Consider the nebulous concepts of "structure" and "process..." each infers the other. All things have "structure." While all process(es) have some kind of "structure," there does not exist any thing that is not integral to some process or does not contain within it, various processes... Same "coin," different sides. the two concepts are integral to each other... With this in mind, give me an account of what you see implied in this statement... words like "redactive" and "reflexive" can be used... or even an adage like "tit for tat" (whatever THAT means?).
2006-06-30 19:40:13 · 11 answers · asked by cherodman4u 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
For leo_m (et.al.): Consider DNA... the genetic code, a "structure" which is reponsible for carrying out - for better & worse - all the early "developmental," compensatory, & maintenance-based "processes" of the human body... "from cradle to casket". So consider metacognition as an "epi-genetic landscape" around terrain that is "variable." Now, pretend you're a farmer that must 'plow' that terrain so as to not loose "topsoil," maintaining the integrity of the "landsape" so as to minimize the effects of "erosive" forces over time. The seeds you plant depend on "compensatory measures" e.g., goal maintenance issues like the proper timing of fertilizer applications, "pest control," etc. BALANCE and the dependability of "acquired sensibilities" over time are critical. Your heuristic base is only as good as its redactive capabilities & abilties to assure adaption to novel circumstances... "reconnoitering dialogue:" an implicate 'prowess' or incisiveness in dealing w/ the "contextual."
2006-07-01 04:19:26 · update #1
For leo_m (et.al.): Consider DNA... the genetic code, a "structure" which is reponsible for carrying out - for better & worse - all the early "developmental," compensatory, & maintenance-based "processes" of the human body... "from cradle to casket". So consider metacognition as an "epi-genetic landscape" around terrain that is "variable." Now, pretend you're a farmer that must 'plow' that terrain so as to not loose "topsoil," maintaining the integrity of the "landsape" so as to minimize the effects of "erosive" forces over time. The seeds you plant depend on "compensatory measures" e.g., goal maintenance issues like the proper timing of fertilizer applications, "pest control," etc. BALANCE and the dependability of "acquired sensibilities" over time are critical. Your heuristic base is only as good as its redactive capabilities & abilties to assure adaption to novel circumstances... "reconnoitering dialogue:" an implicate 'prowess' or incisiveness in dealing w/ the "contextual."
2006-07-01 04:24:41 · update #2
Artemis left some good sources, but I would have listed C.H. Waddington, R.B. Fuller, and Charles Hamden-Turner as well. New responders please bring your knowledge of epistemological reasoning and inquiry to bear on this question. Thank you.
2006-07-06 10:09:29 · update #3
I tend to disagree that structure implies process and conversely...but that is beside the point. The real problem is attempting to think about thinking without resorting to objects or pictures of objects. Before you know it you've got its opposite and then assume that all elements in reality (whatever that is) are tied somehow with some antithetical state of affairs.
This occurs especially when one reads about mental states in psychology, where a writer seeks to bridge the gap between mental processes and neural events. By the time you've made that leap of faith you have fallen into the trap of reifying what cannot be made a thing -- what Ryle would call a "category mistake".
Such is "my take", although i will bet that i have missed your point.
2006-06-30 20:40:03 · answer #1 · answered by artemis 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In the natural state, everything is based upon simplicity. If you wish to understand it (or any part thereof) you must first simplify your thinking and your logic.
One thing which has helped me a great deal is working such things backwards.... i.e. Start with the result and work your way to the effect(s).
Also.... "An ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure".
2006-07-12 08:10:29 · answer #2 · answered by Izen G 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
blah blah blah .... and as in the second law of thermodynamics, metacognition proceeds naturaly in the direction of increasing disorder. And by the way, if you ever have kids, keep your answer to their questions to less than 30 seconds.
2006-07-12 08:54:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Looks so complicated but sounds like it falls on a Yin-Yang category...
2006-07-12 12:09:00 · answer #4 · answered by wacky_racer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lots of great answers already for this
2016-08-08 02:34:47 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe Jaques Derrida said something like this also. arn't you clever !
2006-07-12 09:33:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on many factors
2016-08-23 00:56:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you really asking a question or posturing?
2006-07-12 05:34:02 · answer #8 · answered by SurferRose 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My take is that I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
2006-07-13 03:30:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
o:
speak english :]
too complicated for me
2006-07-12 15:16:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