Hi Terry,

I did in fact ask Nick's implied question "What is of value ?"
rhetorically; that is I went on to say I preferred to focus on
"value-realizing processes", but no matter. Two good points here ...

(1) Kevin Kelly - I've been a fan of KK's blog in the past, so I'm
interested in his book. Thanks. As you suggest, a "participant model"
is what I am referring to in  (dynamic) "value-realizing processes"
above, ie as opposed to the "spectator model" of debating a (static)
definition of "what is of value" from the sidelines, as it were.
A valuable circular definition -
Q. What is of value ?
A. Participatory activities (which realize or add value).

(2) Also good to see the reference to US Pragmatism. It was one of
only two criticisms in my review of Nick's "Is Science Neurotic", that
Nick had not acknowledged / built upon the work of US Pragmatist
philosophers, from where such viewpoints above arise. Interesting to
hear this is something you have discussed with Nick over the years. An
opportunity for us to take up.

Ian

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Terry Bristol <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> All –
>
> I would like to recommend a new book that I recently read that has a core
> relevance to the 'knowledge to wisdom' theme.
> And I think that it points to an approach to Ian's core question: What is of
> value?
>
> What Technology Wants
>
> by Kevin Kelly
> Below is the Amazon blurb about the book.
> One core theme is that technology wants 'us' – as in humans. This is a
> version of the anthropic theme but played out in biological evolution
> emerging into human socio-technological-economic development.
> The second core theme has to do with the concept of progress. Ian (below)
> points at the question: what is of value?
> Kelly's argument is that 'value' is embodied in 'progress' and progress is
> the result of technological development.
> So what is technological development?
> Technological development is tied up with 'learning'.  I think that Nick
> endorses the Popper/Lakatos/Feyerabend thesis that 'learning' – if you
> really learn (anything new) – is by its very nature progressive. Learning
> involves steps to new understanding that is incommensurable with old
> understanding. Stated another way if you really learn then later
> understanding is better (more valuable) than the earlier understanding –
> qualitatively better.  That points toward a definition of value. The catch
> is always that value emerges through our experimental exploration of the
> possibility space – we don't start with a script. But also as we explore the
> possibility space – making mistakes and often generating unintended
> consequences – as we learn we also develop the possibility space. (Hegel
> might have said that the freedom of the system develops – the qualitative
> range of our capacity to perform work.)
> The 'learning analogy' now needs to be transformed from a detached Spectator
> representation of inquiry and our place in the universe (as if the universe
> is fixed and we are converging to an understanding) to a Participant
> representation where our process of learning is a process of development.
> I am not suggesting that there are great and clear answers here, only that
> Kelly's theme of 'progress' will be a crucial element in the developing
> dialogue about wisdom in Nick's sense, about How we should live?
> I think Kelly's answer(s) mesh with Hegel and Dewey and other American
> Pragmatists. Nick and I have had this discussion of the link between his
> ideas and the American Pragmatist tradition for something approaching 40
> years now.
> Hegel (one of the launching points for American Pragmatism) hypothesized
> that history is the development/unfolding of freedom.
> I take it that freedom is 'the capacity to perform work' where work is
> understood not in the mechanical (Spectator) sense but in the
> archiecturo-engineering (Participant) sense where it is the capacity to
> problem-solve, the capacity to bring new, novel value into the universe.
>  Biological evolution is marked by life's increasing capacity to perform
> work (viz nicely argued in Sagan/Schneider's book Into the Cool).
> Knowledge in the Participant representation of learning and our place in the
> universe is inseparable from values. What we are learning is how to live –
> better.
> The notion of knowledge as 'purely factual' is associated with the
> Mechanical Philosophy (Spectator). The Participant model sees the various
> brands of mechanical knowledge as in the allegory of the Blind Men and the
> Elephant – each with demonstrably successful knowledge, but each is
> inherently incomplete and none of these can be representative of the whole.
> All forms of demonstrable knowledge – all possible, successful Blind Men
> perspectives – are to be understood as special cases within the
> Participant's developing universe. One way to express this is to say that
> engineering (problem solving: trying to move from a current state of affairs
> to a more desirable future state of affairs) isn't applied science as much
> as science is engineering research.
> Comments?  (How do I find the discussion list? I don't think I am on that.)
> Terry
>
>