Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John M
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 10:33 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism
>
>
> Dear Tim,
> I believe NOW we have something to discuss.
> First our diferring use of some Anglicised Latin words:
> "compromise" (noun). Your meaning of it clicked in immediately when I read
> you: a changed (mostly into negative sense) meaning or an action to result
> in that. As I used it (from my fundamental?) -Latin vocabulary and
> continental European use) means "bridging equilibrating solution between
> divergent opinions: compromissum.
> I meant: find a way in between, not different, but less oppositional.
> (It seems I cannot re-define English, sorry.)


Ahh....I see now. Thanks for pointing that out  :)


>
> Let me dismiss the long texts and quote only your parts I address
> (the rest is on everybody's disc, or clickable from the archive).
> so, from the
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 12:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism
>
>
> > John,
> > See interposed.
> > Regards,
> > Tim
>
> > SNIP
> Tim:
> "I am pretty sure he meant "taking of limits" to refer to the mathematical
> 'limits' function, which is a transcendental function (that is, it is a
> mathematical function that includes nonformalizable semantic aspects)."
> This 'function' is beyond my math, but I feel a mathematical limit is
> definitely a cut-off in the wholistic view: a reductionist tool.
> This is NOT
> pejoratively meant... (I am all for ACTING reductionisticly).


Agreed. Transcendental functions may jump beyond purely syntactic functions,
but they are definitely still a "reductionistic tool", in your sense.



> *
> Now comes the reason for my starting remark. Tim:
> "I am not sure he would have used the term "compromising".
> Certainly, alot of what his work showed was that the models commonly used
> were 'compromised' in the sense of being inadequate for the task to which
> they were put.
> [[[you see: my different (wrong?) meaning of the "English" word]]]
> In this way he used these failures in modeling as a way to show that
> modeling as our way of understanding the world (modeling is "the
> habitat of
> all epistemology") has limited capabilites, even when we broaden our
> category of models to include relational models, etc. "
>
> [[[ - I even widen the scope of "reductionst modeling" into all cuts in
> topical etc. boundaries, including the "natural systems". I am not sure
> whether Rosen thought of this and just suppressed it (in MY
> 'compromising') for being acceptable for the conventional readers, or did
> not go that far in his first excursion beyond reductionistic thinking. At


I think he did think of this. Particularly clearly in "Life Itself", where
he says defining a system is a "basic though fateful step for science". (I
am not sure many people really heeded the profundity in this, though.) And
FM, AS, and EL are full of a wide variety of examples of the relationship
between "system" and "environment" sets up false dichotomies and arbitrary
frames of reference, rather than illuminating some natural partition.

Although some of his statements on the matter were direct, the quote above
is about as preachy as I've seen from him on this topic. But, then again, as
I recall from the autobigraphical notes that Judith posted awhile ago,
preaching was not of interest to him. So we are left to seek and grasp the
deep notions behind his words on our own.


> first I did not go that far myself, only after learning about Rosen from
> you, guys, over the past 3 years, when I already had my pretty Rosen-like
> ideas for a decade. I accept him - as Judith so eloquently quoted
> him - for
> a BEGINNING, not as a  dogmatic end (my paraphrasing). ]]]
> Tim:
> "The question is: just how much more complex/unlimited/etc *is* the world
> beyond our limited capabilites to understand it? Well, if it is beyond our
> limited capabilities, then can we even speak sensibly about that unknown?"
>
> How could Nicolas de Cusa speak about heliocentrism which then led to the
> Copernicus system? or Watson and Crick about chemical genetics? or Fulton
> about drilling a hole in water (as the French Academy's rejection has put
> it) to propagate ships? Our capabilities are subject to enrichment except
> when we cave in to a defeatist dogmatism of ignorance. I feel we must try.
> And we do.


Well said. Especially how you highlight the necessity of not simply going
*further* in a particular direction of investigation, but in *multiplying*
the directions of investigation.


> Tim:
> "For myself,  I say this: the world is *at least* as
> complex/unlimited/ etc.
> as our epistemological probes into it reveal it to be, and how *much more*
> complex/unlimited/etc.the world is remains an open question, probably
> forever...."
> [[[seems true]]]
> "...This reiterative process of epistemological probes takes as a
> (either tacit or explicit) presupposition that the world will always have
> capabilities and features awaiting possible discovery. In this sense, the
> process of modeling can be consistent with a view of an "unlimited" world.
> .."
> [[[ - I would use instead of "consistent" which I feel as
> "belonging to it"
> rather: "necessary for our probing".]]]

That makes sense.

>
> Tim:
> "...To me, the danger from generating the pieces of knowledge via models
> lies in imputing that knowledge back to the world, globally and
> universally
> stripped of the fact that these pieces of knowledge derive only
> from certain
> models of certain subsections of the world in certain contexts
> using certain
> formalisms and certain assumptions."
>
> [[[You said it better than I ever could have. ]]]
> The only thing that comes to mind countering these words is what Dan
> mentioned lately and I still have to ponder about: that OUR models are
> active in the world as such and reflect BACK on us, so our modeling may be
> part of the world, not just as our reductionist thinking's mental
> tools ...
> (- the way I caught it so far, maybe the wrong sense (Dan?) -   ...anyway


Dan, can you comment/elaborate on this? This does seem like a very important
facet.


> intriguing towards the "complexity" of the world we live in and study. I
> always stated that not only a written, but also a spoken-out word is a
> 'reality' which one cannot disregard or make untold, now as I
> feel this may
> be extended into the ideas as well? Or is it restricted to 'applied'
> functional models (and in my added extension: only to
> 'communicated' ideas?)
> Both have their "natural systemic" extensions (untold) so we MAY???
> manipulate nature?
> It is unbelievable! (I don't reject it though for this reason yet).


Intriguing! I think it may perhaps be an unavoidable aspect as participatory
beings in the world. Even extended into the realm of private (internal)
ideas, unless we excuse them as somehow "beyond" the world - which I reject.


>
> Thanks for your positive reply and mind-activating thoughts.
>
> Regards
>
> John

My mind is spinning! Am I creating a whirlpool in the world? :)

Regards,
Tim