While I toil in my exile I started playing with a couple of the items that pop up in my email file from those given access. I read what I could regarding Infinite and Finite Games from James Carse, then did some reading on Divergent thinking, Convergent thinking, then to my surprise, with enough of the right keywords, I can gain insight and wisdom from the blogs of people that have similar concerns as I.
As far as James Carse goes, I found what material I found on his Book, he appears to be nothing more then an intellectual hack, regurgitating the same adversarial us/them mantra. I did enjoy is description of the “master player”, hit pretty close to home. Really is it that hard of a description.
In my reading of Divergent thinking, I final was able place the iconic animal figure to my thoughts. So why cant Gerbils and Jellyfish get along? Those who solely rely upon divergent thinking are a lot like jellyfish, a free flow form that has no bones, No rules, no starting , no end. A person can try to hold it in your hands but like a jellyfish they are impossible to hold. In my travels, I actual ran across a person that felt divergent thinking foiled convergent thinking. To me that is a lot like saying the tails side of a quarter is better then the heads side. Remove either side and you no longer have a quarter.
Being on the path to self enlightenment, I certainly can agree with the criticism I found regarding those how “rely” on convergent thinking. “This type of person makes very quick, impulsive decision without seeing the total picture and understanding neither the real problem nor the consequences of the solution that that is chosen.” Of course the opposite for those the “rely” on divergent thinking “this type person will be very good at coming up with a lot of ideas and looking at many possible solutions, but is so indecisive that they cannot make up mind. So they do not decide at all and the problem remains unsolved.”
In some of the sources I read regarding those who rely on divergent thinking they complained that convergent thinkers question their intellectual honesty while dabbling in their hypothesis. To my horror that sounds very familiar to my experience also. As it turns out, the criticism is partially true. By the very nature of the divergent thought process, the knowingly “wrong” answers must be included in the process of determining as many “right” answers as possible. I think the contention come from the POV of a convergent thinker ability to automatically disregard wrong answers in their thought process and the arrogant clinging to those wrong answers by the divergent thinkers as possible “right” answers. So I say partially, only because although including wrong answers is part of the divergent process, that portion of the process does not translate well in the discussion board environment. Perhaps divergent discussions need to be framed differently to include wrong answers so not to confused convergent thinkers that wrong answers are being passed off as right answers. Maybe a “what if” format.
Anyway, seems my exile is over. But a wonderful journey of discovery nonetheless
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
My what a nice journey you have traveled in your infinite game I would call the pursuit of knowledge. As these ideas are new to me and currently working my own self exploratory dialogue, I may need to spend some time to study what you and others have talked about on these and related subjects before I contribute as much as I wish to.
Anyway, nice start of a possible cooperative dialogue.
Carry on...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
I see the cat has got your tongue. I know, I was taken back by my sheer genius also.
Since you’re old you are probably not aware that the new version of Wile E. Coyote, he is now a genius and he works along side of the roadrunner protecting the city and planet from enemies both foreign and domestic. So while you obviously are stuck in the past of old, tired, barbaric mantra’s that rest of the world evolves, this includes your us and them babblings of coyote and roadrunner.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Aahhh. Are you upset with the "jellyfish" comment? Sorry I wasn't directing it at you, I didn't use any names.
Here I have a whole post of good material putting forth a perspective and all you want to talk about is childish cartoon characters.
My post has nothing about winning or losing, no traps, No false walls, it is just a diary of my travels. Apparently you have nothing interesting or constructive to add, so I’m off you get my daily dose of Iraq news
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
I am hoping that I will not have to use my moderator status to control the discussions on this thread. But seriously... Loganthor, do you think you are helping your cause for an exploratory dialogue? While the cartoons was interesting did it have to be posted here? And your last post, added nothing to the dialogue, I at least am looking for. We all know the "at least I did not use names" routine.
ren, was that really necessary? And what possible reason did you have for posting it?
Right now I am in my more reflective mode (mood) and processing information and ideas. I would hate to see the start of this discussion be derailed before we see what others may think or want to contribute.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
While exile does make me somewhat enlightened on topics, I must be a bit cranky. Ren is just being a Dick and on par with my admitted convergent thinkings I "may" have been too quick to react. O well...
But your right, I should facilitate and not destroy.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Log, you really should have stopped with your first post here.
Hindsight is generally 20/20.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Well fine, Loganthor. But honestly you know that I have to question calling any board member an organ of the male human species as really beyond even you. That being said.
Good, that you see that you tend to be using convergent thinking maybe too much. This brings us back to the little bit I have read and your post that neither type of thinking is necessarily better or worse than the other. It seems that some may have used this as another BO without them realizing it.
From my own experience, I tend to start out with divergent thoughts trying to barnstorm an idea. But ultimately I need to get to the process where the faulty theories are thrown out for better ones. Thus a narrowing or the infinite possibilities to concrete finite ones. Ultimately we do live in this finite world and must proceed one action to the next. As this process unfolds and reveals a picture it becomes time to take stock of that picture and see what we can derive from it. Of course as the structure grows and changes original concepts and ideas could change with more information or contradictory information. And just like a painter that retouches areas or even creates a new picture from the old, I too must reapply the paint in my finite canvass, even if the possible picture can be an infinite of possibilities and even colors.
Anyway I still feel on my jihad...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Aahhh. Are you upset with the "jellyfish" comment? Sorry I wasn't directing it at you, I didn't use any names.
This is the sort of assumptions that makes playing with what you say such a bore for me.
If you get to some point some day, some lifetime, where you understand what playing with the rules means, rather than playing within them, you will maybe get to a point where you can get beyond these childish entrapments that are so obvious to anyone who's been playing with rules since first grade.
Why don't you do something worthwhile, like, define "infinity"?
Or maybe you could give me a definition of free will and a formula I can follow so I can be free, like you?
If you'll ever get out of your trench and take notice, you may notice I said something that was actually related to your efforts to make some sense. Nothing to do with me personally. I pointed out that you created a "thingness" that apparently didn't have rules you could make sense of, which you correlated to your attempt to make sense of "divergent" thinking.
quote:
Loganthor: Those who solely rely upon divergent thinking are a lot like jellyfish, a free flow form that has no bones, No rules, no starting , no end. A person can try to hold it in your hands but like a jellyfish they are impossible to hold. In my travels, I actual ran across a person that felt divergent thinking foiled convergent thinking. To me that is a lot like saying the tails side of a quarter is better then the heads side. Remove either side and you no longer have a quarter.
A Jelly fish is a thing that has definition, and you managed to create a series of contradictions, not an analogy, thus a poor application of the rules of metaphor, and then you connected yourself to these contradictions, which is a form of self parody.
Now, there already are a set of rules in your set of formulas in the first post, but you are showing no acknowledgment of what at least some of them are, and how you've set them up. They are actually your rules, because these are your ideas, no madder how badly you interpreted what you've tried to figure out about these ideas you've brought up. They seem to include all sorts of personal assumptions about someone who you now address personally, as in the above hypothetical assumptive statement, and who, if you had any sense at all about yourself, you'd realize you know almost nothing at all about how he may actively work his mind. You have guesses, and you have your assumptions you keep constructing in hopes of trapping him. That makes you incredibly boring in that you seem to repeat that behavior and run yourself over "cliffs" all the time in these sorts of discussions, at least with me. Nearly two years of pointing that out to you in as many different ways as I can, and you continue to repeat the same patterned behavior. Just like Wile E.
quote:
Rule 3: The Coyote could stop anytime -- IF he was not a fanatic. (Repeat: "A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim." - George Santayana) Of course he can't quit; he's certain that the next attempt is sure to succeed. He's the personality type that twelve-step programs are made for. Of course, first you have to want to quit. (source)
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: Well fine, Loganthor. But honestly you know that I have to question calling any board member an organ of the male human species as really beyond even you. That being said.
Good, that you see that you tend to be using convergent thinking maybe too much. This brings us back to the little bit I have read and your post that neither type of thinking is necessarily better or worse than the other. It seems that some may have used this as another BO without them realizing it.
From my own experience, I tend to start out with divergent thoughts trying to barnstorm an idea. But ultimately I need to get to the process where the faulty theories are thrown out for better ones. Thus a narrowing or the infinite possibilities to concrete finite ones. Ultimately we do live in this finite world and must proceed one action to the next. As this process unfolds and reveals a picture it becomes time to take stock of that picture and see what we can derive from it. Of course as the structure grows and changes original concepts and ideas could change with more information or contradictory information. And just like a painter that retouches areas or even creates a new picture from the old, I too must reapply the paint in my finite canvass, even if the possible picture can be an infinite of possibilities and even colors.
Anyway I still feel on my jihad...
I hope some day to see that process in some intelligible form from you. At this point, it looks like a nice theory, but you could have copied that from any number of sources. I've seen it formulated in similar ways many times.
We could go through the quote and quip from your earlier posts, no? And try to weed out what we perceive as wrong facts or assumptions, but let me address this one.
quote:
I hope some day to see that process in some intelligible form from you. At this point, it looks like a nice theory, but you could have copied that from any number of sources. I've seen it formulated in similar ways many times.
I would say you have but misidentified it as something else. I think we still remember the Israel/Hezbollah discussions. Enough said?
But if we are to explore this other thought patterns then it seems we need to start thinking as the opposite of our normal patterns. I did ask Loganthor in an email this set of questions:
quote:
I was wondering (if you feel up to the challenge) can you write on this thread without using the term "is" or any variation of the concept of "to be".
Of course for you to break out of your mold, it seems I would have to expect some opposite effect and thus talk in structural terms with plenty of definites for each article.
Sometimes, we seem to talk about each others box without seeing our own 4 sided BO boxes. I have to say I see a pattern; that I am suppose to defend that I have original ideas and then when I do to defend that someone else must have these views also. Ultimately, I only don't expect others to jump through those type of hoops.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Well fine, Loganthor. But honestly you know that I have to question calling any board member an organ of the male human species as really beyond even you.
That certainly is a hunky-dory sediment how do you weight being called a organ with the constant, malicious, rhythm of being called a small rodent (among an ever increasing host of odious metaphorical comparisons). Do not take this wrong Ron, Your moral scale needs calibrating.
Well, since Ren wants to continue being a raging chapped asshole with hack conceited intellectualism I guess I just have to explain my journey to you. As I said above, my journey lead me to a host of sites regarding Convergent vs. Divergent thinking. Most of these sites say that although both types of thinking are required as a whole, any heavy reliance on an one is flawed. Of course I think I covered the importance of the complete thought process in the scientific method thread. I felt this journey helped my understanding in the contentious nature of some of my discussion I have and it is tough to relate to certain thought patterns. Sure would have been nice if some people were interesting in “exploratory dialog” other then their clicky elitist cronies, in the POV perceptions of their thought process, I think I have made strides to put to words at least my deficient understanding of other thought processes. Then again I do not suffer from conceited intellectualism. Hell, I would prefer if chapped asshole’s would simply ignore me in all regards, however that will never happen. I felt I provided more then enough material for him to explore his own use of divergent thinking on this forum. Instead he wants to pull out his Freudian finger puppets and talk about cartoon characters.
A lot of this board’s contention is the viewpoint on convergent and divergent thought process to the lesser extent the hack intellectualism description of infinite and finite discussions. From my convergent thinking, a infinite/divergent discussion is virtually impossible in this venue beyond exploratory hypothesis discussion. If divergent thinking continues too long, then the absurd has to be used in order to continue the possibility exploration. I have seen repeatedly what happens to people when they embrace the absurd as a viable possibility in this venue.
quote:
From my own experience, I tend to start out with divergent thoughts trying to barnstorm an idea. But ultimately I need to get to the process where the faulty theories are thrown out for better ones. Thus a narrowing or the infinite possibilities to concrete finite ones. Ultimately we do live in this finite world and must proceed one action to the next. As this process unfolds and reveals a picture it becomes time to take stock of that picture and see what we can derive from it. Of course as the structure grows and changes original concepts and ideas could change with more information or contradictory information. And just like a painter that retouches areas or even creates a new picture from the old, I too must reapply the paint in my finite canvass, even if the possible picture can be an infinite of possibilities and even colors
That is what I am thinking also. To which I am sure they will use against us.
Anyway, just my humble opinion.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Truly, I feel your pain Loganthor. [Insert picture of Clinton biting lip]
quote:
That certainly is a hunky-dory sediment how do you weight being called a organ with the constant, malicious, rhythm of being called a small rodent (among an ever increasing host of odious metaphorical comparisons). Do not take this wrong Ron, Your moral scale needs calibrating.
Yes we know what he means and who it is directed at. Although recently I have not seen him step over the line except for today with the 2nd post of this thread (way over the top). I am fine with my moral scale. I just thought that maybe we should ignore him on this thread. We have plenty to talk about.
Of course I am surprised and delighted that you have explored such ephemeral thoughts as the ones on this thread. <<<Intermission>>> See the Yoga video. <<<Intermission>>> If you did not see the Yoda video then go back and watch it again! Oh, I mean the Yoga one. I thought it was Yoda at first-bad eyesight.
Ok, now that I am back. It really matters little what he does. We can continue and will continue to point out his faulty logic but we both know that nothing we say will change his dogmatic views.
quote:
Then again I do not suffer from conceited intellectualism. Hell, I would prefer if chapped asshole’s would simply ignore me in all regards, however that will never happen. I felt I provided more then enough material for him to explore his own use of divergent thinking on this forum. Instead he wants to pull out his Freudian finger puppets and talk about cartoon characters.
Yes, truly I felt the same way on many times. Yes, if they want to join then fine and if not then I will drum my own drum.
quote:
From my convergent thinking, a infinite/divergent discussion is virtually impossible in this venue beyond exploratory hypothesis discussion. If divergent thinking continues too long, then the absurd has to be used in order to continue the possibility exploration. I have seen repeatedly what happens to people when they embrace the absurd as a viable possibility in this venue.
Exactly. There is person here that I find that goes to the extreme and then beyond to defend their position. I just walk around it like a pile Now that we have idea of who I am talking about. Would you call those actions as being convergent or divergent thinking? It almost seems to be a BO of inside the box and outside and everything inside the box is infinite and everything outside is finite. But I may have that all messed up...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Really, is it really that subtle? I admittedly have a problem with those who rely on divergent thinking, there are blogs that I have read that profess a similar problem with those who rely on convergent thinking. Seems to be a problem that is really not that suble, unless
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
One he called "convergent" thinking, in which the person is good at bringing material from a variety of sources to bear on a problem, in such a way as to produce the "correct" answer. This kind of thinking is particularly appropriate in science, maths and technology.
quote:
The other he termed "divergent" thinking. Here the student's skill is in broadly creative elaboration of ideas prompted by a stimulus, and is more suited to artistic pursuits and study in the humanities.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Linguistic analysis of the lead post in this thread would be an interesting angle. Sure doesn't seem like the samo Loganthor has written it. But, Loganthor, maybe if you had actually written that lead post, you were wearing a hang tag that helped you transform your writing style.
:shrug:
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Linguistic analysis of the lead post in this thread would be an interesting angle
Knock yourself out.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
It's your discussion, Loganthor, you and Ronald have a good time, now, ya hear?
I believe that it is Thom the second I post it.
But hey, thanks for stopping by, don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Sure doesn't seem like the samo Loganthor has written it. But, Loganthor, maybe if you had actually written that lead post, you were wearing a hang tag that helped you transform your writing style.
:shrug:
The whole context was much better, Loganthor. I repost "the rest" here for your convenience.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
But hey, thanks for stopping by, don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
Loganthor, NOW! Didn't we have enough mentions of "ass" today? How about we just say:
quote:
Thanks for stopping by and trying as best you can to engage in cooperative dialogue. We hope that your journey is as fruitful for you as it is for us. If you decide to come back be sure to give it your all.
Sincerely, A and that other guy
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
WTF is wrong with you and your "ilk" and I mean that in the most negative terms, that thinks portraying people as Cartoon characters is intellectually mature?
quote:
The whole context was much better, Loganthor. I repost "the rest" here for your convenience
You can continue to repost it and still I will ignore it as childish and irrelevant
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Hey, I'll believe you wrote it, Loganthor, when you use sentences and paragraphs on a routine basis.
Have a great evening.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Loganthor, NOW! Didn't we have enough mentions of "ass" today? How about we just say
Sorry, not feeling very diplomatic today, I was in a great mood this morning till it started raining jackass’s
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Hey, I'll believe you wrote it, Loganthor, when you use sentences and paragraphs on a routine basis.
That is very magnanimous of you. I am moved by your empathy and compassion
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
While I toil in my exile I started playing with a couple of the items that pop up in my email file from those given access. I read what I could regarding Infinite and Finite Games from James Carse, then did some reading on Divergent thinking, Convergent thinking, then to my surprise, with enough of the right keywords, I can gain insight and wisdom from the blogs of people that have similar concerns as I.
As far as James Carse goes, I found what material I found on his Book, he appears to be nothing more then an intellectual hack, regurgitating the same adversarial us/them mantra. I did enjoy is description of the “master player”, hit pretty close to home. Really is it that hard of a description.
In my reading of Divergent thinking, I final was able place the iconic animal figure to my thoughts. So why cant Gerbils and Jellyfish get along? Those who solely rely upon divergent thinking are a lot like jellyfish, a free flow form that has no bones, No rules, no starting , no end. A person can try to hold it in your hands but like a jellyfish they are impossible to hold. In my travels, I actual ran across a person that felt divergent thinking foiled convergent thinking. To me that is a lot like saying the tails side of a quarter is better then the heads side. Remove either side and you no longer have a quarter.
Being on the path to self enlightenment, I certainly can agree with the criticism I found regarding those how “rely” on convergent thinking. “This type of person makes very quick, impulsive decision without seeing the total picture and understanding neither the real problem nor the consequences of the solution that that is chosen.” Of course the opposite for those the “rely” on divergent thinking “this type person will be very good at coming up with a lot of ideas and looking at many possible solutions, but is so indecisive that they cannot make up mind. So they do not decide at all and the problem remains unsolved.”
In some of the sources I read regarding those who rely on divergent thinking they complained that convergent thinkers question their intellectual honesty while dabbling in their hypothesis. To my horror that sounds very familiar to my experience also. As it turns out, the criticism is partially true. By the very nature of the divergent thought process, the knowingly “wrong” answers must be included in the process of determining as many “right” answers as possible. I think the contention come from the POV of a convergent thinker ability to automatically disregard wrong answers in their thought process and the arrogant clinging to those wrong answers by the divergent thinkers as possible “right” answers. So I say partially, only because although including wrong answers is part of the divergent process, that portion of the process does not translate well in the discussion board environment. Perhaps divergent discussions need to be framed differently to include wrong answers so not to confused convergent thinkers that wrong answers are being passed off as right answers. Maybe a “what if” format.
Anyway, seems my exile is over. But a wonderful journey of discovery nonetheless
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Loganthor, you know I meant a *different* set of sentences and paragraphs.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Loganthor, you know I meant a *different* set of sentences and paragraphs
I will be sure in the future to curtail my work to cater to your narrowly defined parameters OR prehaps I just wont cater to you and you will have you make due with what you have.
If you want to entertain yourself by pretending to be a english teacher with a little red pen. Have at it.
However I might possibly be interested if you could opine on divergent thinking and it pitfalls in a discussion forum.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Well, let's see, Loganthor. As to the unfun question of "divergent thinking and it pitfalls in a discussion forum," yawn; I'm not interested in pursuing that angle.
I am curious what got you going on Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote. Do you have a sense of connection with that cartoon?
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Originally posted by /rén: And Wile E. Coyote attempts to set yet another trap for the Road Runner.
With those good ol' Acme products.
This being the second post of this thread, sometimes I wonder if people even read the thread before opining...
I don't think either one of us have a connection with a silly story line that I would rather watch the Ginsu knives commercials than those cartoons. But I see that others are 'putting on those shoes'.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
However, I didn't read Loganthor's second posting of the same composite essay, except to see the spot on match.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Originally posted by Loganthor: Those who solely rely upon divergent thinking are a lot like jellyfish, a free flow form that has no bones, No rules, no starting, no end.
I listened with some interest to Jay Harmon's speech at the recent Bioneers conference. In it he made the point that the entire universe moves in a spiral motion, and all components regardless of scale move spirally. But human technology is built to assume linear motion, and this error results in inefficient systems
This idea has some interesting possibilities. What if the universe is a whole lot smaller than we think it is because we are measuring spirals and calling them straight? What if gravity moves in a spiral but we insist on propelling rockets in a straight line? What if so-called superconductors conduct electrons in a more efficient spiral? Why, in such a universe it would be just plain stupid to force electrons to move in a straight line!
Just another case of scientific hubris come home to curse us. But the underlying cause is more insidious than simple hubris. Civilized humans have been shown in tests to prefer sexual mates that are symmetrical. Persons with lopsided bodies are seen as unattractive, unhealthy and poor genetic stock, even though there is no empirical evidence to support this assumption. Us white people are the result of an esthetic selective process that is inherently irrational. As a result, the civilized world is the result of thousands of generations of selective breeding in which asymmetry has been eliminated from our genetic phenotype. You could make the argument that our love of consistency, squares and being right are all caused by this bizarre evolutionary experiment in symmetry.
Obviously there is no such thing as a symmetrical spiral, since a spiral by definition is asymmetrical in rotation. The entire strand of life, and not just the univere, is based on asymmetry. In fact, the only perfectly symmetrical lifeform is a blob of cells. Because asymmetry has been so immensely successful, it is probably axiomatic that asymmetrical systems are more adapted that symmetrical ones. For example, the symmetrical seashell would be too long for mechanical strength, thus the survival advantage of the spirally wound seashell. You might cite statistics that straight-haired people are less fertile while curly-haired people are more fertile, as seems to be the case in declining fertility of white races.
It seems ironic then, that the recent symmetry trend in humans has been so overwhelmingly successful at populating the planet. This is because the linear thoughts of straight-haired people gave us science, which has enhanced our short-term ability to survive. Despite that success, there is no guarantee that the symmetrical version of humans will be around in another ten millenia. If science is to be believed, a more likely scenario is that our overly symmetrical behaviors will result in extinction, and that we will go the way of the Neanderthals. Like the serpent coiled around the cadeucis, we need to accept asymmetry as the path to immortality.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: We could go through the quote and quip from your earlier posts, no? And try to weed out what we perceive as wrong facts or assumptions, but let me address this one.
quote:
I hope some day to see that process in some intelligible form from you. At this point, it looks like a nice theory, but you could have copied that from any number of sources. I've seen it formulated in similar ways many times.
I would say you have but misidentified it as something else. I think we still remember the Israel/Hezbollah discussions. Enough said?
"We"?
Let's clear this assumption up right now. There's no "we" here.
And,
Who misidentified what?
And,
Enough said about what, pray tell? What "discussions?"
You and I, Ronald, we have never had one intelligible discussion to suit me, not about any thing, ever. I find you utterly boring. That doesn't label you as boring, it's just a description about what happens to me when ever you make your effort to discuss anything and I take the bother to read it.
quote:
But if we are to explore
Wait! Stop. Full stop.
"We"? Can't you get this? Where are you coming up with these rule laden assumptions about a "we"?
Here's how it works for me:
I might ask you a question directly, and you can answer, or not. It's your choice. And vice versa of course. That's how I see it, and that's how I play it.
The board has rules. We all have to abide by the rules of the board. The rules do not determine that I have to do a set of rules that involve a "we" with you -- or anyone.
Don't you understand that? Why do you post this dribble if you do?
I enter these discussions of my own free choice, I assume the same for all who post here. If I seem to violate your interpretation of the board rules, you can flag me, as you apparently have.
I am curious what got you going on Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote. Do you have a sense of connection with that cartoon?
Well, not my topic, Not my interest and I find the notion of comparison offensive.
Then again maybe this is what phony intellectuals do all day, compare people to other things and to keep tally on number of ways to explain the same thing over and over and over again. I guess that brings up jellyfish. Was my portrayal of divergent thinkers as jellyfish an accurate depiction? They lack any form of rigidity, substance, character or anything that might indicate a position/opinion other then being of the opinion they have no opinion because the process does not allow for judging. I find it fascinating that I am unable to strike an accord with any of the divergent thinkers we have here on Thom’s (there are plenty) and I have to read about these frustration regarding divergent and convergent, Infinite and finite games elsewhere.
Maybe that is the problem with a forum such as this, you cant look a person in the eye and determine their genuine intellectual curiosity. All these rambling of cooperative dialog, exploratory discussion, productive exchanges and dialog models are hollow sayings from phony intellectual elitists. Which is how I view James Carse work. He is just spinning and re-inventing that same old right brain/left brain discussions.
Here I thought I stumbled on to the holy grail of bridging cooperative dialog between two opposing forces of perception. Maybe it is a bridge not ready to be built. I got what I wanted out of the journey and learned a couple new things. I am a convergent thinker. So let the games continue.
P.S. I watch Loonatic's Unleashed Saturday mornings with my kids, the evolved version of Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
I was thinking about infinite and finite games, and figured Road Runner was an example of the finite infinite game. According to the theory, a finite infinite game is impossible.
It has been, and continues to be (for me), an abstract discussion.
I'll edit and link in the discussion that I believe you're referring to.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Originally posted by /rén: And Wile E. Coyote attempts to set yet another trap for the Road Runner.
With those good ol' Acme products.
This being the second post of this thread, sometimes I wonder if people even read the thread before opining...
I don't think either one of us have a connection with a silly story line that I would rather watch the Ginsu knives commercials than those cartoons. But I see that others are 'putting on those shoes'.
That was my metaphorical assessment of the first post. Happens to be from a related discussion about this topic. I substantiated it as requested, as I always try to do, if I care enough, although very little was asked. Mostly I had the usual assumption responses. Which I dealt with as far as they were interesting to deal with.
If it means nothing to you, that's way out of my hands. I thought Loganthor made the first post I responded to -- or did he? Kate seems to have some doubts about who may have composed it, is she onto something here?
Now that everyone seems bent on talking about silly cartoons here, let me pontificate on such matters...
If Wile E. Coyote ever did catch the Road Runner, then there is several options are available for the story line. Some of the clues might be from the Tom and Jerry story lines. Some of the story lines I remember was: That Tom kicked Jerry out after catching him and then felt guilty when he dreamed of poor Jerry alone and cold in the snow. Tom had to catch Jerry for some elaborate ruse so that another bad cat does not come into the house and take over Tom's 'job'. I believe there was another story line that had Tom get rid of Jerry and thus Tom's Job was in jeopardy and thus another ruse to hide the fact that the same mouse was caught on a regular basis.
But ultimately cartoons can not violate the rule of the Reset button technique. The story has to wrap up in a short segment and all be independent without a story line continuing through the series. At least they use to all do that. Now I don't know...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Do you believe these cartoons, and sitcoms for that matter, illustrate a finite infinite game?
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Speak of the devil, I was remembering a finite infinite game, a whole book, typed in lots of different patterns of one sentence: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
That book really could have gone on forever.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
But, but, ... don't you think Road Runner is running, in full awareness of Wile E. Coyote, and, in that sense, Road Runner is also playing a finite game.
After all, Road Runner, did "agree" to the cartoon rules, ... that the events would unfold, in pretty much the same pattern, over and over again.
Did Road Runner "agree"? How would you see that?
Here are the rules the creator of the 'Toon set for himeself:
quote:
Rule 1: Road Runner cannot harm the Coyote except by going "Beep! Beep!"
Rule 2: No outside force can harm the Coyote -- only his own ineptitude or the failure of Acme products. Wile E.'s ineptitude, possibly a by-product of his distracted obsession with catching Road Runner, is compounded only by the Acme company's products - which may work for other customers, but seem never to work for Wile E., who repeatedly risks life and limb counting on their effectiveness.
Rule 3: The Coyote could stop anytime -- IF he was not a fanatic. (Repeat: "A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim." - George Santayana) Of course he can't quit; he's certain that the next attempt is sure to succeed. He's the personality type that twelve-step programs are made for.
Rule 4: No dialogue ever, except "Beep! Beep!" Oh, and the occasional dialog sign that comes in handy just as Wile E. realizes that his efforts are going to bring him nothing but big pain.
Rule 5: Road Runner must stay on the road - for no other reason than that he's a roadrunner.
Rule 6: All action must be confined to the natural environment of the two characters -- the southwest American desert.
Rule 7: All tools, weapons, or mechanical conveniences must be obtained from the Acme Corporation.
Rule 8: Whenever possible, make gravity the Coyote's greatest enemy.
Rule 9: The Coyote is always more humiliated than harmed by his failures.
Only "harm" from the Road Runner is a monotone "beep beep."
Road Runner is just there, running down the roads doing what he does to stay alive. Wits and speed. And all he has is a little "beep beep" when the "Wantin" coyote fails to trap him again and again.
Remember,
quote:
You can play finite games within an infinite game. You can not play infinite games within a finite game.
quote:
There is no rule that says you have to follow the rules.
Whatever the creators of those Road Runner cartoons intended, the finite game player keeps getting caught by his own finite game of trying to win with his intricately devised tools and weapons, which he must purchase from the Acme Corporation.
I'd see the entire series as allegory even more than parody. It goes beyond cat and mouse to illustrate a certain sort of personality that becomes obsessed with winning. Wile (E Coyote) may be the allegory of an authoritarian personality within and dependent upon a human system that provides all his ideas for him. (Note that the authoritarian personality is both acquiescent to recieving orders as well as a willing giver of them. Remember the old line "you have to learn to take orders before you can give them"?)
I was thinking about infinite and finite games, and figured Road Runner was an example of the finite infinite game. According to the theory, a finite infinite game is impossible.
According to my theory there are only finite games to be had in this form of medium. Infinite/divergent require an ever increasing set of possibilities in order to continue. At some point, these possibilities are made up of knowingly wrong answers. In this forum of exchange it becomes impossible for a person to cling to a knowingly wrong answer just for the sake of increasing the possibilities. As I concluded my post that only in a pre-established framework of “what if” could convergent thinkers allow knowingly wrong answers to be used in exploratory discussions.
Plus there is NO such thing as an infinite discussion, If it exist I have never seen it.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
we need to accept asymmetry as the path to immortality
Gnarl, are you suggesting I mate with ugly people in order to ensure the human race?
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Infinite/divergent require an ever increasing set of possibilities in order to continue. At some point, these possibilities are made up of knowingly wrong answers.
You seem to have confused the two in ways that make a set of rules for you that will be true for you, at least, as long as you apply them yourself.
Just to be clear with my critics. I did compose the entire post. If you do not believe that, Tough shit. The post exists whether I wrote it or I dictated it from the word of God.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
I believe play is based on a questions. And with questions, you're never quite sure what sort of answer you'll get. A genuine question leads to lots of possible answers. How can one of them be knowingly wrong?
I've had some ideas for what might be true, and then I've kept pressing and found details that did not match up with what I first thought was true.
Some ambiguity is part of every human experience, even including humans who are more comfortable staying within a closed set of variables.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Originally posted by --Kate: Ronald Rutherford, Do you believe these cartoons, and sitcoms for that matter, illustrate a finite infinite game?
At first this just seemed like another oxymoron. I can only assume that you are referring to this on the other thread:
quote:
Sitcoms and Saturday morning cartoons certainly teach the art of finite game playing. An example that comes to my mind is the Road Runner cartoon which is perhaps an example of the infinite finite game. Predictably, Wile E. Coyote would set up a trap that would ensnare himself, over and over again. Talk about a closed set.
While yes the reset button technique can be used to have countless stories, this is nothing more than resetting the Chess pieces and doing another game. Chess is still a finite game no matter how many times you play. Thus if you have other thoughts, I would need to see further thoughts of what you are thinking.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
I was looking at the words you posted in this thread, Ronald Rutherford.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Generally, though, we unconsciously know there are “right” answers and that there is only one right answer to every question. To truly appreciate the gift of divergent thinking, a change of attitude is required. People need to be open to the idea that there may be many “right” answers. The goal of using divergent thinking is to generate as many potential “right” answers as possible. In order to do this, the potential “wrong” answers must be included.
One of the benefits of using divergent thinking is knowing that in the second phase, during convergent thinking, the best responses will be selected and ideas not worth considering will be left behind, modified, or saved for later.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Originally posted by Loganthor: Just to be clear with my critics. I did compose the entire post. If you do not believe that, Tough shit. The post exists whether I wrote it or I dictated it from the word of God.
Heaven knows I wanted to edit it... LOL, still a good piece of thought and dedication to the subject.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Generally, though, we unconsciously know there are “right” answers and that there is only one right answer to every question. To truly appreciate the gift of divergent thinking, a change of attitude is required. People need to be open to the idea that there may be many “right” answers. The goal of using divergent thinking is to generate as many potential “right” answers as possible. In order to do this, the potential “wrong” answers must be included.
One of the benefits of using divergent thinking is knowing that in the second phase, during convergent thinking, the best responses will be selected and ideas not worth considering will be left behind, modified, or saved for later.
the best responses will be selected and ideas not worth considering will be left behind, modified, or saved for later.
Decent assessment of why I believe in the market place of ideas. The best ideas remain, and the others fall by the way side.
In your system of thought, Loganthor, who gets to decide what the "right" answer is?
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
I was thinking about infinite and finite games, and figured Road Runner was an example of the finite infinite game. According to the theory, a finite infinite game is impossible.
According to my theory there are only finite games to be had in this form of medium. Infinite/divergent require an ever increasing set of possibilities in order to continue. At some point, these possibilities are made up of knowingly wrong answers. In this forum of exchange it becomes impossible for a person to cling to a knowingly wrong answer just for the sake of increasing the possibilities. As I concluded my post that only in a pre-established framework of “what if” could convergent thinkers allow knowingly wrong answers to be used in exploratory discussions.
Plus there is NO such thing as an infinite discussion, If it exist I have never seen it.
Strangely, I was thinking this forum allows nearly infinite talks. I have threads that I visit and continue that are over two years old. Unlike at ET we can continue to push a thread to the top. I wonder which thread is oldest for Anti.
Since there is no time period for it to end then I have been planning on continue the cooperative dialogue on the Pray for Rain thread when I have more time to correlate all my thoughts on the subject.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Carse theory of infinite and finite gamers is based on convergence and divergence thinking patterns. Finite players rely on convergence thinking and Infinite players rely on divergent thinking.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
In your system of thought, Loganthor, who gets to decide what the "right" answer is?
Whichever one you want. For whatever reason you want it. Do not be surprised if people ask you why you choose the way you did.
In my system of thought, I am going with ME.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Winston Churchill
Posts: 623 | Location: lefortovo | Registered: 09 February 2006
In your system of thought, Loganthor, who gets to decide what the "right" answer is?
Whichever one you want. For whatever reason you want it. Do not be surprised if people ask you why you choose the way you did.
In my system of thought, I am going with ME.
I think the right answer, in my life, is one that works for all the me's.
From time to time, I find myself working with a finite game player (at work, in my social environment, etc.) In Life contexts, me-oriented players tend to strategically assess what the available options are, and work the angles to bring those resources in line with that one me.
The beauty of the possibility thinking, and the value of "play" is the opportunity to create a new opportunity. It's happened a few times that one path of options has been foreclosed, for me, by another's me-activity, at least for a short time. The fun, the challenge, and then the opportunity, has been to reconfigure the variables, and to create something new, sometimes by layering in a new variable. New variables (new rules) arise by necessity, when resources (arising from the pre-existing rule set) have been hoarded.
It's frustrating, or enlightening (depending on the me-player's awareness and capacity for change), when new rules are forged. Where the capacity for change is lacking, the me-player is faced with the task of reconfiguring the "win/lose" game based on the next set of closed options. Where the me-player lacks the capacity for change, that player acts according to a predictable pattern, and attempts to hoard the resources in the next go-round. But, in the next go-round is another opportunity to forge a new possibility. Depending on the strength of performance on other variables, and commitment to specific communities (work and social communities, place of residence communities), the relationships continue over time. There's a mix of people in all those communities.
Hope springs eternal, and even the me-players have the capacity to share, and evolve into cooperative and collaborative and possibility thinking. When that happens, the possibilities are endless, but perhaps not as evident, because the tension created by the foreclosed options is absent. That tension is a source of inspiration and innovation.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Originally posted by Loganthor: Those who solely rely upon divergent thinking are a lot like jellyfish, a free flow form that has no bones, No rules, no starting, no end.
I listened with some interest to Jay Harmon's speech at the recent Bioneers conference. In it he made the point that the entire universe moves in a spiral motion, and all components regardless of scale move spirally. But human technology is built to assume linear motion, and this error results in inefficient systems
This idea has some interesting possibilities. What if the universe is a whole lot smaller than we think it is because we are measuring spirals and calling them straight? What if gravity moves in a spiral but we insist on propelling rockets in a straight line? What if so-called superconductors conduct electrons in a more efficient spiral? Why, in such a universe it would be just plain stupid to force electrons to move in a straight line!
Just another case of scientific hubris come home to curse us. But the underlying cause is more insidious than simple hubris. Civilized humans have been shown in tests to prefer sexual mates that are symmetrical. Persons with lopsided bodies are seen as unattractive, unhealthy and poor genetic stock, even though there is no empirical evidence to support this assumption. Us white people are the result of an esthetic selective process that is inherently irrational. As a result, the civilized world is the result of thousands of generations of selective breeding in which asymmetry has been eliminated from our genetic phenotype. You could make the argument that our love of consistency, squares and being right are all caused by this bizarre evolutionary experiment in symmetry.
Obviously there is no such thing as a symmetrical spiral, since a spiral by definition is asymmetrical in rotation. The entire strand of life, and not just the univere, is based on asymmetry. In fact, the only perfectly symmetrical lifeform is a blob of cells. Because asymmetry has been so immensely successful, it is probably axiomatic that asymmetrical systems are more adapted that symmetrical ones. For example, the symmetrical seashell would be too long for mechanical strength, thus the survival advantage of the spirally wound seashell. You might cite statistics that straight-haired people are less fertile while curly-haired people are more fertile, as seems to be the case in declining fertility of white races.
It seems ironic then, that the recent symmetry trend in humans has been so overwhelmingly successful at populating the planet. This is because the linear thoughts of straight-haired people gave us science, which has enhanced our short-term ability to survive. Despite that success, there is no guarantee that the symmetrical version of humans will be around in another ten millenia. If science is to be believed, a more likely scenario is that our overly symmetrical behaviors will result in extinction, and that we will go the way of the Neanderthals. Like the serpent coiled around the cadeucis, we need to accept asymmetry as the path to immortality.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
In your system of thought, Loganthor, who gets to decide what the "right" answer is?
Whichever one you want. For whatever reason you want it. Do not be surprised if people ask you why you choose the way you did.
In my system of thought, I am going with ME.
I think the right answer, in my life, is one that works for all the me's.
From time to time, I find myself working with a finite game player (at work, in my social environment, etc.) In Life contexts, me-oriented players tend to strategically assess what the available options are, and work the angles to bring those resources in line with that one me.
The beauty of the possibility thinking, and the value of "play" is the opportunity to create a new opportunity. It's happened a few times that one path of options has been foreclosed, for me, by another's me-activity, at least for a short time. The fun, the challenge, and then the opportunity, has been to reconfigure the variables, and to create something new, sometimes by layering in a new variable. New variables (new rules) arise by necessity, when resources (arising from the pre-existing rule set) have been hoarded.
It's frustrating, or enlightening (depending on the me-player's awareness and capacity for change), when new rules are forged. Where the capacity for change is lacking, the me-player is faced with the task of reconfiguring the "win/lose" game based on the next set of closed options. Where the me-player lacks the capacity for change, that player acts according to a predictable pattern, and attempts to hoard the resources in the next go-round. But, in the next go-round is another opportunity to forge a new possibility. Depending on the strength of performance on other variables, and commitment to specific communities (work and social communities, place of residence communities), the relationships continue over time. There's a mix of people in all those communities.
Hope springs eternal, and even the me-players have the capacity to share, and evolve into cooperative and collaborative and possibility thinking. When that happens, the possibilities are endless, but perhaps not as evident, because the tension created by the foreclosed options is absent. That tension is a source of inspiration and innovation.
So Kate, would you say that me player tend to more likely be conservative? Because it seems to me you could replace republican with finite game player.
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
I was thinking of events in my life, through the years, when I wrote up my thoughts about how infinite and finite rule sets play into day-to-day decision making and options. I honestly don't know the political persuasion of the people in those events. Might be interesting to find out, but it's not relevant to my thinking about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
So Kate, would you say that me player tend to more likely be conservative? Because it seems to me you could replace republican with finite game player.
I'm curious about why would you want to make those kinds of comparisons, meljomur?
Are you familiar with James Carse's book Finite and Infinite Games? It is a book about different types of rule sets and how they can be applied to social interactions of various sorts. The subtitle is: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility. Nowhere does he say finite games are not about play and possibility. He merely points out the difference in how rules are related to finite and infinite games and the players play in each. I don't find it to be a book of judgment in any sense of categorizing or approving one play above another. It's more about helping to see how we can play in different ways, and be conscious and free in our play, whatever way we choose.
Finite games are about playing within the rules, in games that involve all players agreeing to the rules, agreeing to play, and playing generally for a purpose, like "winning." When that purpose is achieved, according to the agreed upon rules, the game ends and another begins. Does that not describe politics itself in many ways? I could just as easily replace finite games with Democrat or any other partisan category interested in winning in the game of politics.
I think the right answer, in my life, is one that works for all the me's.
