Re: Function and functional organization

["John M" <***>]

JohnK,
I agree fully with the usefulness of this encounter,
maybe - as I wrote - I am jelous for not understanding all of it.

My remark addressed the format - the many long fragmented
posts (not cutting in 2 for postability) which IMO could have been
grafted shorter, maybe not. Also the list-style is perplexing: all
posts have long precursor copies attached - a frightening view.
(Especially since Tim does not include me into the living as another 'John"
and I start reading the text to you as if addressed to me. A third (simply)
'John' also appeared (Colliers, "JohnC") to add to my confusion.  I still
don't know which one of the two of
us should reflect to the part about 'material reality' etc., which is my
beef.)

So I will leave here only the part which pertains to my involvement from
you.
Tim should take care of his stuff <G>.


Peace

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: Function and functional organization


> Tim,
>
>SNIP
>
> So, John M.; I appreciate the frustration and apologize for it, but I do
> think the discussion was a useful one, if considered in the context of
> communication with a more traditional audience. After all, if two people
> studying Rosen can miss each others specific meanings here, how much
> farther will the communication gap be with traditionalists, mechanists,
> "pragmatists" (in the bite and scratch tradition), theologians, etc? And
if
> it isn't explained very well, the theory itself is falsely tarred with a
> seemingly successful criticism, made on the wrong grounds.
>SNIP
>
> Cheers,
> Jkineman
>
> At 11:13 PM 8/29/03 -0400, Tim Gwinn wrote:
> >John,
> >
> >Geez, there may actually be some hope yet. :)  I'll try to be brief,
since
> >your mentioned your time is limited.
> >
> >We were each apparently using "material" in very different senses that
led
> >to some differences.
> >SNIP