Saturday, April 01, 2000, 8:29:39 AM, you wrote:
HL> ... I'm talking about looking at things in context rather than
HL> viewing them as isolates.
Me too, Hugh. Glad we agree on that.
HL> I realize that our culture has it hammered home that quality and
HL> context are "subjective" and somehow that is invalid.
I must have managed to escape that one.
HL> Meanwhile measurement of physical parameters without reference to
HL> context is "objective" and somehow that is all that is valid.
I never said "physical parameters", nor did I make any reference
referring or not referring to context. I *believe* in contexts. I like
them a lot. I do feel valid, though. Plenty valid.
HL> It is that old nusiance, dualism, rearing its ugly head.
Time for me to escape that one too. The stage is yours.
HL> Forgive me all you knee-jerk dualists, please.
Forgive me too (while you're at it).
HL> Here is part of another exchange between
HL> Douglas and myself:
HL>>Try to realize that I have to gloss over some things just to get a
HL>>post like this down and mailed in one morning.
OK, I tried. I think I succeeded.
HL> But you want the specificity spelled out? Okay.
I happen to like specificity a lot. I even like the word.
HL> You want to use your own imagination and dream about what I might
HL> mean by my vague generalities?
No, that's exactly what I don't want to do. I want you to tell me.
HL> That's okay too. I HAVE thought about this stuff.
I never doubted that, Hugh.
HL> But needless to say I wouldn't want to deprive you of the
HL> opportunity to do a bit of your own thinking too.
Gee, I thought I had been doing quite a bit of that. Thanks a bunch for
your not wanting to deprive me of the opportunity, though.
HL> So from my point of view I don't have much of a problem with the specificty
HL> and measurement of things. That can all be accomplished, though as the
HL> things under discussion become more and more subtle the difficulties of
HL> specific measurement can outstrip present means.
Any time you're ready.
HL> Wait a bit, however, and some method of measurement is likely to
HL> turn up--not that I think it likely we will ever be able to
HL> measure the whole context and pin down quality to our specimen
HL> board the way we do quantity.
That's not necessary. We wouldn't want to pin down quality to
anybody's specimen board, we just want to say it like it is - enough
so that other people, many other people, can understand it and
therefore share it.
HL> But measurement is a perfectly valid
HL> way of looking at things. I use it all the time.
I'm not surprised.
HL> Great stuff! What I have trouble with is the folks who would
HL> enforce the belief that measurement is the ONLY valid way of
HL> looking at things. What bilge!
I think it depends on how you measure measurement.
HL> Thanks for bringing this up.
HL> Warmest regards,
HL> Hugh Lovel
Same here, have a nice weekend.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 20:00:37 EDT