If one steps aways from the systems community, one finds a very different world. Instead of inclusion and tollerance, there is separatism and intolerance. Is it because the system notion does not live outside the system movement? Here is a letter from a scientific consciousness list, and it is the first inkling of systems thought beginning to emerge in consciousness science. Here is proof that what I have said for so many years, the systems notion is largely unknown.
Very nice thoughts, Thomas. I agree with your view. But I have got some
questions, below. Could you clarify them?
> In a message dated 9/13/2006 6:06:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> Framing things in terms of "objective VERSUS subjective" as has been in
> vogue for 350 years simply does not match up with our actual experience and
> our reality. That process does not work. A new one is needed.
> Our experiencing involves both subjective and objective. Subjective in the
> sense of what we are experiencing objectively.
> To some rain is cold, others it is wet and still others it is cool.
> The "process which does not work" does not work because the subjective and
> objective were taken apart. Taking them apart leads one to believe that unity
> means eliminating one of the two to get one.
Exactly, Thomas, and this still pervaising in our western science,
> When knowledge is stated in terms of relationships (interactionings) then
> both are NEEDED and there is no attempt to get rid of one or the other.
All the more true.
> This problem was written up in quantum theory by some to the extreme that
> all is creted by our consciuousness. Einstein himself was thrown into great
> doubt, once he asked his friend "Tell me Pias, that the moon disappears when I
> turn my back on it."
> Well, let's take a look at what does happen. When Einstein was looking at
> the moon, he was abstract(ing - oops) a moon in his mind.
I don't understand it... What do you mean by "he was abstract a moon in
his mind"? What does it have to do with the "objective VERSUS
> When jhe turned his head away,
> that abstraction vanished. Did the moon vanish too? In the sense of a "moon" yes
> it did vanish. But what took its place was the Whole that is not separated
> into any parts. So when we turn our head aways from the moon, the moon
> vanishes into the indefinite that is always there.
The same: what do you mean by "the moon vanishes into the indefinite
that is always there"?
> We can look at consciousness like Baars suggested, by looking at our visual
> system. The point I want to make can be illustrated by considering the two
> aspects of our vision - peripheral and focused attention. Here is an
> experiment - test yourself to see if your peripheral vision is different from your
> focused attention. One way of doing that is by focusing on this letter "O"
> and attempting to ascertain the letters to the left or right. Don't cheat.
> When I do this, I notice that there are letters out there that I can see but I
> do not know what they are. The letter is there objectively, but it has no
> subjective content.
That's why MacCrone insistes in that there are gradual degrees from
unconscious processes to the conscious ones, no magical leap from one to
another, which is IMO a clear sign that we cannot study objectivity
apart from subjectivity.
> Again, the dualism, a product of our conceptualizing mind, can be avoided
> by paying attention to the relationships rather than the things. What things
> are doing rather than what things are.
The Earth viewed as a centre of the universe was a long ago product of
our human conceptualizing mind (a "real imagination"). Several centuries
has run till our modern concepts of an open universe with quantum and
relativistic phisics, which still are mainly based on things and
property parts. I think now it is the time to create a new view, based
on interactions and relationships rather the things.