Re: MR as ontological

["Judith Rosen" <***>]

I think my father did, indeed, believe that "life" emerges as an effect of
the particular "complex" organization of the system we call "organism".
However, he did not see any contradiction in the fact that life, or
livingness, is a "general principle" in the universe and it is also an
emergent characteristic of a certain level of complexity. The more general
principle here is his definition of complexity, of which life is a
consequence or effect. Consciousness is another one. Not all organisms are
conscious, and it is a matter of degree or magnitude of complexity that is
at work in the reason why. In conversations we had about life on other
planets in other solar systems and galaxies; he was sure it must exist, but
speculated that it may be so completely different from us that we may not
recognize it as life. It would, he was sure, exhibit exactly the kind of
complexity in its own way, as life on Earth does. In other words, it may be
made of other "stuff" but the quality of livingness would be due to its
organization in exactly the same way as an Earth organism's life is.

My father believed that there IS a difference between an organism and a
complex system that is not an organism (but full of life). He said that in
the latter case, (eg: the global ecosystem), the system is not "living" as
in "alive", but is full of living things. The language he used would be more
along the lines of what Tim was saying. This is where the levels of
complexity that I posted once before comes in handy. My father said,
specifically and in so many words to me, that the global ecosystem was not a
living organism and therefore was not as complex as a single celled
organism. I was amazed by that statement, and it was discussed at great
length, believe me. Size really doesn't matter!

Judith


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 5:48 PM
S
> >Here I disagree with your division into "living/complex phenomena" and
> >"organism". To me, the division is "complex phenomena" and
> >"living/organism".
> >
> >
> >
> Then we would have to claim that everything living is an organism??? My
> statement is that all organisms are living, and that everything living
> is complex. But I would advise holding out the possibility that "life
> itself" - defined according to principle - could preceed organisms. The
> alternative view is that life emerges with the organization of an
> organism - that life is associated with that type of organization, not a
> more general one.
>
> We should also keep the distinction between "what is alive" = a life
> form, and "life itself" which refers to a principle or general phenomena
> of which oganism is an instance. Rosen implies this distinction. So then
> the question we have identified in this dialog is if life exists as a
> general principle, or if it "emerges" (definition?) a part of the
> organization of an organism.

>
> J. Kineman