Evolution

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt October 28, 2010 1248 MDT]
Chad, the US healthcare system wasn't "designed". Are you sure you can't pay to have the homeostatic control centered treated?

Boris, Obamacare leaves millions in the US uncovered, and like European health care systems leaves billions in the rest of the world without even basics like clean water, immunization and mosquito control. So much for healthcare "rights". What you are talking about is pure natiaonalism.

-- Martin L

···

On 10/28/2010 10:52 AM, Boris Hartman wrote:

Hi Chad !

Chad :
I would assert that the health care system in the U.S. is designed to treat
the symptoms of disease rather than the homeostatic control center itself.
Such is the all-pervasive practice of defensive medicine.

Boris :
I'm sorry Chad. I live far away from America and I have no idea how your
health care system works. The latest news I've heard was some about 500
milliards $ or maybe more heavy injection to equalize health care rights in
America. I've heard that Obama finally makes it possible to be taken care
for all Americans not just for those who have money. I suppose that health
care can't be the privilege of rich people.

Chad :
Speaking of perverse incentives, why doesn't my health insurance provider
cover the services of one of the most popular doctors in my locality who
recently started up her own holistic medicine practice? I'm told that she
quit the system because of the high cost of malpractice insurance.

Boris :
If I understand right, you are complaining about not getting enough medicine
care you would like to ? So if I understand right, you would like better
system of medical health care in USA ?

Chad :
As for human evolution, has anyone considered the possibility that our
tendency to think in black and white is a function of our bilateral
symmetry, and that if we are to continue to evolve in an increasingly
non-polar world we must break free from this fixed mindset?

Boris :
Does this theoretical discourse criticize the way we think ? Well Chad I
think that you missed the forum. As I see it, here is CSGnet and here we are
supposed to talk about HPCT. I really don�t' know where is "black and white"
forum, but I warmly suggest that you try to find it. By the way : are you a
teacher ?

Cheers,

Boris

[chadtgreen]

Martin, it has to be by design. Why else would we have the most
expensive health care system that consistently underperforms compared to
other countries? That level of inefficiency doesn't happen by
accident.

For example, see this report:

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative
Performance of American Health Care
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx

The section on equity says it all: "The U.S. ranks a clear last on all
measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more
likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting
a physician when sick, not getting a recommended test, treatment or
follow-up care, not filling a prescription, or not seeing a dentist when
needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, more than
two-fifths of lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without
needed care because of costs in the past year."

Do you know what this implies? To my mind it says that there is no
bottom of our social safety net. When there's no bottom, everyone ends
up losing out no matter how much they've got in the bank. Nevertheless,
I am confident that we will resolve this at the higher levels of HPCT
(e.g., via a national vision for equity).

As for your question, I get mine treated for free. All I am saying is
that we could be spending a lot of money on other worthy causes if we
leveraged our resources more thoughtfully.

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Martin Lewitt <mlewitt@COMCAST.NET> 10/28/2010 2:56 PM >>>

[Martin Lewitt October 28, 2010 1248 MDT]
Chad, the US healthcare system wasn't "designed". Are you sure you
can't pay to have the homeostatic control centered treated?

Boris, Obamacare leaves millions in the US uncovered, and like European

health care systems leaves billions in the rest of the world without
even basics like clean water, immunization and mosquito control. So
much for healthcare "rights". What you are talking about is pure
natiaonalism.

-- Martin L

Hi Chad !

Chad :
I would assert that the health care system in the U.S. is designed to

treat

the symptoms of disease rather than the homeostatic control center

itself.

Such is the all-pervasive practice of defensive medicine.

Boris :
I'm sorry Chad. I live far away from America and I have no idea how

your

health care system works. The latest news I've heard was some about

500

milliards $ or maybe more heavy injection to equalize health care

rights in

America. I've heard that Obama finally makes it possible to be taken

care

for all Americans not just for those who have money. I suppose that

health

care can't be the privilege of rich people.

Chad :
Speaking of perverse incentives, why doesn't my health insurance

provider

cover the services of one of the most popular doctors in my locality

who

recently started up her own holistic medicine practice? I'm told

that she

quit the system because of the high cost of malpractice insurance.

Boris :
If I understand right, you are complaining about not getting enough

medicine

care you would like to ? So if I understand right, you would like

better

system of medical health care in USA ?

Chad :
As for human evolution, has anyone considered the possibility that

our

tendency to think in black and white is a function of our bilateral
symmetry, and that if we are to continue to evolve in an

increasingly

non-polar world we must break free from this fixed mindset?

Boris :
Does this theoretical discourse criticize the way we think ? Well

Chad I

think that you missed the forum. As I

see it, here is CSGnet and here
we are

supposed to talk about HPCT. I really don’t' know where is "black

and white"

forum, but I warmly suggest that you try to find it. By the way : are

you a

···

On 10/28/2010 10:52 AM, Boris Hartman wrote:

teacher ?

Cheers,

Boris

[Martin_Lewitt]

The expense is increased by government interference, the licensing of medical professionals and intellectual property rights are barriers to entry to the market. Those parts may be by design or in deference to special interests. "equality" is evidently a worship word that knows national boundaries. The US could reduce inequality by closing its borders to the poor. Orange county or martha's vineyard could have more quality than Sweden or Norway. Do you think the poor are wrong to come to a country where they can have jobs and a future for their children, but face greater inequality than in their home countries? Abandon your nationalistic religion that asserts that you or I have more obligation to the poor that come to the US, than individuals in Norway or Sweden or elsewhere in Europe do. Their smugness is reminiscent of the nationalism that wrought so much destruction in the 19th and 20th centuries.

-- Martin L

···

On 10/28/2010 1:51 PM, Chad Green wrote:

Martin, it has to be by design. Why else would we have the most
expensive health care system that consistently underperforms compared to
other countries? That level of inefficiency doesn't happen by
accident.

For example, see this report:

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative
Performance of American Health Care
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx

The section on equity says it all: "The U.S. ranks a clear last on all
measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more
likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting
a physician when sick, not getting a recommended test, treatment or
follow-up care, not filling a prescription, or not seeing a dentist when
needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, more than
two-fifths of lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without
needed care because of costs in the past year."

Do you know what this implies? To my mind it says that there is no
bottom of our social safety net. When there's no bottom, everyone ends
up losing out no matter how much they've got in the bank. Nevertheless,
I am confident that we will resolve this at the higher levels of HPCT
(e.g., via a national vision for equity).

As for your question, I get mine treated for free. All I am saying is
that we could be spending a lot of money on other worthy causes if we
leveraged our resources more thoughtfully.

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Martin Lewitt<mlewitt@COMCAST.NET> 10/28/2010 2:56 PM>>>

[Martin Lewitt October 28, 2010 1248 MDT]
Chad, the US healthcare system wasn't "designed". Are you sure you
can't pay to have the homeostatic control centered treated?

