Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Livyjr Files. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Coping Skills versus Interventions; Is there a difference?
Topic Started: Apr 2 2012, 05:38 AM (6,165 Views)
RLA2
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
The beauty of general systems theory is that only a relatively few, relatively simple principles are required to
understand systems and that they apply to all systems.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Livyjr
Administrator
[ *  *  * ]
I am an engineer, rla, who understands systems quite well, and I have actually designed and built "systems" for manufacturing processes ....

I have never learned general systems theory in order to understand systems ...

And understanding systems as I do, I can't see a need for learning some totally artificial theory that tells me nothing that I do not already know ....

And any engineer worth his or her salt will tell you that the more complex you make any system, the more likely it is too fail ....

Which kind of brings us right to where we are in present-day USA and thus, the need for coping skills on the part of some of us to deal with the mess, and the need for massive interventions for the other 80% or more who can no longer deal with present-day reality and all of its artificial complexity ....

And so ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Livyjr
Administrator
[ *  *  * ]
General systems theory is supposed to function as some type of glue to put the pieces of Humpty-Dumpty back together again ....

Too bad there are so many pieces now missing ....

And so ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RLA2
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Livyjr
Apr 3 2012, 05:42 AM
I am an engineer, rla, who understands systems quite well, and I have actually designed and built "systems" for manufacturing processes ....

I have never learned general systems theory in order to understand systems ...

And understanding systems as I do, I can't see a need for learning some totally artificial theory that tells me nothing that I do not already know ....

And any engineer worth his or her salt will tell you that the more complex you make any system, the more likely it is too fail ....

Which kind of brings us right to where we are in present-day USA and thus, the need for coping skills on the part of some of us to deal with the mess, and the need for massive interventions for the other 80% or more who can no longer deal with present-day reality and all of its artificial complexity ....

And so ...
I have attended a fairly large number of educational systems and I have worked in a fairly large number of educational systems, done research on various educational systems and
provided consultation to leaders of educational systems. The time and effort I invested in the study of general systems theory, especially complex adaptive systems has added greatly to my understanding of educational systems.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Livyjr
Administrator
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 

Special relativity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in an inertial frame of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after the considerable and independent contributions of Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré and others) in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

It generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity—that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames)—from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be.

Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.

This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified, including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, contradicting the classical notion that the duration of the time interval between two events is equal for all observers.

(On the other hand, it introduces the space-time interval, which is invariant.)

Combined with other laws of physics, the two postulates of special relativity predict the equivalence of mass and energy, as expressed in the mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

The predictions of special relativity agree well with Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of applicability, specifically in experiments in which all velocities are small compared with the speed of light.

Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon—namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime.

One of the consequences of the theory is that it is impossible for any particle that has rest mass to be accelerated to the speed of light.

The theory was originally termed "special" because it applied the principle of relativity only to the special case of inertial reference frames, i.e. frames of reference in uniform relative motion with respect to each other.

Einstein developed general relativity to apply the principle in the more general case, that is, to any frame so as to handle general coordinate transformations, and that theory includes the effects of gravity.

The term is currently used more generally to refer to any case in which gravitation is not significant.

General relativity is the generalization of special relativity to include gravitation.

In general relativity, gravity is described using noneuclidean geometry, so that gravitational effects are represented by curvature of spacetime; special relativity is restricted to flat spacetime.

Just as the curvature of the earth's surface is not noticeable in everyday life, the curvature of spacetime can be neglected on small scales, so that locally, special relativity is a valid approximation to general relativity.

The presence of gravity becomes undetectable in a sufficiently small, free-falling laboratory.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity


Perhaps it should not be called general systems theory, then ....

The "general" in there should be removed ....

It is a theory readily applicable to some fields but not to all fields ...

More like the SPECIAL theory of relativity than the GENERAL theory of relativity ....

And so ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RLA2
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I'm still chewing on this. Historically, development has been in the other dirrection. Information processing theory, with the development of such concepts as, "Chunks" of information and the expansion of the S-R unit of behavior to an S-O-R schema or the TOTE Model (Test-Operate-Test-Exit) model, has become a Theory of Cognition. Chunks of information can vary in structure, function and size but most people's short term memory can only handle five to nine chunks. Chunks of information can be nested in larger chunks and chunks which can operate as whole parts, that is, part and whole at the same time, are what many general systems theorists call Holons.

So general systems theory may be thought of a theory of
human cognition with lots of special applications.

In any case, it will be interesting to see how the field develops.


Edited by Livyjr, Apr 3 2012, 04:19 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Livyjr
Administrator
[ *  *  * ]
If someone came to you in a lot of pain or physical or mental and emotional distress, would your therapy for them be to tell them that everything that is, is in motion?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RLA2
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Livyjr
Apr 5 2012, 06:01 PM
If someone came to you in a lot of pain or physical or mental and emotional distress, would your therapy for them be to tell them that everything that is, is in motion?

No and I would also not tell them that it is better to be well a day than sick a year.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Livyjr
Administrator
[ *  *  * ]
I tell them to relax ....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RLA2
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Livyjr
Apr 6 2012, 12:57 PM
I tell them to relax ....
Would you tell them to relax, whether they knew how to relax or not? Or would you invite them to sit down, suggest to them to take a deep breath, sit down facing them, close enough to establish communication but not close enough to be threatening, really look at the person, conveying a readiness to listen...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Livyjr
Administrator
[ *  *  * ]
My experience with people, rla, is that they don't know how to relax ...

They are uncertain of what relaxation really is or means, generally associating it with liesure time activities, not realizing that you can be relaxed while working, and being relaxed while working makes you more efficient and effective and productive ...

So by simply saying the word "relax" causes or forces them to have to focus on the CONCEPT of being relaxed, and everything then flows from there, as it must, if they are to learn not HOW to relax but TO BE relaxed, even in the face of danger ....

Or maybe especially in the face of danger ...

And so ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RLA2
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
So we are back to the question of how people learn and how to facilitate others to learn?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Livyjr
Administrator
[ *  *  * ]
I got a whole lot of learning in a real short time when a Soviet-made RPG-7 warhead exploded right behind my head while I was linking belts on a machinegun in Viet Nam in March of 1969 and blew me all to **** so that I was left to die like a cur dog been hit by the side of the road by a car ....

Over into the pile of the "do nothing for's" ...

And then, I resolved not to be dead, to cling to life as tenaciously as possible ...

Out of that comes all that I know today, starting with how to relax muscles locked in spasm ...

As a Russian doctor said, however, western medicine cannot deal with that because they cannot deal with it - too many factors are involved that western medicine cannot measure or reproduce or control, factors such as human will, which medical doctors and psychologists know nothing about, never having been harmed themselves, and spirit, the sound of which alone freaks western medicine right out ....

And science, as well, since it cannot devise a repeatable test to measure the presence or absence of spirit, and so, denies its very existence, along with the concept of "god", which is a healing factor in the lives of simple people like myself, a belief that one is infused with the healing power of a god, along with the knowledge of how to use it ...

And so ...
Edited by Livyjr, Apr 10 2012, 01:25 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Livyjr
Administrator
[ *  *  * ]
RLA2
 

So we are back to the question of how people learn and how to facilitate others to learn?


People will only learn that which they have an interest and perceived necessity of learning.

A. TRUE

B. NOT TRUE
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RLA2
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
B. Not true. People are frequently learning stuff they have no awareness, knowledge or intention of learning.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · RLA's SECTION · Next Topic »
Add Reply