Date: Mar 29, 2014 3:39 AM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: How science shaped modern 'rejection of religion'

Joe Niederberger posted Mar 29, 2014 5:49 AM (
> GS Chandy:

> >If, by the way, you're really interested in actually
> >exploring/ using "thought as a (practical) system"
> >[as opposed to just providing e-mail links to others'
> >works about it], do check out the 'One Page
> >Management System' (OPMS) if you will, and you may
> >find that this is precisely a practical 'tool for
> >thought' - *designed as 'a system'* - (and usable by
> >any high-school student to help the user arrive at a
> >clear understanding of what's involved in
> >accomplishing any 'Mission' of current interest. This
> >is done by using one's available ideas AS A SYSTEM).
> >I have sometimes referred to this 'systems tool for
> >thought' right here at Math-teach.

> Well, you certainly have missed the point.

Well, I claim that you have certainly missed the point. Which is, that - using the 'conventional mode(s) of thought' which have already failed to yield any understanding of 'thought' - you aren't about to get any improvement from the thoughts that had already failed to be understood using 'conventional tools'.

On the other hand, using practical means to understand complex systems, to work within and to cope with them, it may well become possible to progress a bit.
>If you do
> ever acquaint yourself with the viewpoint offered in
> "Thought as a System" the idea is not to praise the
> notion of TAAS,
> but to explore its flaws and limitations. It at least
> suggests that more thought won't fix some of the
> problems we face, (even if supercharged with OPMS.)

What 'conventional thinkers' do need to understand is that the 'conventional thought' that has failed is not about to succeed via 'more of the same'.

What conventional thinkers have been doing is somewhat like batting their heads against a brick wall. The brick wall is not about to yield to the head. The head may break. This was in fact one of the points I had made to David Bohm (with just that metaphor), and he wanted to know more.

I observe his mind at least did not seem to be hermetically sealed to the ingress of new ideas.

Unfortunately (if I recall rightly), he died soon thereafter.

The point is: if, on the other hand, the 'head-butters' would 'think' of substituting some appropriate tools designed to bring down 'brick walls', they should be able to progress somewhat (without breaking their heads).
> brought it up because I found your endlessly repeated
> "thinking for oneself" to be very simplistic. Just
> repeating over and over doesn't make it any more than
> a cliche.

If I dared, I would suggest constructing a couple of appropriate models to help progress. That might also help you "think for yourself", instead of mindlessly repeating the 'analytical mantras' (see below) that have never worked in regard to "thought", "consciousness" and etc.

Unfortunately, "think for oneself" requires a (tiny) bit of learning and a fair bit of 'unlearning'. 'Unlearning' is sometimes extremely difficult, while learning is usually quite easy.
> Analyzing the nature of thought itself, and
> questioning its efficacy in solving societies most
> severe problems, is at least off the beaten path.

I suspect that your "faith in analysis" is at least one part of the problem (apart from, of course, the hermetically sealed mind).

You might try to explore the 'idea of synthesis'. That too is based on an old Greek concept, which unfortunately became entirely forgotten in the 'machine age' we have ppassed through.

It is amusing, to say the least, that the 'conventional systems people' have a whole huge division they call "systems analysis" - when it should be entirely clear that complex systems simply cannot be 'analysed': they may yield some of their secrets to an effective combination of 'Analysis' + 'Synthesis'.

But these are lessons that are probably impossible for 'head-butters' to understand.
> And by the way, a link is all that's necessary if I
> am simply trying to draw one's attention to existing
> work.

Thank you for the link. I have examined the link. I may read the book itself soon. If I had read "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" correctly, TAAS was an extension of what was suggested there. It was a long, LONG time ago, so I don't accurately remember in detail: there was very little there by way of 'synthesis' despite the "wholeness" in the title.

Unfortunately, David Bohm is no more.

He was willing to maintain an open mind (even to ideas that contradicted his cherished ideas), which is a wonderful trait indeed.


Message was edited by: GS Chandy