Boris, Obamacare leaves millions in the US uncovered, and like European

health care systems leaves billions in the rest of the world without
even basics like clean water, immunization and mosquito control. So
much for healthcare "rights". What you are talking about is pure
natiaonalism.

-- Martin L

On 10/28/2010 10:52 AM, Boris Hartman wrote:

Hi Chad !

Chad :
I would assert that the health care system in the U.S. is designed to

treat

the symptoms of disease rather than the homeostatic control center

itself.

Such is the all-pervasive practice of defensive medicine.

Boris :
I'm sorry Chad. I live far away from America and I have no idea how

your

health care system works. The latest news I've heard was some about

500

milliards $ or maybe more heavy injection to equalize health care

rights in

America. I've heard that Obama finally makes it possible to be taken

care

for all Americans not just for those who have money. I suppose that

health

care can't be the privilege of rich people.

Chad :
Speaking of perverse incentives, why doesn't my health insurance

provider

cover the services of one of the most popular doctors in my locality

who

recently started up her own holistic medicine practice? I'm told

that she

quit the system because of the high cost of malpractice insurance.

Boris :
If I understand right, you are complaining about not getting enough

medicine

care you would like to ? So if I understand right, you would like

better

system of medical health care in USA ?

Chad :
As for human evolution, has anyone considered the possibility that

our

tendency to think in black and white is a function of our bilateral
symmetry, and that if we are to continue to evolve in an

increasingly

non-polar world we must break free from this fixed mindset?

Boris :
Does this theoretical discourse criticize the way we think ? Well

Chad I

think that you missed the forum. As I

  see it, here is CSGnet and here
we are

supposed to talk about HPCT. I really don’t' know where is "black

and white"

forum, but I warmly suggest that you try to find it. By the way : are

you a

teacher ?

Cheers,

Boris

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.28.1430)]

Martin Lewitt (October 28, 2010 1248 MDT)

Chad, the US healthcare system wasn't "designed". Are you sure you
can't pay to have the homeostatic control centered treated?

Martin, it has to be by design. �Why else would we have the most
expensive health care system that consistently underperforms compared to
other countries? �That level of inefficiency doesn't happen by
accident.

Very nice post Chad, but don't waste your time. Free market ideology
is a religion that does not brook facts. I've had this kind of
discussion with a free market friend of mine and I've learned that the
ideology trumps everything. Even when free marketers agree that they
want the same goals as you do they will accept lesser results if
non-free market methods are demonstrably the ones that work best at
achieving he goal; the means are more important than the ends to these
folks.

I know this because I managed to get my friend to agree that one goal
we share is a society where there is low (or non-existent)
unemployment. But he agreed to this with the caveat that low
unemployment achieved by government policies would be unacceptable. He
would rather have a free market that results in high unemployment then
"liberal" government policies that result in low unemployment. I
certainly can't win that debate and neither can you. I'm sure free
marketers would prefer our costly and ineffective free market
healthcare system to a government regulated one, like that in most
civilized societies, that is cost effective and produces better
outcomes.

I think this is what the Tea Party types mean by "freedom" by the way;
they mean a "free" market. They don't mean what I think of as freedom,
which is "being in control of one's life" (basically FDR's freedom
from want).

Best

Rick

···

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Chad Green <Chad.Green@lcps.org> wrote:
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin_Lewitt]

Which is the religion Richard? Which one of us posits the existence of a moral obligation based upon his own belief in a massless collective identity? Which of us believes in an abstraction like "equality" so self-reighteously and fervently that he thinks it justifies the use of coercion? Which of us attempts to dismissively discourage open discourse? Hear no evil, see no evil?

-- Martin L

···

On 10/28/2010 3:28 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.28.1430)]

Martin Lewitt (October 28, 2010 1248 MDT)
Chad, the US healthcare system wasn't "designed". Are you sure you
can't pay to have the homeostatic control centered treated?

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Chad Green<Chad.Green@lcps.org> wrote:

Martin, it has to be by design. Why else would we have the most
expensive health care system that consistently underperforms compared to
other countries? That level of inefficiency doesn't happen by
accident.

Very nice post Chad, but don't waste your time. Free market ideology
is a religion that does not brook facts. I've had this kind of
discussion with a free market friend of mine and I've learned that the
ideology trumps everything. Even when free marketers agree that they
want the same goals as you do they will accept lesser results if
non-free market methods are demonstrably the ones that work best at
achieving he goal; the means are more important than the ends to these
folks.

I know this because I managed to get my friend to agree that one goal
we share is a society where there is low (or non-existent)
unemployment. But he agreed to this with the caveat that low
unemployment achieved by government policies would be unacceptable. He
would rather have a free market that results in high unemployment then
"liberal" government policies that result in low unemployment. I
certainly can't win that debate and neither can you. I'm sure free
marketers would prefer our costly and ineffective free market
healthcare system to a government regulated one, like that in most
civilized societies, that is cost effective and produces better
outcomes.

I think this is what the Tea Party types mean by "freedom" by the way;
they mean a "free" market. They don't mean what I think of as freedom,
which is "being in control of one's life" (basically FDR's freedom
from want).

Best

Rick

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.28.1540)]

Martin Lewitt said:

�Which is the religion Richard?

Religion (to me) is beliefs that will not be revised in the face of
evidence. It's not the nature of the beliefs themselves that makes a
religion (the belief in the divinity of Jesus is no more religious to
be than the belief in the atomic structure of matter). It's the
unwillingness (or inability) to subject beliefs to test and to revise
or abandon those beliefs in the face of evidence that makes a
religion.

Which one of us �posits the existence of a
moral obligation based upon his own belief in a massless collective
identity?

I would guess it's neither of us.

Which of us believes in an abstraction like "equality" so self-reighteously
and fervently that he thinks it justifies the use of coercion?

Again, I would guess it's neither of us...unless you do.

Which of us attempts to dismissively discourage open discourse?

And again I would guess that neither of us do.

How did I do? I'm thinking I got 3 out of 3 for an A+;-)

Best

Rick

···

�Hear no evil, see no evil?

-- Martin L

On 10/28/2010 3:28 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.28.1430)]

Martin Lewitt (October 28, 2010 1248 MDT)
Chad, the US healthcare system wasn't "designed". �Are you sure you
can't pay to have the homeostatic control centered treated?

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Chad Green<Chad.Green@lcps.org> �wrote:

Martin, it has to be by design. �Why else would we have the most
expensive health care system that consistently underperforms compared to
other countries? �That level of inefficiency doesn't happen by
accident.

Very nice post Chad, but don't waste your time. Free market ideology
is a religion that does not brook facts. I've had this kind of
discussion with a free market friend of mine and I've learned that the
ideology trumps everything. Even when free marketers agree that they
want the same goals as you do they will accept lesser results if
non-free market methods are demonstrably the ones that work best at
achieving he goal; the means are more important than the ends to these
folks.

I know this because I managed to get my friend to agree that one goal
we share is a society where there is low (or non-existent)
unemployment. But he agreed to this with the caveat that low
unemployment achieved by government policies would be unacceptable. He
would rather have a free market that results in high unemployment then
"liberal" government policies that result in low unemployment. I
certainly can't win that debate and neither can you. I'm sure free
marketers would prefer our costly and ineffective free market
healthcare system to a government regulated one, like that in most
civilized societies, that is cost effective and produces better
outcomes.

I think this is what the Tea Party types mean by "freedom" by the way;
they mean a "free" market. They don't mean what I think of as freedom,
which is "being in control of one's life" (basically FDR's freedom
from want).

Best

Rick

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(gavin Ritz 2010.10.29 12.16NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2010.10.28.1540)]

I have a colleague who
proposes the primordial cause of all creation is the law of entropy production
(LEP). He’s not alone, Prigogine was very focused on this.

He proposes there are two
manifestations, the first is only contingent on the law of entropy production
(and entails the chaos of flux) and happens automatically.

The second manifestation
has 2 phases, but is contingent.

The first phase is revolutionary
(asymmetrical and transitive) creations contingent on 7 Essential Creation
qualities (7E’s which are defined in great detail) and entails the order
of being (structure) - and is far-from-equilibrium, where there are either
emergences or immergences, leading to a new order or total destruction. The
Bifurcation point is the fork in the road to either a new construction or a
total destruction.

The 2 phase is
evolutionary (cumulation) creations also contingent of the 7 Essential Creation
qualities (7E’s) but near-equilibrium and modeled on the Digestor (Brusselator),
leading to a higher order.

I’m still
trying to digest this model. Some of the math and logic is beyond me. He has developed
a new Imperative logic (detailed to satisfaction quotients) and used Category
Theory to define the Digestor models formula.

Martin Lewitt said:

Which is the religion Richard?

Religion (to me) is beliefs that will not be revised
in the face of

evidence. It’s not the nature of the beliefs
themselves that makes a

religion (the belief in the divinity of Jesus is no more religious to

be than the belief in the atomic structure of matter).
It’s the

unwillingness (or inability) to subject beliefs to
test and to revise

or abandon those beliefs in the face of evidence that
makes a

religion.

Which one of us posits the existence of a

moral obligation based upon his own belief in a
massless collective

identity?

I would guess it’s neither of us.

Which of us believes in an abstraction like
“equality” so self-reighteously

and fervently that he thinks it justifies the use
of coercion?

Again, I would guess it’s neither of us…unless you
do.

Which of us attempts to dismissively discourage
open discourse?

And again I would guess that neither of us do.

How did I do? I’m thinking I got 3 out of 3 for an
A+;-)

Best

Rick

Hear no evil, see no evil?

– Martin L

[From Rick Marken
(2010.10.28.1430)]

Martin Lewitt (October 28, 2010 1248 MDT)

Chad, the US healthcare
system wasn’t “designed”. Are you sure you

can’t pay to have the homeostatic control
centered treated?

Martin, it has to be by design. Why else would we have the most

expensive health care system that
consistently underperforms compared to

other countries? That level of
inefficiency doesn’t happen by

accident.

Very nice post Chad, but don’t waste your time. Free
market ideology

is a religion that does not brook facts. I’ve
had this kind of

discussion with a free market friend of mine
and I’ve learned that the

ideology trumps everything. Even when free
marketers agree that they

want the same goals as you do they will
accept lesser results if

non-free market methods are demonstrably the
ones that work best at

achieving he goal; the means are more
important than the ends to these

folks.

I know this because I managed to get my
friend to agree that one goal

we share is a society where there is low (or
non-existent)

unemployment. But he agreed to this with the
caveat that low

unemployment achieved by government policies
would be unacceptable. He

would rather have a free market that results
in high unemployment then

“liberal” government policies that
result in low unemployment. I

certainly can’t win that debate and neither
can you. I’m sure free

marketers would prefer our costly and
ineffective free market

healthcare system to a government regulated
one, like that in most

civilized societies, that is cost effective
and produces better

outcomes.

I think this is what the Tea Party types mean
by “freedom” by the way;

they mean a “free” market. They
don’t mean what I think of as freedom,

which is “being in control of one’s
life” (basically FDR’s freedom

···

On 10/28/2010 3:28 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Chad GreenChad.Green@lcps.org wrote:

from want).

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD

rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

[chadtgreen]

Are we engaging in an argument online? From my understanding of debates in general, the winner is decided by the superiority of context or framework provided during the discussion.

But how does this win/lose approach align with PCT? I am thinking of Dr. Powers' demonstration in which a volunteer, holding an elastic band, tries to keep a target centered while Dr. Powers moves the other end of the band.

Rather than trying to win the argument, shouldn't we instead be trying to negotiate the shared neutral space which propels us to higher reference levels in the hierarchy? For example, let's say your perspective for an issue is an abstract triangle and mine is a square. By negotiating the two forms, we end up with a circular shape (i.e., not a consensus, but deeper understanding of the issue). Or perhaps I'm missing the boat here.

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> 10/28/2010 6:42 PM >>>

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.28.1540)]

Martin Lewitt said:

Which is the religion Richard?

Religion (to me) is beliefs that will not be revised in the face of
evidence. It's not the nature of the beliefs themselves that makes a
religion (the belief in the divinity of Jesus is no more religious to
be than the belief in the atomic structure of matter). It's the
unwillingness (or inability) to subject beliefs to test and to revise
or abandon those beliefs in the face of evidence that makes a
religion.

Which one of us posits the existence of a
moral obligation based upon his own belief in a massless collective
identity?

I would guess it's neither of us.

Which of us believes in an abstraction like "equality" so self-reighteously
and fervently that he thinks it justifies the use of coercion?

Again, I would guess it's neither of us...unless you do.

Which of us attempts to dismissively discourage open discourse?

And again I would guess that neither of us do.

How did I do? I'm thinking I got 3 out of 3 for an A+;-)

Best

Rick

···

Hear no evil, see no evil?

-- Martin L

On 10/28/2010 3:28 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.28.1430)]

Martin Lewitt (October 28, 2010 1248 MDT)
Chad, the US healthcare system wasn't "designed". Are you sure you
can't pay to have the homeostatic control centered treated?

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Chad Green<Chad.Green@lcps.org> wrote:

Martin, it has to be by design. Why else would we have the most
expensive health care system that consistently underperforms compared to
other countries? That level of inefficiency doesn't happen by
accident.

Very nice post Chad, but don't waste your time. Free market ideology
is a religion that does not brook facts. I've had this kind of
discussion with a free market friend of mine and I've learned that the
ideology trumps everything. Even when free marketers agree that they
want the same goals as you do they will accept lesser results if
non-free market methods are demonstrably the ones that work best at
achieving he goal; the means are more important than the ends to these
folks.

I know this because I managed to get my friend to agree that one goal
we share is a society where there is low (or non-existent)
unemployment. But he agreed to this with the caveat that low
unemployment achieved by government policies would be unacceptable. He
would rather have a free market that results in high unemployment then
"liberal" government policies that result in low unemployment. I
certainly can't win that debate and neither can you. I'm sure free
marketers would prefer our costly and ineffective free market
healthcare system to a government regulated one, like that in most
civilized societies, that is cost effective and produces better
outcomes.

I think this is what the Tea Party types mean by "freedom" by the way;
they mean a "free" market. They don't mean what I think of as freedom,
which is "being in control of one's life" (basically FDR's freedom
from want).

Best

Rick

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin_Lewitt]

I just find it ironic that under an "evolution" subject heading, some are assuming that the individual should sacrifice for social or abstract considerations beyond related individuals or the immediate team or tribe. The next thing you know, someone will be suggesting that it is wrong to feed quality protein to a pet dog or cat, because people are starving in Somalia.

  -- Martin L

···

On 10/28/2010 5:52 PM, Chad Green wrote:

Are we engaging in an argument online? From my understanding of debates in general, the winner is decided by the superiority of context or framework provided during the discussion.

But how does this win/lose approach align with PCT? I am thinking of Dr. Powers' demonstration in which a volunteer, holding an elastic band, tries to keep a target centered while Dr. Powers moves the other end of the band.

Rather than trying to win the argument, shouldn't we instead be trying to negotiate the shared neutral space which propels us to higher reference levels in the hierarchy? For example, let's say your perspective for an issue is an abstract triangle and mine is a square. By negotiating the two forms, we end up with a circular shape (i.e., not a consensus, but deeper understanding of the issue). Or perhaps I'm missing the boat here.

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Richard Marken<rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> 10/28/2010 6:42 PM>>>

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.28.1540)]

Martin Lewitt said:

  Which is the religion Richard?

Religion (to me) is beliefs that will not be revised in the face of
evidence. It's not the nature of the beliefs themselves that makes a
religion (the belief in the divinity of Jesus is no more religious to
be than the belief in the atomic structure of matter). It's the
unwillingness (or inability) to subject beliefs to test and to revise
or abandon those beliefs in the face of evidence that makes a
religion.

Which one of us posits the existence of a
moral obligation based upon his own belief in a massless collective
identity?

I would guess it's neither of us.

Which of us believes in an abstraction like "equality" so self-reighteously
and fervently that he thinks it justifies the use of coercion?

Again, I would guess it's neither of us...unless you do.

Which of us attempts to dismissively discourage open discourse?

And again I would guess that neither of us do.

How did I do? I'm thinking I got 3 out of 3 for an A+;-)

Best

Rick

  Hear no evil, see no evil?

-- Martin L

On 10/28/2010 3:28 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.28.1430)]

Martin Lewitt (October 28, 2010 1248 MDT)
Chad, the US healthcare system wasn't "designed". Are you sure you
can't pay to have the homeostatic control centered treated?

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Chad Green<Chad.Green@lcps.org> wrote:

Martin, it has to be by design. Why else would we have the most
expensive health care system that consistently underperforms compared to
other countries? That level of inefficiency doesn't happen by
accident.

Very nice post Chad, but don't waste your time. Free market ideology
is a religion that does not brook facts. I've had this kind of
discussion with a free market friend of mine and I've learned that the
ideology trumps everything. Even when free marketers agree that they
want the same goals as you do they will accept lesser results if
non-free market methods are demonstrably the ones that work best at
achieving he goal; the means are more important than the ends to these
folks.

I know this because I managed to get my friend to agree that one goal
we share is a society where there is low (or non-existent)
unemployment. But he agreed to this with the caveat that low
unemployment achieved by government policies would be unacceptable. He
would rather have a free market that results in high unemployment then
"liberal" government policies that result in low unemployment. I
certainly can't win that debate and neither can you. I'm sure free
marketers would prefer our costly and ineffective free market
healthcare system to a government regulated one, like that in most
civilized societies, that is cost effective and produces better
outcomes.

I think this is what the Tea Party types mean by "freedom" by the way;
they mean a "free" market. They don't mean what I think of as freedom,
which is "being in control of one's life" (basically FDR's freedom
from want).

Best

Rick

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Chad,

Chad :
Boris, if you don't know how our health care system works here, I would
encourage you to keep it that way. It is a cascading lesson learned
that I suspect will crest soon and crash down on the subsystems that add
little to no value to the overall system.

Boris :
Well as I said. I don't live in USA, just what I hear and see on TV. I must
say I'm quite satisfied with health care in EU. But you know. Nothing can be
so good that it can't be better :)

Chad :
As for HPCT, I operate comfortably within the hidden levels (12+) that
define the boundaries of our anthropocentrism. Am I a teacher?
Perhaps, but I see my role here as more of an evacuator.

Boris :
Interesting Chad. I suppose that life in hidden 12+level must be beyond
(somehow heavenly). You must be levitating, eating air (or prana), you
don't have to take care of physical condition and running and walking in
gravitation. Your life style is probably "far away" from your homeostatic
physiological condition. You worries are out of keeping essential variables
in limits. You don't need to care about fats and CH and so on. You don't
need to worry about eating radiated food. Nice. Would you teach me that kind
of life style ?

And what you evacuate here on CSGnet ?

So you are a teacher. Or former teacher ? I'm interested in which state ?
I'm always interested in education systems all over the world and their
efficiency.

Best,

Boris

[_Boris_Hartman]

Martin :
Boris, Obamacare leaves millions in the US uncovered, and like European
health care systems leaves billions in the rest of the world without
even basics like clean water, immunization and mosquito control. So
much for healthcare "rights". What you are talking about is pure
natiaonalism.

Boris :
As you are accusing me of nationalism I suggest that you read once again
what I wrote and what you wrote.

Martin wrote :
The US could reduce inequality by closing its borders to the poor.

Boris :
THIS IS PURE NATIONALISM, EGOISM�as speaking of it. Typical HPCT. Only you
have right to live on the Earth ? I'm really not used to so much hostility.

And what you do for billions in the rest of the world who live without even
basics like clean water, immunization and mosquito control that you talk
about it ? What you do for others who already live in your country in
poverty and maybe doesn't have celan water, health care and "mosquito
control". First clean your houseďż˝

If you intend to talk in such a contradictions and hostility, I'd rather see
we don't talk.

Boris H.

[Martin_Lewitt]

Boris,

I think you misunderstood some sarcasm. The fact is the US does not close it borders and that is one of the reasons it has so many uninsured. There are more basic and important needs than healthcare, as demonstrated by the values of those who cross the border legally and illegally.. Instead of purchasing healthcare, they send money back home. Such payments are very important to the Mexican economy for instance. Even in Mexico, those payments are thought to go to more basic needs than healthcare, such as food and shelter. Based upon the values of these immigrants, there is reason to believe that the United States helps far more people by letting them allocate their resources as they see fit, than by forcing them to consume those resources to support in the US healthcare system.

