|
|  |
| |
|
| | The Innovation Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | Innovation 2000 - 3000 | Views: 410 | | Sep 11, 2009 2:56 pm | | Innovation 2000 - 3000 | # | 
Joseph Lynders | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~?~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!
09/11/09
I am taking the opportunity today, no one else has stepped up, to declare the obvious fact that our creative efforts during the twentieth century to improve our industries, our governments and our lives through the increasing use of the empiriometrics of the seven deadly sins, (pride, greed, envy, anger, lust, gluttony & sloth), has been a failure.
But it was a hell of a try. Good going us.
This is the beginning of the twenty first century.
Possibly we just didn’t give it enough time. Maybe we should give it another century.
Or not.
Have a good Idea for this our present and only century.
09/11/09 Joseph F. Lynders Ftg/M/*/Grandparent
Private Reply to Joseph Lynders | | Sep 14, 2009 2:53 am | | re: Innovation 2000 - 3000 | # |
Joseph Lynders | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<>~~~~~~~~~~~~
09/13/09
Furthermore, I expect that our embracing the first three steps in the Creative Process and dropping the fourth at or near the beginning of our last century has helped ensure our failure. (Actually it probably was first dropped in the Garden of Eden but who’s counting centuries.)
Dropping the forth step allows for the growth for the acceptance of superficial thinking in the first three steps. This was somehow not anticipated but was actually inevitable.
Step four is a warning against lowering our standards into the sucking whirlpool of superficial thinking we now enjoy and even celebrate with a surprising and growing belligerence.
There is of course always a point of no return and I don‘t think we are there yet, but, this might be a good time to try a change of course.
What can we possibly lose?
09/13/09 Joseph F. Lynders Ftg/M/*/Grandparent
Private Reply to Joseph Lynders | | Sep 14, 2009 11:15 am | | re: Innovation 2000 - 3000 | # | 
James Booth | |
" ... Rizzi divides technical science into the "pure sciences" of metaphysics, physical science, and mathematics, the applied sciences of ethics and the arts, and the methodological sciences of analytics, dialectics, poetry/rhetoric, and linguistics (p. 143). Prescinding from the question of whether arts such as poetry and rhetoric are sciences, Rizzi concentrates his argument upon the pure sciences in a sustained effort to show that physical and mathematical science become false guides if they are not underpinned by the higher principles of metaphysics. For instance, while Kurt Gödel in the twentieth century demonstrated mathematically that there are always propositions within any system of thought that cannot be proved from within the system to be either true or false, he only showed that the fundamental principles of every lower science, such as mathematics and empirical physics, must be taken from what is self-evident in a higher science, such as that of metaphysics (pp. 55-60). What is usually called "modern science" is very specialized and narrow in its perspective, to the extent that it tends to exclude all philosophical questions from its methodology (p. 23). Thus, modern physics studies sensible being "as sensible and as expressible mathematically" (p. 150). Rizzi calls this approach "empiriometric," as distinguished from the classifying approach of biology and similar sciences, which he calls "empirioschematic" (p. 152).
... "
- http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt123.html
_
" ... our creative efforts during the twentieth century to improve our industries,
our governments and our lives through the increasing use of the empiriometrics
of the seven deadly sins, (pride, greed, envy, anger, lust, gluttony & sloth), has
been a failure. "
Perhaps economics is a prime example of what you intend to convey here.
JB
Private Reply to James Booth | | Sep 16, 2009 1:55 am | | re: re: Innovation 2000 - 3000 | # |
Joseph Lynders | | 09/15/09
A very nice response. Economics is a prime example of what I intend to convey even though I hadn't thought of it.
Economics is mathematical science an therefore empiriometric.
Creativity and Innovation are not Economics. Creativity and Innovation are biological and are therefore need to be considered as empirioschematic and not empiriometric as in the study and application of Economics.
(Thus the four steps.)
I now am wondering if the long term disconnect of Creative Process step four from the first three has had positive and/or negative effects on the creative functioning of our human intellect.
I am wondering what positive and/or negative effects it may have had over our last ten, twenty, forty and eighty years on the development of our personal Reticular Activating Systems.
I am going to search right now for” Creative Process +Reticular Activating System.”
Have a good Idea today,
09/15/09 Joseph F. Lynders Ftg/M/t/Grandfather Private Reply to Joseph Lynders | | Sep 16, 2009 3:11 am | | re: re: re: Innovation 2000 - 3000 | # | 
John Stephen Veitch | | Hello Joseph
I see that James was up to the challenge and I was asleep.
I think though for clarity, most people here would like to have your four step process defined.
John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch | | |
| |
| |
