The following is from Lessem and Shieffer's prologue to their book "Integral Economics:" Therein a group of UK economists wrote a letter to the Queen on the causes of the financial meltdown. It sounds a lot like the difference between restricted and general complexity discussed elsewhere. The delicious irony is that the likes of Morin, and presumably integral economics, are 'horizontal' when in fact it is those domineering scientific and mathematical reductionists that enact flatland.
The delicious irony is that the likes of Morin, and presumably integral economics, are 'horizontal' when in fact it is those domineering scientific and mathematical reductionists that enact flatland.
Speaking of flatland, in the last post it references the Lingam's notion that scientific materialism reduced the value spheres to its domain. And that that domain was ruled by the modernist tendency to posit some kind of pure objectivism distinct from the subjective. Whereas recall this post earlier in the real/false reason thread, where some of the OOOers admit to a flat instead of hierarchical ontology. This is not the same as the flat epistemology of the mathematical objectivists, still caught in the notion that we can model and know directly the objective via mathematics, the latter itself from that purely objective plane. The OOOers, while acknowledging the objective beyond our epistemology, do not find solace or grace that we can know it directly via this mathematical means, or that the means itself is that objective plane. And that ontologically it is not hierarchical, at least in the mathematical sense, while still mereological but in the democratic sense.