ONT Re: Inquiry Driven Systems
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
| Document History
|
| Subject: Inquiry Driven Systems: An Inquiry Into Inquiry
| Contact: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
| Version: Draft 8.70
| Created: 23 Jun 1996
| Revised: 06 Jan 2002
| Advisor: M.A. Zohdy
| Setting: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA
| Excerpt: Section 1.3.4 (Discussion of Formalization: Concrete Examples)
| Excerpt: Subsection 1.3.4.19 (Entr'acte)
|
| http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/inquiry.htm
1.3.4.19 Entr'acte
Have I addressed this problem area from enough different directions to
convey an idea of its location and extent? Here is one more variation
on the theme: I believe that our theoretical empire is bare in spots.
There does not exist in the field yet a suitably comprehensive concept
of a dynamic system moving through a developing state of information.
This conceptual gap apparently forces investigators to focus on one
aspect or the other, on the dynamic bearing or the information borne,
but leaves their studies unable to integrate the several perspectives
into a fully-dimensioned outlook on the evolving knowledge system.
It is always possible that the dual aspects of transformation and
information are conceptually complementary and even non-orientable.
That is, there may be no way to arrange our mental apparatus to grasp
both sides at the same time, and the whole appearance that there are
two sides may be an illusion of overly local and myopic perspectives.
Nevertheless, none of this should be taken for granted without proof.
Whatever the case, a unyielding fixation on the restricted aspects of
dynamics adequately covered by currently available concepts leads one
to ignore the growing body of symbolic knowledge that the states of
systems potentially carry. Conversely, to leap from the relatively
secure grounds of physically based dynamics into the briar patch of
formally defined symbol systems often marks the last time that one
has sufficient footing on the dynamic landscape to contemplate any
form of overarching law, nor any rule to prospectively govern the
evolution of reflective knowledge. This is one of the reasons
that I continue to strive after the key ideas here. If straw
is all that one has in reach, then ships and shelters will
have to be built from straw.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