It is a fact that the US would have fewer uninsured if it closed its borders, but it helps more people by keeping them open, than by providing healthcare. I prefer open immigration, where the only thing that should change at the border is the government that is responsible for protecting rights, holding itself it standards, and checking its own power. Unfortunately, most governments are not like that, Mexico for instance, like Germany, Norway, Turkey, Russia and the PRC still conscript people as if they were property of the state. Conscription was the weapon of mass destruction responsible for far more deaths over the last two centuries that all other WMD combined.

regards,
    Martin L

···

On 10/29/2010 7:40 AM, Boris Hartman wrote:

Martin :
Boris, Obamacare leaves millions in the US uncovered, and like European
health care systems leaves billions in the rest of the world without
even basics like clean water, immunization and mosquito control. So
much for healthcare "rights". What you are talking about is pure
natiaonalism.

Boris :
As you are accusing me of nationalism I suggest that you read once again
what I wrote and what you wrote.

Martin wrote :
The US could reduce inequality by closing its borders to the poor.

Boris :
THIS IS PURE NATIONALISM, EGOISM�as speaking of it. Typical HPCT. Only you
have right to live on the Earth ? I'm really not used to so much hostility.

And what you do for billions in the rest of the world who live without even
basics like clean water, immunization and mosquito control that you talk
about it ? What you do for others who already live in your country in
poverty and maybe doesn't have celan water, health care and "mosquito
control". First clean your house�

If you intend to talk in such a contradictions and hostility, I'd rather see
we don't talk.

Boris H.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.29.0920)]

Are we engaging in an argument online? �From my understanding
of debates in general, the winner is decided by the superiority of
context or framework provided during the discussion.

the debaters themselves, in their own minds.

But how does this win/lose approach align with PCT? �I am thinking of Dr. Powers'
demonstration in which a volunteer, holding an elastic band, tries to keep a target
centered while Dr. Powers moves the other end of the band.

That's correct.That's how an argument "aligns" with PCT. An argument
is a conflict, like the rubber band demo. Both sides are trying to get
the same or a very similar perception -- such as the perception of
the position of the knot relative to the spot in the rubber band demo
-- to different reference states.

Rather than trying to win the argument, shouldn't we instead be trying to
negotiate the shared neutral space which propels us to higher reference
levels in the hierarchy?

Whether you try to win (or lose) a conflict or try to negotiate a
solution depends on what higher level goals you are trying to achieve.
In CSGNet conflicts I try to "win" for a while (where winning would be
hearing the other party say "wow, you're right"!) but I know that a
win is highly unlikely. I also try to listen to the other party
because I am also interested in learning and sometimes the other party
does convince me that they are right. And when that happens I am happy
to "lose" the argument because I've actually won it by learning
something. But usually I am unconvinced by other people (and they are
unconvinced by me) so I eventually just walk away from the conflict
(just as one walks to the showers after a ball game that ends in a
tie). That's why I haven't been on CSGNet lately; not much chance of
"winning" and not much chance of "learning".

For example, let's say your perspective for an issue is an abstract triangle
and mine is a square. �By negotiating the two forms, we end up with a
circular shape (i.e., not a consensus, but deeper understanding of the issue).

That's a compromise solution and it won't really solve the conflict;
both systems will still be experiencing error and eventually that
little error will drive the conflict again (resulting in big error for
both systems). Conflicts are resolved only if the higher level control
systems that are creating the conflict are reorganized. In the
conflict described above the systems creating the conflict are the
ones in each person that achieve their goals by having lower level
systems control for a triangle and square. Reorganization is a random
process so how the conflict is solved (if it is) can take many forms.
The higher level system in one party could just shut down for a time
so it doesn't need to have the lower level system control for any
shape. Or it could revise it's goal so that the lower level system is
required to produce the same form as the other system (a square, say).
Or...

Or perhaps I'm missing the boat here.

I think you assume the PCT boat is some kind of guide for how people
should live. This is the same mistake Martin Lewitt (like Herbert
Spencer) makes when he assumes that the theory of evolution by natural
selection (PCT has a somewhat different model of evolution) is a
guide to how people should behave economically. PCT is a model of how
people behave, including how they behave in conflicts. It's not a
theory of how people _should_ behave. The theory doesn't say whether
conflict is good or bad; people themselves do (as per PCT). People
clearly enjoy some conflicts (sports for example). Some people like
conflict so much that they think it should be the basis of our
economic system (what is "competition" but conflict) and our foreign
policy (constant war).

I personally like scientific conflict; I think it's the best way to
improve our understanding of the world. But I don't like the conflict
to get "out of hand". The nice thing about scientific conflicts is
that, at least in principle, they should be resolvable through
empirical tests of the conflicting ideas (when those ideas are
expressed as working models); the people with the wrong idea are
supposed to look at the evidence and say "wow, you were right" and
then proceed to become allied to the good new idea. Of course, it
doesn't always happen that way, as witness the problems PCT has had in
displacing conventional psychological models. There are human concerns
(higher level goals) that get in the way -- careers, textbooks,
reputations, etc. Some don't like scientific conflict at all and avoid
it using compromise. Thus we get diluted versions of PCT that are just
as "wrong" as the conventional models. Scientific conflicts are always
"win-lose". Either the earth is flat or it's not; either the sun is in
the center of the solar system or it's not. What makes a great
scientist (in my opinion) is combining a willingness to control with
high gain for an idea (be willing to be in a conflict) with a
willingness to give up control of that idea in the face of evidence
(ending the conflict).

Best

Rick

···

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Chad Green <Chad.Green@lcps.org> wrote:
from my understanding of PCT, I would say the "winner" is decided by

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> 10/28/2010 6:42 PM >>>

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.28.1540)]

Martin Lewitt said:

�Which is the religion Richard?

Religion (to me) is beliefs that will not be revised in the face of
evidence. It's not the nature of the beliefs themselves that makes a
religion (the belief in the divinity of Jesus is no more religious to
be than the belief in the atomic structure of matter). It's the
unwillingness (or inability) to subject beliefs to test and to revise
or abandon those beliefs in the face of evidence that makes a
religion.

Which one of us �posits the existence of a
moral obligation based upon his own belief in a massless collective
identity?

I would guess it's neither of us.

Which of us believes in an abstraction like "equality" so self-reighteously
and fervently that he thinks it justifies the use of coercion?

Again, I would guess it's neither of us...unless you do.

Which of us attempts to dismissively discourage open discourse?

And again I would guess that neither of us do.

How did I do? I'm thinking I got 3 out of 3 for an A+;-)

Best

Rick

�Hear no evil, see no evil?

-- Martin L

On 10/28/2010 3:28 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.28.1430)]

Martin Lewitt (October 28, 2010 1248 MDT)
Chad, the US healthcare system wasn't "designed". �Are you sure you
can't pay to have the homeostatic control centered treated?

