Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Topic: Re: How science shaped modern 'rejection of religion'
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
GS Chandy

Posts: 7,754
From: Hyderabad, Mumbai/Bangalore, India
Registered: 9/29/05
Re: How science shaped modern 'rejection of religion'
Posted: Apr 10, 2014 1:06 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Robert Hansen (RH) posted Apr 10, 2014 8:41 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9432040) - GSC's remarks interspersed:
>
> On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:57 AM, GS Chandy
> <gs_chandy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > The Indian people as a whole can NEVER achieve what
> >you term as the "American Dream" (at current or any
> >population level).
> >
> > Nor would I wish that on them. You are quite
> >unlikely to understand why I hold that sentiment, so
> >I shall state only that it has to do with the fact
> >that I'm aware that we (humans) "ARE NOT THE MASTERS
> >OF THE UNIVERSE!".

>
> Having a comfortable home, two cars, enough to eat, a
> safe neighborhood, a decent school, and the ability
> to shop, dine out, or see a show once in a while,
> this makes us masters of the universe?
>

As earlier noted, you are at the moment entirely unlikely to understand the "whys" underlying my response.

I observe that you're also unable to understand the phrase "MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE", its genesis or its "IMPLICATIONS".

Sorry about that, but those are the facts of the current situation.

I suggest you look up, for a start, the meaning of "IMPLIES" in any appropriate dictionary and, from there, try to learn something. As I've earlier suggested, application of the OPMS may help. As noted, it does take a little learning and a fair amount of 'unlearning' to use the OPMS on any issues. Once you've adequately understood the 'dictionary meaning' of "IMPLIES", you should be ready to embark on 'Preliminary Step 1' below.

'Preliminary Step 1': Read and understand the OPMS documentation. (The various steps outlined here do demand a little reading, thinking and understanding. [*Understanding* involves a little learning and a fair bit of 'unlearning']. I regret I have to put you through this painful process).

'Preliminary Step 2' would involve choosing any 'simple' Mission of interest. I suggest, for a start, to do something you already know well how to do. Say, for instance, work on the mechanics of "writing a post at Math-teach". (See, for an example, "Writing a letter"). Work on the 'mechanics' for a start, NOT to worry at all about the 'thought processes' involved.

After having thoroughly understood how to construct a simple 'mechanical model' of this system process, 'Preliminary Step 3' would involve using the process as understood thus far on a fair number of other appropriate 'trial Missions' of interest to you. This should be done till you are confident that you know thoroughly how to use the process of Interpretive Structural Modeling at least mechanically on varius Missions AND that you also know how to interpret for yourself the simple models (ISMs) you're constructing at this stage.

At this stage, you should have developed an adequate 'modeling understanding' of the relationships "CONTRIBUTES TO" along with its 'system negatives', "HINDERS" and "PREVENTS. By this time, you may have developed an adequate understanding of the 'system difference' between the relationship "CONTRIBUTES TO" and the relationship "PRECEDES". You would also have come to understand the grave system error made by management 'scientists' in focusing on the "PRECEDENCE" relationship in their efforts to understand 'systems'.

After 'Preliminary Step 3', 'Preliminary Step 4' would be to understand the Field Representation (FR) Method and specifically *WHY* we need such a process at all.

'Preliminary Step 4' would then involve constructing a fair number of FRs, based on the Missions you had tried out at 'Preliminary Step 3'. Up to now, you would have worked ISM and FR as two separate processes. When you arrive at an adequate understanding for yourself, you would seek to learn how to *integrate* ISM and FR for the trial Missions you have worked on thus far.

After 'Preliminary Step 4', we *may* be in a position for you to start work on an OPMS on a real Mission of current interest (as opposed to the 'trial Missions' you had tried out earlier). Based on your performance to date, I don't see much hope that you will be able to get that far.

People who've successfully got to the stage of actually constructing an OPMS have generally taken 1-2 months to reach this stage. Some never reach this stage.
>
> You tell us then the standard of living you envision
> for people.
>

The 'standard of living' the Indian people as a whole may accomplish will depend on themselves (what they wish) and on the 'societal systems' that exist and may develop in the country. It's those 'societal systems' that will determine whether they will be able to accomplish whatever they may be capable of, as individuals or groups.

I don't envision anything, except for the fact that we're doomed to disaster unless we learn how to change the fundamental attitudes we hold.

When you've worked a bit on constructing an OPMS, you will work this out for yourself. Don't depend on GSC.

However, we should then be at a stage where we would be able to engage in productive and useful debate and discussion.
>
> Also, why can?t the indian people never achieve this
> at any population level? Some seem to be achieving
> it.
>

See above.

GSC
("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.