Re: Relational "Space"

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> Rosen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 3:17 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Relational "Space"
>
>
> Tim,
>
> What if the phenomenon you speak of is being caused by the
> conformation? As
> opposed to what you had below:
>
> > Tim wrote: But if phenomenon = conformation, then primary
> structure alone,
> apart from
> > conformation, is not a phenomenon and hence not perceivable.
> That is what
> I
> > mean by "by definition". In this case it would not be a technological
> issue.>
>
> If "phenomenon" is generaged by "conformation" as opposed to
> being equal to
> it as you had in your assumption, then it's a whole different world, isn't
> it?
>

I don't see how it is different. If phenomenon is generated by conformation,
then how would primary structure be perceptible, since primary structure is
not itself a conformation and thus would not generate a phenomenon? Or, are
you saying that something which might be a primary structure for a given
conformation is itself  composed of conformation(s) of some other primary
structure(s), which would then make that first primary structure
perceptible?

Regards,
Tim