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Chad Green<Chad.Green@lcps.org> �wrote:

Martin, it has to be by design. �Why else would we have the most
expensive health care system that consistently underperforms compared to
other countries? �That level of inefficiency doesn't happen by
accident.

Very nice post Chad, but don't waste your time. Free market ideology
is a religion that does not brook facts. I've had this kind of
discussion with a free market friend of mine and I've learned that the
ideology trumps everything. Even when free marketers agree that they
want the same goals as you do they will accept lesser results if
non-free market methods are demonstrably the ones that work best at
achieving he goal; the means are more important than the ends to these
folks.

I know this because I managed to get my friend to agree that one goal
we share is a society where there is low (or non-existent)
unemployment. But he agreed to this with the caveat that low
unemployment achieved by government policies would be unacceptable. He
would rather have a free market that results in high unemployment then
"liberal" government policies that result in low unemployment. I
certainly can't win that debate and neither can you. I'm sure free
marketers would prefer our costly and ineffective free market
healthcare system to a government regulated one, like that in most
civilized societies, that is cost effective and produces better
outcomes.

I think this is what the Tea Party types mean by "freedom" by the way;
they mean a "free" market. They don't mean what I think of as freedom,
which is "being in control of one's life" (basically FDR's freedom
from want).

Best

Rick

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin_Lewitt]

[From Martin Lewitt October 29, 2010 1105 MDT]

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.29.0920)]

Are we engaging in an argument online? From my understanding
of debates in general, the winner is decided by the superiority of
context or framework provided during the discussion.

> From my understanding of PCT, I would say the "winner" is decided by
the debaters themselves, in their own minds.

But how does this win/lose approach align with PCT? I am thinking of Dr. Powers'
demonstration in which a volunteer, holding an elastic band, tries to keep a target
centered while Dr. Powers moves the other end of the band.

That's correct.That's how an argument "aligns" with PCT. An argument
is a conflict, like the rubber band demo. Both sides are trying to get
the same or a very similar perception -- such as the perception of
the position of the knot relative to the spot in the rubber band demo
-- to different reference states.

Rather than trying to win the argument, shouldn't we instead be trying to
negotiate the shared neutral space which propels us to higher reference
levels in the hierarchy?

Whether you try to win (or lose) a conflict or try to negotiate a
solution depends on what higher level goals you are trying to achieve.
In CSGNet conflicts I try to "win" for a while (where winning would be
hearing the other party say "wow, you're right"!) but I know that a
win is highly unlikely. I also try to listen to the other party
because I am also interested in learning and sometimes the other party
does convince me that they are right. And when that happens I am happy
to "lose" the argument because I've actually won it by learning
something. But usually I am unconvinced by other people (and they are
unconvinced by me) so I eventually just walk away from the conflict
(just as one walks to the showers after a ball game that ends in a
tie). That's why I haven't been on CSGNet lately; not much chance of
"winning" and not much chance of "learning".

A win, tie or loss is not just decided by the ending state, as your win by learning example concedes. One can count a "win" for instance, by moving the position to a tie from a beginning state that the opponent smugly assumed was unquestioned and unassailable. Progressives often assume that classical liberals don't have an intellectually defensible position. Discourse that shows that the differences are not ones of intellect, information, or consistency but of assumptions and values, and that the hypocrisy or blind idealism is not just on one side, is a win in that circumstance.

For example, let's say your perspective for an issue is an abstract triangle
and mine is a square. By negotiating the two forms, we end up with a
circular shape (i.e., not a consensus, but deeper understanding of the issue).

That's a compromise solution and it won't really solve the conflict;
both systems will still be experiencing error and eventually that
little error will drive the conflict again (resulting in big error for
both systems). Conflicts are resolved only if the higher level control
systems that are creating the conflict are reorganized. In the
conflict described above the systems creating the conflict are the
ones in each person that achieve their goals by having lower level
systems control for a triangle and square. Reorganization is a random
process so how the conflict is solved (if it is) can take many forms.
The higher level system in one party could just shut down for a time
so it doesn't need to have the lower level system control for any
shape. Or it could revise it's goal so that the lower level system is
required to produce the same form as the other system (a square, say).
Or...

Or perhaps I'm missing the boat here.

I think you assume the PCT boat is some kind of guide for how people
should live. This is the same mistake Martin Lewitt (like Herbert
Spencer) makes when he assumes that the theory of evolution by natural
selection (PCT has a somewhat different model of evolution) is a
guide to how people should behave economically. PCT is a model of how
people behave, including how they behave in conflicts. It's not a
theory of how people _should_ behave. The theory doesn't say whether
conflict is good or bad; people themselves do (as per PCT). People
clearly enjoy some conflicts (sports for example). Some people like
conflict so much that they think it should be the basis of our
economic system (what is "competition" but conflict) and our foreign
policy (constant war).

Of course the theory doesn't say whether conflict is good or bad, but the evidence says that it is human nature. The cooperation, teamwork, collective identification, heroism and altruistic behavior that favored the survival of kin or the cohesion of the ethic or cultural group are no more (or less) "human" than the out-group demonization and dehumanization. The emergent market phenomenon is not just about competition, but enabling cooperation among strangers even when geographically and culturally distant. The competitive element allows price discovery and robustness in satisficing of local, distributed and diverse values, in a situation where the finding of a global optimum is not just intractable, but impossible to agree upon or define.

Martin L

···

On 10/29/2010 10:21 AM, Richard Marken wrote:

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Chad Green<Chad.Green@lcps.org> wrote:

I personally like scientific conflict; I think it's the best way to
improve our understanding of the world. But I don't like the conflict
to get "out of hand". The nice thing about scientific conflicts is
that, at least in principle, they should be resolvable through
empirical tests of the conflicting ideas (when those ideas are
expressed as working models); the people with the wrong idea are
supposed to look at the evidence and say "wow, you were right" and
then proceed to become allied to the good new idea. Of course, it
doesn't always happen that way, as witness the problems PCT has had in
displacing conventional psychological models. There are human concerns
(higher level goals) that get in the way -- careers, textbooks,
reputations, etc. Some don't like scientific conflict at all and avoid
it using compromise. Thus we get diluted versions of PCT that are just
as "wrong" as the conventional models. Scientific conflicts are always
"win-lose". Either the earth is flat or it's not; either the sun is in
the center of the solar system or it's not. What makes a great
scientist (in my opinion) is combining a willingness to control with
high gain for an idea (be willing to be in a conflict) with a
willingness to give up control of that idea in the face of evidence
(ending the conflict).

Best

Rick

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Richard Marken<rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> 10/28/2010 6:42 PM>>>

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.28.1540)]

Martin Lewitt said:

  Which is the religion Richard?

Religion (to me) is beliefs that will not be revised in the face of
evidence. It's not the nature of the beliefs themselves that makes a
religion (the belief in the divinity of Jesus is no more religious to
be than the belief in the atomic structure of matter). It's the
unwillingness (or inability) to subject beliefs to test and to revise
or abandon those beliefs in the face of evidence that makes a
religion.

