Mills, (01)
I have been calling that very idea "knowledge federation" for a couple
of year now, and I claim no priority on the idea. I simply adopted the
concept for a thesis project, and an online presence complete with
semi-annual meetings in Dubrovnik, Croatia [1]. I read Wilber as
background material and inspiration (among many other authors). (02)
Thanks!
Jack
[1] http://www.knowledgefederation.org/ (03)
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Mills Davis <millsdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jack,
>
> Integral theory values multiple perspectives, where each embodies different
> methods, epistemology, and truths that enrich our understanding. What is
> sought is a synthesis of differing kinds of knowledge that entail different
> representations and modes of reasoning.
>
> On Jan 22, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Jack Park wrote:
>
> Hi Mills,
>
> I just got back from sitting in on Monica Anderson's Model Free
> Methods workshop to find this message. I do not have an answer to the
> specific question, but an observation. I read Wilber, just like the
> introduction you sent along, looking for lenses, other lenses besides
> mine.
>
> I don't have to agree with what I see when handed a different lens;
> fact is, I'm as likely not to understand what it's showing as "getting
> it". Still, lenses. That's to enable access to frameworks possibly
> richer than those I have at hand when contemplating complex, even
> wicked situations.
>
> My game is to find and create ways in which people can come together,
> each with a different lens, and make sense of complex issues facing
> all of us. To do that, I need to avoid making ontological commitments
> in the representation system that preclude innovation. So, even if
> nobody else has done anything profound with Wilber's ideas, I study
> them for my own purposes.
>
> JackP
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Mills Davis <millsdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Jack Park & Jack Ring,
>
>
> Do either of you know if there has been any rigorous application of Ken
>
> Wilber's integral theory for knowledge computing across disciplines? I
>
> recently came across a book entitled Integral Ecology — Uniting Perspectives
>
> on the Natural World, an 800-page tour-de-force by Esbjörn-Hargens and
>
> Zimmerman. Here is an excerpt from the intro. My sense is that there is a
>
> breakthrough waiting to happen here.
>
>
> Mills Davis
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Jack Ring wrote:
>
>
> I think we can moderate the reductionism vs. holism divide once people
>
> comprehend the distinctions of class vs. type and learn to see both aspects
>
> of an object. Further, John Kineman's extension of Rosen's R-theory to a
>
> relational algebra seems quite promising. It occured to us back in the
>
> 1970's that in addition to set structural operators we also needed an
>
> algebra of sets. I think we are getting warmer.
>
> Part of this may entail freeing thinkers from the von Neumann paradigm of
>
> stored program computers which makes people shy away from combinatorial
>
> constructs. Once people understand the recently patented General Purpose Set
>
> Theoretic Processor their conceptualization of 'the problem' may change
>
> considerably.
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Debmacp wrote:
>
>
> That plus what should be processed by machines versus thought through by
>
> people
>
>
>
> Deb
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Jack Park <jackpark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think that there are some very powerful insights emerging in this
>
>
> particular thread. For me, they edge ever closer to a boundary that
>
>
> interest me greatly:
>
>
>
> the boundary that separates machines from organisms.
>
>
>
> That boundary is the same one that frequently emerges in conversations
>
>
> that pit "reductionism" against holistic thinking.
>
>
>
> I don't see reductionism and holism as necessarily being so orthogonal
>
>
> that they get pitted against each other; as I see it, both are
>
>
> necessary, but neither is sufficient. Sure, that point alone is well
>
>
> worth its own conversation, but let me set that aside for a moment and
>
>
> tell a short springboard story.
>
>
>
> Nicholas Rashevski [1], considered the father of mathematical biology,
>
>
> wrote a paper "Topology and life: In search of general mathematical
>
>
> principles in biology and sociology" in 1954, which argued that for
>
>
> all the math he invented, we still don't understand what makes
>
>
> organisms tick. He launched the "relational biology" inquiry. He
>
>
> sought a way to represent a "canonical organism". His student Robert
>
>
> Rosen [2] eventually replaced Rashevski's graph and "organismic set"
>
>
> approaches with category theory, and later wrote the book _Life
>
>
> Itself_ which explains both the ontological and epistemological
>
>
> grounds for his canonical organism representation, which entailed two
>
>
> "components": metabolism and repair. Category theory showed that those
>
>
> two entailed reproduction. What is important in this is the
>
>
> observation that what is hard to represent are all of the necessary
>
>
> "relationships" that exist between and among the components, and with
>
>
> the external environment.
>
>
>
> I offer that story as a suggestion that special consideration needs to
>
>
> be given to relations. I will not suggest that more or less
>
>
> consideration be given when weighed against the components being
>
>
> modeled; I'll just leave it as a suggestion that relations in complex
>
>
> systems -- organismic systems -- are important. Rosen was not able to
>
>
> make graph or set theoretic approaches solve Rashevsky's quest;
>
>
> Rashevsky died before Rosen realized a candidate solution, one rooted
>
>
> in category theory.
>
>
>
> I read it somewhere that while set theory lets you talk about members
>
>
> of a set, category theory lets you talk about the social lives of
>
>
> those members. I'm not smart enough to validate that, just smile.
>
>
>
> JackP
>
>
>
> Jack
>
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Rashevsky
>
>
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rosen_%28theoretical_biologist%29
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
>
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
> Mills Davis
> Managing Director
> Project10X
> 202-667-6400
> 202-255-6655 cel
> skype: millsdavis
> millsdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Download the FREE Semantic Wave Executive Summary
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (05)
|