Either you just answered that same way as my answer and add the criteria you use or you have just resolved yourself into never finding the right answer because knowing the right answer for everyone is virtually impossible.
quote:
The beauty of the possibility thinking, and the value of "play" is the opportunity to create a new opportunity. It's happened a few times that one path of options has been foreclosed, for me, by another's me-activity, at least for a short time. The fun, the challenge, and then the opportunity, has been to reconfigure the variables, and to create something new, sometimes by layering in a new variable. New variables (new rules) arise by necessity, when resources (arising from the pre-existing rule set) have been hoarded.
But at some point a person was to use the variables at hand in order to achieve the desired goal.
If your goal is to leave the house and retrieve the morning paper and your primary route is block. There are only a finite amount of alternative possibilities that allow you to achieve your goal. So you gather your “right” possibilities for achieving your goal, garage door, back door, windows are all possible alternatives. For the infinite player and divergent thinker they require even more possibilities so they draw of the “wrong” answers in order to expand their possibilities. 911, Chainsaw, ax, jumping, Fire alarm, etc. Any one of those “wrong” answers are listed as possibilities would achieve the primary goal of retrieving the morning paper. But could a person rationally conclude the “right” answer as using a chainsaw to cut a hole in your house in order to achieve the morning paper?
An infinite player would of course have to continue expanding the possibilities to include Bush, the UN, Federal Military assistance, A United Way fund raiser, an army of Santa’s, Space Aliens to divine intervention as legitimate possibilities to retrieving the morning paper.
quote:
Hope springs eternal, and even the me-players have the capacity to share, and evolve into cooperative and collaborative and possibility thinking. When that happens, the possibilities are endless, but perhaps not as evident, because the tension created by the foreclosed options is absent. That tension is a source of inspiration and innovation.
But the possibilities are NOT endless. They are finite. There is always the chance that someone, somewhere has a legitimate unexplored possibility that will effect the outcome of the “right” answer. I am always open to that possibility. As a convergent thinker, I just want the “right” answer.
Just so you know, I LOVE people who think outside the box. It is a fascinating process.
And so Accepted Wisdom on Paper-Folding ruled, until 2001.
That was when a high school student, Britney Gallivan (of Pomona, California) was given a maths problem. She would get an extra maths credit, if she took up the option of solving the problem of folding a sheet in half 12 times
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
So Kate, would you say that me player tend to more likely be conservative? Because it seems to me you could replace republican with finite game player.
I'm curious about why would you want to make those kinds of comparisons, meljomur?
Are you familiar with James Carse's book Finite and Infinite Games? It is a book about different types of rule sets and how they can be applied to social interactions of various sorts. The subtitle is: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility. Nowhere does he say finite games are not about play and possibility. He merely points out the difference in how rules are related to finite and infinite games and the players play in each. I don't find it to be a book of judgment in any sense of categorizing or approving one play above another. It's more about helping to see how we can play in different ways, and be conscious and free in our play, whatever way we choose.
Finite games are about playing within the rules, in games that involve all players agreeing to the rules, agreeing to play, and playing generally for a purpose, like "winning." When that purpose is achieved, according to the agreed upon rules, the game ends and another begins. Does that not describe politics itself in many ways? I could just as easily replace finite games with Democrat or any other partisan category interested in winning in the game of politics.
Well I was referring to what Kate wrote about finite game players and the "me" factor. In my opinion the Me, Me, Me agenda, seems to fit much more in the republican party than the democratic party.
No I am not familiar with the book or the author, but it seems to me that each individual may have a differing perception of finite and infinite. One's finite game playing may be perceived as an infinite game to another.
Who makes the rules? Who decides? Why would there only be one way to look at a finite game?
I sense you feel you are an infinite game player, but perhaps others don't see you in that light, so are you an infinite player or not?
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
No I am not familiar with the book or the author, but it seems to me that each individual may have a differing perception of finite and infinite. One's finite game playing may be perceived as an infinite game to another.
Who makes the rules? Who decides? Why would there only be one way to look at a finite game?
I sense you feel you are an infinite game player, but perhaps others don't see you in that light, so are you an infinite player or not?
Human beings make the rules. The language you are using is a set of rules called a grammar. Humans seem to be uniquely composed of genetic-based biological materials that have an embedded creative rule making function. That this is probably true is somewhat settled now that Skinner's blank slate theory could not solve the language learning challenge posed to it. What exactly language learning feature of human biology actually is may never be known precisely, only that it works, and it's assumed that it must be there because it works; this theory is posited because a child can be observed to learn language by merely being exposed to it, and by its own initiated "playing" with the rules that it seems to naturally create for itself to fulfill its own innate rule making patterns, for the first three or four years, after which it pretty much knows most of the rules of that particular language. Most children go through a series of identifiably similar "play" stages during the language acquisition process. This language rule acquisition ability also seems to explain how we are able to make such elaborate compositions of relationships we call societies, or, as an anthropologist, I might say more specifically "cultures." Cultures are complex compositions of rule sets, most of which seem directly correlated to our language making capacities. A society may be a complex set of sub cultures.
I see language as a tool. I see rule sets in cultures as tools. I can play with the boundaries of rules and I can play within the rules that are agreed upon to achieve a goal or a purpose. Can you do both? Do you recognize what I mean by that in yourself? Or would you prefer to see them as binaries that are opposed? Understanding that would help to explain what Carse is describing in his book, which is basically a description about rules and how each of us can play with regard to rules.
quote:
One's finite game playing may be perceived as an infinite game to another.
That may be a true statement, in that each individual can create perceptions that don't follow the same rules others follow. Someone I knew very intimately perceived that our neighbor's house was covered in evil and she proceeded to wash it down with a hose when they were away. Unfortunately the neighbor's windows were open, or it would have been a harmless perception, but she was convinced there was evil all over the house, and it needed to be cleansed.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: /rén,
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Discussion Community 
Now that we have idea of who I am talking about. Would you call those actions as being convergent or divergent thinking? It almost seems to be a BO of inside the box and outside and everything inside the box is infinite and everything outside is finite. But I may have that all messed up...