Which one of us posits the existence of a
moral obligation based upon his own belief in a massless collective
identity?

I would guess it's neither of us.

Which of us believes in an abstraction like "equality" so self-reighteously
and fervently that he thinks it justifies the use of coercion?

Again, I would guess it's neither of us...unless you do.

Which of us attempts to dismissively discourage open discourse?

And again I would guess that neither of us do.

How did I do? I'm thinking I got 3 out of 3 for an A+;-)

Best

Rick

  Hear no evil, see no evil?

-- Martin L

On 10/28/2010 3:28 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.28.1430)]

Martin Lewitt (October 28, 2010 1248 MDT)
Chad, the US healthcare system wasn't "designed". Are you sure you
can't pay to have the homeostatic control centered treated?

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Chad Green<Chad.Green@lcps.org> wrote:

Martin, it has to be by design. Why else would we have the most
expensive health care system that consistently underperforms compared to
other countries? That level of inefficiency doesn't happen by
accident.

Very nice post Chad, but don't waste your time. Free market ideology
is a religion that does not brook facts. I've had this kind of
discussion with a free market friend of mine and I've learned that the
ideology trumps everything. Even when free marketers agree that they
want the same goals as you do they will accept lesser results if
non-free market methods are demonstrably the ones that work best at
achieving he goal; the means are more important than the ends to these
folks.

I know this because I managed to get my friend to agree that one goal
we share is a society where there is low (or non-existent)
unemployment. But he agreed to this with the caveat that low
unemployment achieved by government policies would be unacceptable. He
would rather have a free market that results in high unemployment then
"liberal" government policies that result in low unemployment. I
certainly can't win that debate and neither can you. I'm sure free
marketers would prefer our costly and ineffective free market
healthcare system to a government regulated one, like that in most
civilized societies, that is cost effective and produces better
outcomes.

I think this is what the Tea Party types mean by "freedom" by the way;
they mean a "free" market. They don't mean what I think of as freedom,
which is "being in control of one's life" (basically FDR's freedom
from want).

Best

Rick

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[chadtgreen]

Boris, the highest levels of the hierarchy can be obtained simply by using multi-valued, rather than classical, logic.

This was the lesson of human religiosity, and will be of science as well. They are two sides of the same anthropocentric coin. I have personally experienced the death of scientific knowledge, so I can speak of it from the perspective that it is the most complex emotion I have ever experienced. It is similar to losing the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, with the exception that the towers in this instance represent the destruction of your persona. The disintegration of this construct leaves room for a new perspective that I am only beginning to explore.

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Boris Hartman<boris.hartman@MASICOM.NET> 10/29/2010 9:33 AM >>>

Hi Chad,

Chad :
Boris, if you don't know how our health care system works here, I would
encourage you to keep it that way. It is a cascading lesson learned
that I suspect will crest soon and crash down on the subsystems that add
little to no value to the overall system.

Boris :
Well as I said. I don't live in USA, just what I hear and see on TV. I must
say I'm quite satisfied with health care in EU. But you know. Nothing can be
so good that it can't be better :)

Chad :
As for HPCT, I operate comfortably within the hidden levels (12+) that
define the boundaries of our anthropocentrism. Am I a teacher?
Perhaps, but I see my role here as more of an evacuator.

Boris :
Interesting Chad. I suppose that life in hidden 12+level must be beyond
(somehow heavenly). You must be levitating, eating air (or prana), you
don't have to take care of physical condition and running and walking in
gravitation. Your life style is probably "far away" from your homeostatic
physiological condition. You worries are out of keeping essential variables
in limits. You don't need to care about fats and CH and so on. You don't
need to worry about eating radiated food. Nice. Would you teach me that kind
of life style ?

And what you evacuate here on CSGnet ?

So you are a teacher. Or former teacher ? I'm interested in which state ?
I'm always interested in education systems all over the world and their
efficiency.

Best,

Boris

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt October 29, 2010 1336 MDT]

The argument from personal experience for the death of scientific knowledge is not generalizable. Science, like a constitutional republic, ultimately depends upon the character of those involved in the process. Fortunately, East Anglia is still the exception. Replacing classical logic with multi-valued logic is inefficient when not dealing with significant uncertainty in the data.

"Exploring a new perspective" sounds profound, especially without specifics. Is it about an egoless, all encompassing collective identity, the one, the oneness, the connectedness of everything?

Martin L

···

On 10/29/2010 1:26 PM, Chad Green wrote:

Boris, the highest levels of the hierarchy can be obtained simply by using multi-valued, rather than classical, logic.

This was the lesson of human religiosity, and will be of science as well. They are two sides of the same anthropocentric coin. I have personally experienced the death of scientific knowledge, so I can speak of it from the perspective that it is the most complex emotion I have ever experienced. It is similar to losing the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, with the exception that the towers in this instance represent the destruction of your persona. The disintegration of this construct leaves room for a new perspective that I am only beginning to explore.

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Boris Hartman<boris.hartman@MASICOM.NET> 10/29/2010 9:33 AM>>>

Hi Chad,

Chad :
Boris, if you don't know how our health care system works here, I would
encourage you to keep it that way. It is a cascading lesson learned
that I suspect will crest soon and crash down on the subsystems that add
little to no value to the overall system.

Boris :
Well as I said. I don't live in USA, just what I hear and see on TV. I must
say I'm quite satisfied with health care in EU. But you know. Nothing can be
so good that it can't be better :)

Chad :
As for HPCT, I operate comfortably within the hidden levels (12+) that
define the boundaries of our anthropocentrism. Am I a teacher?
Perhaps, but I see my role here as more of an evacuator.

Boris :
Interesting Chad. I suppose that life in hidden 12+level must be beyond
(somehow heavenly). You must be levitating, eating air (or prana), you
don't have to take care of physical condition and running and walking in
gravitation. Your life style is probably "far away" from your homeostatic
physiological condition. You worries are out of keeping essential variables
in limits. You don't need to care about fats and CH and so on. You don't
need to worry about eating radiated food. Nice. Would you teach me that kind
of life style ?

And what you evacuate here on CSGnet ?

So you are a teacher. Or former teacher ? I'm interested in which state ?
I'm always interested in education systems all over the world and their
efficiency.

Best,

Boris

[chadtgreen]

Boris, to answer your other questions, I would suggest that you (a) be a student of your own teaching, (b) live entirely in the present, and (c) replace certainty with permanent curiosity.

Sir Francis Bacon summarized it well: "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties."

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Boris Hartman<boris.hartman@MASICOM.NET> 10/29/2010 9:33 AM >>>

Hi Chad,

Chad :
Boris, if you don't know how our health care system works here, I would
encourage you to keep it that way. It is a cascading lesson learned
that I suspect will crest soon and crash down on the subsystems that add
little to no value to the overall system.

