quantification fetish

[Roberto Verzola <rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org>]

 >Vicente Marasigan:
 >remediation.  It is about time that Lonergan's constructive and
 >wholistic insights be translated into a networking and interactive
 >computer program for facilitating collaboration at making global
 >decisions.
 ...
 >most of the points you make.  I hesitate on what you call
 >"quantification fetish."  I certainly prioritize quality over
 >quantity.  So do mainline economists.  But Lonergan saw how their
 >quantification of economic parameters left much to be desired because
 >such quantification has now become extremely complex.

I have my own doubts about any kind of "global" approach to problems
(a reason why I proposed that "globalism" be identified among our
flawed mindsets). This is related to quantification, as it is often
the global, macro approaches that absolutely need quantification. When
the scale of problem-solving is small enough, there is much less need
for quantification, and the quality of life and problems can often be
felt/sensed/intuited. So can the solutions.

This local approach does not preclude complexity and global
interactions. But the latter will *emerge* from the local
interactions. Out of these local interactions, the laws of
self-organization and complexity will then operate to bring about
higher, more complex interactions. The global picture will emerge
bottom up, without a master plan or a master conductor. This is what
makes this mindset very different from, for example, Jay Hanson's (who
advocates a global government of coercion).

Glenn Bacon, who specialized in this area, is in a better position to
tell us how recent studies on self-organization and complexity provide
an alternative explanation of reality.

Roberto Verzola