[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: MR as ontological

Hi John,

I suppose if we were each to select the statements that best supports our preconceptions, we would all be happy, but perhaps unfair. It seems to me that Judith's second statement about RR's view regards the idea that there are deeper levels of understanding if one cares to look. In that case it would not be an apology associated with the philosophically impaired, but an appreciation for complexity (which requires the existence of multiple views).

I'll add that I think there is a difference between associating life with the organization of a system, which very well can be considered to have ontological roots, and associating life solely with its realized behavior, as JM implies here. It is at least certain that Rosen introduced an un-observable "reality" construct in the form of a formal system, is it not?? And that the required "act of abstraction" is not reducible to observable behaviors? I think that takes it back out of the can, John.

-jjk

John M wrote:
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