Re: MR as ontological

["John M" <***>]

Heureka!
I think one of the greatness in RR(ism?) is the abolition of the 'fetish'
LIFE so rampant among biologically impaired minds (as 'calculation' in
math-ly impaired ones).
Now that I succedded to piss off many of you, let me interject some remarks
into Judith's most appreciable regerences to RR ideas.
Thanks, Judith!
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: MR as ontological


> 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.

[JM]:
Your first sentence said it all, the rest looks to me as an apology for
'offending' the mystique of LIFE (all caps). I call life plainly a 'certain'
form of movement - complex enough (for us!) to be regarded with awe. Itr is
OUR life! Furthermore I read words in the same fashion
(as in: "degree or magnitude of complexity" - for a not definable or
quantizable concept.  Are these Judith's added words?).

[JR]:
>
> 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.

[JM]:
That depends on how one defines the model of the ecosystem. I do it in
general ways, including I/O links, cosmic influences, etc, as a
(RR?) natural system, vs the Earth-limited model most biologists and
ecologists apply. Similarly: the model of a 'cell' as used in biology, so in
terms of the applied (topical, - in my terms: reductionistic) science
"biology" that statement of RR holds. I guess he formulated his terminology
(from and) for a biologic view and wanted to stay for a
life-oriented audience relevant. (And don't we miss Judith's words:
"in the global sense" - supporting what I wrote).
I don't see a conscious trend in this: one has a mindset, cannot fake it in
the long term. I read his words in the broader sense. You were amazed,
because you are not within a biologist's worldview.

[JR]:
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
>