tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7249867.post114838461888348457..comments2023-06-18T23:28:28.840+10:00Comments on ShelterIt - My digital think-tank: It dependsAlexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10613480150660825848noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7249867.post-1148580043730598102006-05-26T04:00:00.000+10:002006-05-26T04:00:00.000+10:00p.s. Tom Stafford's blogp.s. <A HREF="http://www.idiolect.org.uk/notes/" REL="nofollow">Tom Stafford's blog</A>Bernard (ben) Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097630017893920397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7249867.post-1148579800793764202006-05-26T03:56:00.000+10:002006-05-26T03:56:00.000+10:00Google "schema theory" (in context of cognition).C...Google "schema theory" (in context of cognition).<BR/><BR/>Constructs like axioms ... clouds don't need axioms cuz they don't think. Likewise storm systems or wind-blown sand or minerals forming crystals. Complex systems don't need an explicit theory, but we do. Or, at least, we do in order to have culture and technology. (Have you read Heidegger's essays on technology?)<BR/><BR/>Soooooo imagine harnessing TM and suchlike technology to tap into our deeper processes, the ones that can't be made explicit ... to drill down through discourse and discussion and debate, to where things really matter to us. That's my inpiration for ''<A HREF="http://bentrem.sycks.net/gnodal" REL="nofollow">Participatory Deliberation</A>''><BR/><BR/>cheers<BR/><BR/>p.s. you're a principled practitioner, which is my you tend to "It depends" right off the top. Those who are more into conquest will use the taikwando of sophistry by holding back on that, keeping their cards close to their chest, and play on folks' appetite for fore-gone conclusions.Bernard (ben) Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097630017893920397noreply@blogger.com