Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism

["John M" <***>]

I wrote:
> We call symbiotic when we see no harm, maybe we see benefit
> in the cohabitation of species in our momentary thinking
>(interest).
> We call it parasitic, when we derive some harm on a participant.
> But what is harm? (Tao). A mutation, a thinning of a niche, a new
> format (like the eukaryotes) is hard to judge impartially.
>
> Our words represent symbolic of ancient times and now we >apply them to
the
> newly learned environment. Good for arguing.

I must have been out of my mind - or already asleep. I kept preaching
without thinking. Sorry.

As I 'taste' the two words again, I would deem "parasitic" as using (feeding
on) the 'host' while "symbiotic" is living together, maybe feeding on the
same stuff. The latter is IMO a 'mutation' in the form of living, like a
partnership, in which the partners get not only used to each other, but also
adjust to the togetherness.

This is the process, how I deem 'symbiotic' the development of eukaryotes,
from associating prokaryotes (one immerging to form the nucleus) and the
other keeping the 'outside' structure. Other prokaryotes also joined the
corporation, forming e.g. mitochondria.
Then such monsters joined together in masses and formed us
(give or take a billion years).
Parasites, however, are smarter (or are they?) they eat what they get, don't
save the chances, even if killing the host tat feeds them.
More complex systems are e.g. the symbiotic parasites, like ants, with
insects: they keep them alive, feed them, for food. Same as a farmer does
with cattle or chicken, even crop. So is agriculture a parasitic, or a
symbiotic arrangement?
(I think a good question of the day).

Regards
John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:07 PM
Subject: FW: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism


> Thanks John. :)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John M
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:11 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism
> >
> >
> > Tim,
> >
> > you arrive by common (Rosenean) sense from a 2-bit model to a
> > 3-body system
> > and as you continued, to an unlistable amount body maze - the
> > unlimited/able
> > wholeness.
> > It is a logical and beautiful way to show the futility of reductionist
> > cut-off model science (however successful in technology).
> >
> > Also you touch the good/bad relations. I refer to Dan's parable of the
> > Taoist questions.  Our terms relate to our own interest NOW, in
> > which asense
> > we pass judgement - ignorantly.
> >
> > We call symbiotic when we see no harm, maybe we see benefit
> > in the cohabitation of species in our momentary thinking (interest).
> > We call it parasitic, when we derive some harm on a participant.
> > But what is harm? (Tao). A mutation, a thinning of a niche, a new
> > format (like the eukaryotes) is hard to judge impartially.
> >
> > Our words represent symbolic of ancient times and now we apply them to
the
> > newly learned environment. Good for arguing.
> >
> > Your logical post is commendable. Thank you
> >
> > John Mikes
> >