Comments on 'Systematics' by Anthony Blake
This morning I clicked on Systematics on page http://www.duversity.org/library.htm.
Anthony Blake has written a marvellous introduction into this 'systems approach' to thinking.
Reading with my laptop made me note these comments:
Wholeness is relative. Yes. “Absolute Relativity” is one of my ‘principles’.
A progression of being is a process through time.
The ORDER of a system is its MAGNITUDE in measuring terms.
The degree of being is thus the FUNCTION of the ORGANISM.
‘Degree of inner togetherness’ is DENSITY in measuring terms.
‘Being’ becomes ‘phenomenon’ in physics terms.
Systems are organizations of elements or components and ways in which they interrelate. They are not scientific but mental ‘symbolised’ models. The quality of the model depends on the degree of insight of the 'modeller'.
We MUST distinguish between micro, anthropo and macro when we think ‘levels’. Micro is before a microscope. Anthropo is through our eyes. Macro is behind a telescope.
Yes, looking at SYSTEMS and turning them into MODELS is a way of making sense and giving meaning!
The hardest system to comprehend, and certainly model, is of course our own mind / body / soul system of thoughts / sensations / feelings…
PATTERNS of MEANING of UNIVERSAL IMPORT - what a lovely title!
A SENSE of SCALE: NODES on these SCALES are SERIES of SYSTEMS
Tony's ‘number systems’ in terms of monad, dyad, triad and tetrad, must not be generalized ‘across the board’ of personal philosophy, cosmology and pure thinking or mathematics where they become ‘dimensions’ (with 18 definitions in Microsoft Encarta!)...
I developed my insights by writing some 200 TABLES. My tables started out with 3 columns but are perfectly variable in terms of numbers of rows and columns as ‘systems of thought’. Similarly, my classification code is ‘flexible’ in terms of its numbers of levels and sub-levels.
Numbers and alphabets have an INHERENT order.
Number SYSTEMS (in the mathematical sense) ‘describe’ an inherent MAGNITUDE.
Tony (and everybody he quotes) seems to leave out ZERO from his list under NUMBER SYSTEMS!!!
N elements / dimensions / degrees of freedom can NOT be treated equally:
'Elements' are distinct objects.
'Dimensions' are orthogonal measuring axes used to count measuring units.
'Degrees of freedom' are angles that are counted.
So ‘counting’ is a different process in each of the systems!
NO, Mr Bennett: the meaning of every member of a number system [ N] is NOT the same for any such number system.
0 is not equal to 1 which is not equal to 2 etc.
Likewise, a system [0] is not equal to a system [1] or a system [2].
And CERTAINLY an element [N] of a system [N] is ‘SYSTEM INHERENT’: element {0} is not equal to an element {1}, etc.
With ‘3D TimeSpace’ I have indeed created a new topological space and I have a few other such spaces as ‘models’. Notice my topological banner on http://217.34.13.7/index.html for my ‘Concept Maps’.
The meaning of any feature depends on context. Yeah, yeah, yeah!!!
Systems do provide contexts for their various parts!
The dyad is the fundamental principle of POLARITY. Polarities exist in micro- and macro-levels. What humans do on their anthropo-level is of course entirely due to their split / holistic minds…
Structure -> Presence -> Process
for me is
Structure (Space) -> Process (Time) -> Content (Phenomena)
As a ‘fundamental complement’, I’d translate
Forms -> Images -> Commentary
into
Shapes -> Movement -> Measures.
David Bohm’s THOUGHT AS A SYSTEM for me is THINKING AS A PROCESS…
Above all else: a system / group of PEOPLE is rather a special kind of system compared to a system of atoms / molecules / computers / apples / animals, etc…
Onwards and Upwards into a new day of thinking by writing and talking...
Anthony Blake has written a marvellous introduction into this 'systems approach' to thinking.
Reading with my laptop made me note these comments:
Wholeness is relative. Yes. “Absolute Relativity” is one of my ‘principles’.
A progression of being is a process through time.
The ORDER of a system is its MAGNITUDE in measuring terms.
The degree of being is thus the FUNCTION of the ORGANISM.
‘Degree of inner togetherness’ is DENSITY in measuring terms.
‘Being’ becomes ‘phenomenon’ in physics terms.
Systems are organizations of elements or components and ways in which they interrelate. They are not scientific but mental ‘symbolised’ models. The quality of the model depends on the degree of insight of the 'modeller'.
We MUST distinguish between micro, anthropo and macro when we think ‘levels’. Micro is before a microscope. Anthropo is through our eyes. Macro is behind a telescope.
Yes, looking at SYSTEMS and turning them into MODELS is a way of making sense and giving meaning!
The hardest system to comprehend, and certainly model, is of course our own mind / body / soul system of thoughts / sensations / feelings…
PATTERNS of MEANING of UNIVERSAL IMPORT - what a lovely title!
A SENSE of SCALE: NODES on these SCALES are SERIES of SYSTEMS
Tony's ‘number systems’ in terms of monad, dyad, triad and tetrad, must not be generalized ‘across the board’ of personal philosophy, cosmology and pure thinking or mathematics where they become ‘dimensions’ (with 18 definitions in Microsoft Encarta!)...
I developed my insights by writing some 200 TABLES. My tables started out with 3 columns but are perfectly variable in terms of numbers of rows and columns as ‘systems of thought’. Similarly, my classification code is ‘flexible’ in terms of its numbers of levels and sub-levels.
Numbers and alphabets have an INHERENT order.
Number SYSTEMS (in the mathematical sense) ‘describe’ an inherent MAGNITUDE.
Tony (and everybody he quotes) seems to leave out ZERO from his list under NUMBER SYSTEMS!!!
N elements / dimensions / degrees of freedom can NOT be treated equally:
'Elements' are distinct objects.
'Dimensions' are orthogonal measuring axes used to count measuring units.
'Degrees of freedom' are angles that are counted.
So ‘counting’ is a different process in each of the systems!
NO, Mr Bennett: the meaning of every member of a number system [ N] is NOT the same for any such number system.
0 is not equal to 1 which is not equal to 2 etc.
Likewise, a system [0] is not equal to a system [1] or a system [2].
And CERTAINLY an element [N] of a system [N] is ‘SYSTEM INHERENT’: element {0} is not equal to an element {1}, etc.
With ‘3D TimeSpace’ I have indeed created a new topological space and I have a few other such spaces as ‘models’. Notice my topological banner on http://217.34.13.7/index.html for my ‘Concept Maps’.
The meaning of any feature depends on context. Yeah, yeah, yeah!!!
Systems do provide contexts for their various parts!
The dyad is the fundamental principle of POLARITY. Polarities exist in micro- and macro-levels. What humans do on their anthropo-level is of course entirely due to their split / holistic minds…
Structure -> Presence -> Process
for me is
Structure (Space) -> Process (Time) -> Content (Phenomena)
As a ‘fundamental complement’, I’d translate
Forms -> Images -> Commentary
into
Shapes -> Movement -> Measures.
David Bohm’s THOUGHT AS A SYSTEM for me is THINKING AS A PROCESS…
Above all else: a system / group of PEOPLE is rather a special kind of system compared to a system of atoms / molecules / computers / apples / animals, etc…
Onwards and Upwards into a new day of thinking by writing and talking...
posted by Unknown at 10:21 AM
0 comments
