The Inert Coagulum

That's a very interesting question. It does seem that innovations, although often influenced by need, occur like random events and then get picked up by socio-economic requirements and pulled into the mainstream. Not really like Quantum theory but sort of. Still, my intuition tells me that whatever theory works for natural phenomenon, also applies to social phenomenon. And perhaps it is when social phenomena are observed in mass that theories of physics work for sociology.

Mostly, I see social change operating like S curves in economics. As you probably know, innovations start off slowly at the bottom of a stretched out S; then move rapidly into mainstream adoption along the middle of the S; then top out and fizzle out at the top of the S. Except, I believe these curves operate in multiple dimensions instead of the two dimensional model used by economists.

When innovation and change occur in multiple dimensions, their S curves may look like a flat line to us if we're looking at the wrong plane. They may be steeper or longer depending upon your perspective. I also believe the law of supply and demand is waaay too simple to be very useful.

It's useful until someone tries to apply it in the real world. Do you really search for the cheapest? Do you always sell to the highest bidder? Do suppliers always react to increased demand by raising output or prices. I guess the real problem is that mainstream economics is stuck with a Steady State, Newtonian view.

Your questions will now haunt me.

bill

Bill

I see Relativism as probably the single greatest change in thinking in the last century. Barth drives people nuts with his sanctimonious fervor, but beyond that, he affected nearly every legitimate theological school in existence. What was revolutionary in his day now is the norm -- the only absolutists left are so cultic most people ignore them.

With PMi, I sense solid acceptance of subjectivism with an added sense of existentialist values and meaning. Borg's panentheism lends the idea that reality is coexistence of energy and matter -- no longer a one or the other, but a universal relationship. I can't help but see a lot of this being mirrored from scientific thought. For instance, in exchange with atheists, all I sometimes find different is the symbols. What it all means ends up being very much the same.

Excuse the musings of my twisted mind.

reido

Perhaps the next move in Relativistic Existentialism is the notion that reality is what it is and that our understanding of it depends upon the mask or filter that we overlay to view it.

This is sort of like the wise men palpating the elephant but much more complicated. If we once come to expect that we all want to know truth, then our next move is no longer conversion but incremental improvement of the accuracy of our story systems. But things get worse from there.

Once we consider that most story systems (mythologies) are trying to explain the same reality and that each has its accuracies and inaccuracies, then we're left with separating real good from real evil. Semantic differences tend toward zero while the difference between good and evil grow to infinite.

Or maybe I'm just silly and we've known all truth for 2,000 years.

bill

John

We were just talking openly, so we welcome as many as can to join in -- helps us look at things from more than one or two perspectives.

Words tend to get technical and complicated -- philosophy can be baffling with all its vocabulary. All I have is the basic tools -- Hegel's Dialectic is one: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis seems to suit a lot of process in nature and thought. I was very surprised to learn how similar Jewish Kabbala was to this -- even the Star of David has these elements.

So it looks like we are immersed in philosophy all around us whether we know the "special language" or not.

reido

Yeah the Jewish Kabbala.. I briefly looked around at all that stuff a few years ago. I couldn't really find enough information. From what I gather there are some texts, and even newer ones, but isn't allot of it done through teachers and things? And I couldn't find many of the texts either...

I wish I could find the weblink. But there was this student who was learning it through a "master". He had a website, but it wasn't quite like a blog (this was before there were blogs). It just had articles.

At the time I was very interested in theology. I'm not really at all now, atleast not in the same way (and am growing an interest in it in an opposite way). When I eventually get around to making a post on this website, I'd like to explain that! But anyway, the other thing that fascinates me is philosophy and the construction of concepts themselves.

I've always been a scientist at heart. One thing I'd really love to see is a way to put together the workings of concepts themselves into a mechanical tool like a computer. I've had this obsession that it can be done since I started making computer programs. I always felt that's essentially what we were doing. It's just that we did it always the long way and we were always so tangled up in our final application, rather than making a tool to help make our final application.

Okay to tie it back to the Kaballah... What I heard on his website (and I heard some other websites that weren't even Kaballah based saying the same thing), there was this emphasis on something from nothingness. I think I was looking at a type of idealism that was wrapped in a way that concepts seem to be constructed. It also had qualities that computer programs have; you effectively do make something from nothing there.

This really is insufficient communication... :)

Anyway, I think this is more of a personal biography of myself that I wanted to throw out to see if it’s comparable to yours. I love all of these moral things and passionate drives for something above and beyond. But I also like the structure of all of this too. And I think if we know the structure a little better (and how to handle it better) we can help with the moral parts, which are the most important! Although it’s still fun to be a scientist, just for the fun of it!

Btw, another thing about my personal biography and style is, I really don’t go about and read the authentic sources. I mean I do a little bit. There’s plenty of curiosity everywhere. But it seems to me you can absorb all of this everywhere, even second hand for greater speed. I think we (and I mean the whole human race) must all be Hegels, Platos, Einsteins and the likes!

Maybe not all of us, I'm not sure I can do those things to that extent: Hegels, Platos, Einsteins

But there's certainally allot that seems to be untapped and not touched. All you got to do is read the Internet to know that. I believe the human race can be much more alive.

Actually I take that back. I prefer to do something beyond what they did, I just might need other's help! :)

John

I am certain we have crossed some of the same rivers of thought -- it seems to be what draws people here.

I like KosherTorah.com but it is very Sephartic Jewish -- can be a boring read but I like to study the ancient sources and then try to see how it developed from there. You are correct about something from nothing. Jewish Kabbala describes the first light -- not so much as a chronological event in time in the first chapt of Genesis, but more like the concept of a God who is the essence of all things having to set aside a place that is not God (talk about abstract). The next step being the illumination or revelation or light,if you will, of God.

Is this anywhere like what you have read?

reido

Yes, that's pretty much what I was thinking about! It might have been the non-kaballa website that caught my attention more; but they were related. I'll look for my weblinks; I know I’ve saved them somewhere. I'll have to look at that KosherTorah.com website too sometime.

The problem with the Internet is there are too many options!