the stuff), than in saying 'you just don't get argument
> because you can't let go of any prejudice'. Teaching people to think
> for themselves contains a paradox. One finds much one is expected to
> teach based on dross. I know of no country in which history is taught
> without gross ideological distortion. We hear the Japanese rip out
> pages in textbooks on the 'rape of Nanking' yet it's rare to find
> Brits who know much of our squalid imperialism and involvement in much
> similar. In the middle east you will find a more accurate picture of
> the Crusades than we get, but the Jihad that is the mirror image is
> revered.
>
> Most people like to imagine themselves as individual, but if we're
> honest we are subjects of machines of loving grace. One makes one's
> way in an economy (machine) on a planet (environmental machine). I
> think these are only "machines" because we don't examine them.
> Examination often ends in paradox - logical positivism eventually
> conceded its own quest to extirpate metaphysics was - oops -
> metaphysical. My own guess is that rigorous thinking seeks to
> discover and eliminate dross - this involves a great deal of courage
> in accepting you are likely made of same oneself!
>
> I'm a maverick systems theorist and conceive of our social-political
> arguments (and the systems themselves) as houses of cards. one looks
> for the soft spots that can bring the lot down or as places to put in
> effort to keep the ball rolling. No argument survives this process
> more than twenty seconds with such soft spots arising. Most don't
> have either the energy or tools to keep going and run to the 'bliss'
> of the machine (religion, patriotism, left and right etc.). We are
> thus robots of one 'machine' or another, not individuals, hardly
> people if we're not careful.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário