On 10/27/2013 06:59 PM, Arlo Barnes wrote:
On 10/27/2013 03:12 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Colloquially, one might simply say "one person's mess is another's
order"...
This is a good example. It seems pretty straightforward and obvious that
this is the case, but I think it has more to do with the schema for
organisation: if the schema is not open, it is hard to discern.
Or, perhaps, that schema are illusory ... they don't actually exist and
are an epiphenomenon of the constraint sieve that is our (common)
anatomy and physiology? If that's the case, then every person's mess is
just the variance/uncertainty allowed by the (dynamic) sieve that is
their body/mind. Hence, the more sieves you can chain/network together,
the more orderly the mess.
Some of us, of course, resist being chained together. For example, I
usually refrain from sieving someone else's mess, when I can. But
because my sieve is ... uh ... coarse-grained and irregular ... when I
do sieve a mess, I usually just make a bigger mess. Somehow, the input
must be leaky.
--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
And silo shed, on the other side
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
