Hello Ralph.
I appreciate your comment -- and Nanette's. My novice poem on Saturday
(to lighten the air) was aimed at a similar purpose. [I include an
"academic" interpretation of it after this note.]
Wilber's explanation of the "trilogy" of Science, Arts, and Morals,
which has befuddled humanity for millenia, seems helpful to the issue of
measurement. It points to the probability that Science, Arts, and
Morals are "intimately intertwined at the same time that they are
distinct" -- kind of like wave and particle theories of light. If so,
we need Artists to go deep into the terrain of Arts and communicate (in
unique ways) what they discover. At the same time, we also need
multi-linguists or interpreters to stand between Arts and Science (and
between Arts and Morals, and Science and Morals) and communicate these
terrains. With respect to Nanette's comment, there may be continua that
run between each pair, leading from the purity of each through complex
connections that lie among them. Life, of course, often blends all of
these in ways that make anyone's map of the territory quite limited.
Measurement issues vary depending on where we stand. Sometimes the best
theories are wisely woven into a beautiful story or play or poem...
Mindfully, David.
________________
Wilber's Parable (in academic style):
Ken Wilber offers insight by illuminating a Truth-Beauty-Goodness
framework with an example of a rainstorm. In order to know "if it is
raining" we need measures from Science [The True] and can then compare
measurements of "objective truth." To do so, we design measurement
"instruments" that are, for the most part, independent of the people
doing the measuring. Thus, for example, a measurement system is built
into a stopwatch or a ruler or a survey. Our challenge is to ensure
that the instrument selected is valid for the intended purpose, and that
the measurer is using it properly and consistently.
Science, however, cannot tell us "if the storm is beautiful." For this
we turn to Arts [The Beautiful] where the person doing the measuring
becomes an integral part of the measurement system itself. Here we seek
"subjective truth" through resonance of some kind (e.g., degree of awe
or transcendence in the person engaging a rainstorm). In this instance,
the measurement system "includes" the person doing the measuring, so we
also need to understand the measurer. This system is subjective, but it
is not arbitrary.
Regardless of knowing truth and beauty, we still won't know how to act
in response to people who are locked out of the house (in the storm)
banging on the door for us to let them inside. In this case, we turn to
Morals and seek "inter-subjective truth." Here the measurement system
includes the culture in which the measuring process takes place. Thus,
for example, we need to know about laws, norms, and customs that frame
moral behavior. Here we must include assessments of whether the people
creating the rules, norms, and so forth are capable. This system is
inter-subjective but also not arbitrary.
________________
David A. Cowan, Professor
Management Department
School of Business
Miami University
Oxford, OH 45056
(513) 529-3689...office
(513) 529-6992...fax
[log in to unmask]
>>> Ralph Bathurst <[log in to unmask]> 11/01/04 8:07 PM >>>
Hi Folks
I've been thinking of the issue of generalisability that Steve got going
and John, Stephen and Violina have contributed to. I really like the
distinction between convergent and divergent ideas. Here's the problem
though: we can accept divergence but how do our differing experiences
and reporting of those experiences help us with theory building?
This link between method (how we do aesthetic research?) and theory
building (what do our findings mean?) is what I'm currently struggling
with. I think aesthetic research enables us to make intuitive leaps but
when it comes to describing these logically so the wider academic
community 'buys in' to our ideas, then we have a problem. Do we just,
then, accept divergence and use that as a defense or is there an
approach that acknowledges the uniqueness of aesthetics and yet is
acceptable to the non-aesthete?
My colleague in an office down the corridor from mine says: "Your
emperor has no clothes!" I'm struggling for a response. . .
Ralph
|