Boris :
Well as I said. I don't live in USA, just what I hear and see on TV. I must
say I'm quite satisfied with health care in EU. But you know. Nothing can be
so good that it can't be better :)

Chad :
As for HPCT, I operate comfortably within the hidden levels (12+) that
define the boundaries of our anthropocentrism. Am I a teacher?
Perhaps, but I see my role here as more of an evacuator.

Boris :
Interesting Chad. I suppose that life in hidden 12+level must be beyond
(somehow heavenly). You must be levitating, eating air (or prana), you
don't have to take care of physical condition and running and walking in
gravitation. Your life style is probably "far away" from your homeostatic
physiological condition. You worries are out of keeping essential variables
in limits. You don't need to care about fats and CH and so on. You don't
need to worry about eating radiated food. Nice. Would you teach me that kind
of life style ?

And what you evacuate here on CSGnet ?

So you are a teacher. Or former teacher ? I'm interested in which state ?
I'm always interested in education systems all over the world and their
efficiency.

Best,

Boris

[chadtgreen]

Martin,

To address your question, I would recommend the book "Seven Life Lessons of Chaos: Timeless Wisdom from the Science of Change" by Briggs and Peat: Seven Life Lessons of Chaos - F. David Peat & John Briggs

1) Be Creative: how to engage with chaos to find imaginative new solutions and live more dynamically.
2) Use Butterfly Power: how to let chaos grow local efforts into global results.
3) Go with the Flow: how to use chaos to work collectively with others.
4) Explore What's Between: how to discover life's rich subtleties and avoid the traps of stereotypes.
5) See the Art of the World: how to appreciate the beauty of life's chaos.
6) Live Within Time: how to utilize time's hidden depths.
7) Rejoin the Whole: how to realize our fractal connectedness to each other and the world.

If you find yourself, as I did, dog-earing each page twice from that book, then I suspect you have successfully stopped the boat itself.

Have a great weekend folks!

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Martin Lewitt <mlewitt@COMCAST.NET> 10/29/2010 4:01 PM >>>

[Martin Lewitt October 29, 2010 1336 MDT]

The argument from personal experience for the death of scientific
knowledge is not generalizable. Science, like a constitutional
republic, ultimately depends upon the character of those involved in the
process. Fortunately, East Anglia is still the exception. Replacing
classical logic with multi-valued logic is inefficient when not dealing
with significant uncertainty in the data.

"Exploring a new perspective" sounds profound, especially without
specifics. Is it about an egoless, all encompassing collective
identity, the one, the oneness, the connectedness of everything?

Martin L

···

On 10/29/2010 1:26 PM, Chad Green wrote:

Boris, the highest levels of the hierarchy can be obtained simply by using multi-valued, rather than classical, logic.

This was the lesson of human religiosity, and will be of science as well. They are two sides of the same anthropocentric coin. I have personally experienced the death of scientific knowledge, so I can speak of it from the perspective that it is the most complex emotion I have ever experienced. It is similar to losing the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, with the exception that the towers in this instance represent the destruction of your persona. The disintegration of this construct leaves room for a new perspective that I am only beginning to explore.

Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Boris Hartman<boris.hartman@MASICOM.NET> 10/29/2010 9:33 AM>>>

Hi Chad,

Chad :
Boris, if you don't know how our health care system works here, I would
encourage you to keep it that way. It is a cascading lesson learned
that I suspect will crest soon and crash down on the subsystems that add
little to no value to the overall system.

Boris :
Well as I said. I don't live in USA, just what I hear and see on TV. I must
say I'm quite satisfied with health care in EU. But you know. Nothing can be
so good that it can't be better :)

Chad :
As for HPCT, I operate comfortably within the hidden levels (12+) that
define the boundaries of our anthropocentrism. Am I a teacher?
Perhaps, but I see my role here as more of an evacuator.

Boris :
Interesting Chad. I suppose that life in hidden 12+level must be beyond
(somehow heavenly). You must be levitating, eating air (or prana), you
don't have to take care of physical condition and running and walking in
gravitation. Your life style is probably "far away" from your homeostatic
physiological condition. You worries are out of keeping essential variables
in limits. You don't need to care about fats and CH and so on. You don't
need to worry about eating radiated food. Nice. Would you teach me that kind
of life style ?

And what you evacuate here on CSGnet ?

So you are a teacher. Or former teacher ? I'm interested in which state ?
I'm always interested in education systems all over the world and their
efficiency.

Best,

Boris

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Chad,

Chad :
Boris, the highest levels of the hierarchy can be obtained simply by using
multi-valued, rather than classical, logic.

Boris :
Well Chad I'm sorry. You'll have to be more specific about 12 + levels of
hierarchy. Are we talking about religion and Godďż˝? Is the book "Seven Life
Lessons of Chaos: Timeless Wisdom from the Science of Change" your Bible !!??

As far as I can understand now, you are levitating more than I suspected. I
see now that you're maybe not grounded. Can you live without science ? You
are lucky that you have computer. :) It will keep you experiencing the
scientific knowledge and create scientific multi-valued system. Keep it that
way

So you are teacher for religions or you are a priest ?

Cheers,

Boris

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Martin,

Martin L. :
I think you misunderstood some sarcasm. The fact is the US does not close
it borders and that is one of the reasons it has so many uninsured. There
are more basic and important needs than healthcare, as demonstrated by the
values of those who cross the border legally and illegally.. Instead of
purchasing healthcare, they send money back home.
Such payments are very important to the Mexican economy for instance. Even
in Mexico, those payments are thought to go to more basic needs than
healthcare, such as food and shelter. Based upon the values of these
immigrants, there is reason to believe that the United States helps far more
people by letting them allocate their resources as
they see fit, than by forcing them to consume those resources to support in
the US healthcare system.
It is a fact that the US would have fewer uninsured if it closed its
borders, but it helps more people by keeping them open, than by providing
healthcare.

Boris :
Thanks for wide and detailed, expert explanation. It seems to me like you
could be working somewhere in these arias ? :)

Martin L.:
I prefer open immigration, where the only thing that should change at the
border is the government that is responsible for protecting rights, holding
itself it standards, and checking its own power. Unfortunately, most
governments are not like that, Mexico for instance, like Germany, Norway,
Turkey, Russia and the PRC still conscript people as if they were property
of the state. Conscription was the weapon of mass destruction responsible
for far more deaths over the last two centuries that all other WMD combined.

Boris :
I can agree with you. But doesn't this mean that any country on the world
including Somalia, etc. should be responsible "for protecting rights,
holding itself it standards, and checking its own power". If I understood
you right and if I follow this logic, it seems to me that every country on
the World should probably take responsibility for well-being of all their
citizens.
It seems to me like a contradiction again. Helping countries like Somalia,
Dar-fur, North Korea, etc. with "potato" doesn't result in wished
consequences. Why not teach them to make "potato" themselves ? Could that
mean interfering in internal affairs of the countries ? Can problem of
countries responsibility be ever solved ?

Best,

Boris