Complexity Explorer is the best thing SFI has produced, other than perhaps there video library of talks. For me, anyway.
-- Owen On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > Nick - > > Vortices aside, I just checked the Syllabi of the Complexity Explorer and > find that there are MANY courses that might be of interest to you. Do you > find the language in them out of reach? Would having a small study group > online help with that? Are there any particular topics there ( > https://www.complexityexplorer.org/explore/syllabi) of interest? > > - Steve > On 2/6/17 3:51 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > > Nick - > > I DO remember he tornado/vortex/swirlie discussions of yore, and in fact, > those were characteristic of the discussions I appreciated there being > here, just as I appreciated the "book club" you spearheaded on a Complexity > topic even earlier (what book was that?). I also appreciated your > "noodling" concept back in the day (not complexity as such, excepting for > the idea of emergent knowledge). I think your contribution to this list, > with your own specific background and as an unabashed "innocent' on many > topics is very valuable. I realize my encouraging Doug in his juvenile > responses (e.g. Swirlies) did undermine your attempt to be serious about > tornadoes, but it DID lead you to meeting his Parrots I think? I have a > fresh batch of Ravens at my place who you are welcome to come engage with > their vocalizations (no wife now to limit my open invitations, just a > vicious dog who I can sequester with minor warning). > > I agree that the deeper methods of Complexity Science ARE difficult and > subtle, but in many ways more intuitive and accessible (IMO) than those of > Relativistic and Quantum Physics. The *ideas* (as I think Glen suggests) > *are* pretty available... I would suggest that your own field might be > harder for educated laypersons from "adjacent fields" to grasp, with even > more reserved terminology? The fact that Complexity Science spans > (virtually?) all sciences ( and engineering and technology ) means it > *must* be accessible laterally. There is little to no value to stovepiping > it. I know some folks have made quite a living off of making Complexity > Science arcane... but far from all. I think SFI does a very good job in > general. > > I don't know what it can be done in this forum, but perhaps. I think that > what complexityexplorer.org (thanks to SFI) is trying to do is exactly > what you are seeking? I sat in on the first round (online ) but it was > "remedial" enough for me to not hold my interest, though I *do* much need > the thoroughness involved. I had hoped there would form a "study group" > here to follow the classes and have lots of peer support. I don't remember > their being much engagement in this forum? > > I will agree with Glen's observation that a "complexity perspective" is > ever-present here, which is part of what makes it all worthwhile. I > withdraw any implication that we need more use of arcane complexity science > terminology, or that what we *do* have here isn't appreciated. > > - Steve > > > > > > > On 2/6/17 1:39 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Steve Smith wrote: > > > > I feel we *don't* discuss as many Complexity topics as I would like, > > > > I will talk about tornado formation, a n y t I m e, Steve. > > > > Seriously, I wonder if the fact that we have stopped talking about > complexity might have something to do with the state of play of that > field. I reached a point where I began to feel that complexity-talk went > on in some alternative universe that, without the initiation and the golden > key, I was never going to enter. You will remember, Steve, that I worked > for a couple of years, trying to make a translation between that universe > and mine, and was never able to manage it. When the working vocabulary of > a science is inaccessible to a diligent, moderately intelligent, > practitioner of neighboring sciences, does that not limit the development > of that science? > > > > By the way, when I first came out here I tried to make contact with SFI. > At the time, I wrote up the result in a *satirical* account, which, to be > honest, reeks of sour grapes. Still, in the present context you might find > it funny. See attached. > > > > Omitted from this account was one life-changing exchange with Dr. X. At > some point, during Phase II of The Ritual Reception and Rejection, I asked > him, “Given that The Institute is such a charismatic place, and given that > you have no room, where do all the people go when you reject them? There > must be a lot of them around Santa Fe.” > > > > I am everlastingly grateful for his response. He thought a very long > minute and then scribbled on a Posty and handed it to me. It said, “Call > Steve Guerin. FRIAM.” > > > > The rest is history. > > > > Nick > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com > <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Steven A Smith > *Sent:* Monday, February 06, 2017 12:00 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam@redfish.com> <friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] SFI to Trump: The dangers of simplicity in a > complex world > > > > I appreciate FriAM, even though I don't attend Friday Congregation very > often, or even WedTech Congregation either! The *active* voices here are > familiar and even though I may have a lot of different perspectives and > opinions, I truly value what I hear here, and more than anything I look > forward to one of our *many* lurkers chiming in. > > I feel we *don't* discuss as many Complexity topics as I would like, but I > like knowing that there are many with strong Complexity backgrounds engaged > in the more sociopolitical discussions that seem to dominate. > > Since I feel a bit like Glen in his statement "Since I don't belong > anywhere, I obviously didn't belong there"... I'm enough used to being an > outsider or an interloper that I generally can slip into alien situations > and keep a low enough profile to not raise alarm or cause disruption. > > This forum, being asynchronous and as Gary points out, "easy to delete" > feels like a safe place FOR me to speak up above a hushed whisper... so I > value it as well. > > SFx was intended to be a more open and welcoming environment to share the > wealth from... I think we did a moderately good job much of the time, but > still missed the mark in at least developing a sustainable funding model. > > - Steve > > > > On 2/6/17 11:49 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote: > > It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway - FRIAM, both the list and > the actual gathering at the "mothership" of Santa Fe - has always felt > welcoming. It's the only list I've stayed with since its inception. I don't > know if there are any SFI lurkers here, but there do seem to be a lot of > people who "used to" have some association with it rather than those who > are actively involved with it. I've no idea how much is due to a bit of > snobbery vs. just simply the fact that the list is open to such a wide > range of stuff that isn't interesting to folks interested purely in > complexity. I find it easy enough just to delete messages when I get too > overwhelmed, confident that they are archived so I can eventually look them > over. > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:34 PM, glen ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > FWIW, I felt fairly unwelcome soon after I left to work in our Agua Fria > office (1997 maybe), perhaps since I was merely a research technician > rather than any sort of academic. Then it got even worse when they > expanded down the hill by staffing a receptionist. I always managed to > sneak past without being grilled to badly ... but the concept was clear: do > you belong here? Since I don't belong anywhere, I obviously didn't belong > there. 8^) > > > On 02/05/2017 03:40 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > > That makes sense but I just sat there quietly and listened. No > > self-aggrandizing questions. And then I left. > > -- > ☣ glen > > ============================================================ > 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 > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove