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

Re: Function and functional organization

Point VERY well taken. I will be brief and more compartmentalized in the future.
I also agree we should use more exact addressing, JohnK, JohnM, JohnC, etc.

John M wrote:
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