Re: Relational "Space"

[John M <***>]

Dear Judith, let me respond to your post below - and skip the precedents
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Relational "Space"


> John M.
>
> I read your questions. I can't say I understand what you're asking well
> enough to attempt an answer, though. You have a gift for making language
do
> things I never thought it could do! It's like watching the Cirque de
Soleil.
>
> My intuition is that you find all of science reductionist in a sense, and
my
> father would agree with that. But human limitations force us to do our
> learning and investigations in manageable pieces-- we can't just absorb
the
> whole truth from the universe by laying on of hands or some other psychic
> method. I'm not upset about it... Would learning like that be any fun?
>
> Judith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John M" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Relational "Space"
Skip from Noah's ark incl. this (my) post.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for "praising" my communication-style. I try to use common sense.
My way of thinking (the first language-facing connectivity forming in the
evolving brain) was not Indo-European, a different logical pattern to
'symbolize' and 'syntaxize' the primary symbols . That makes my English
stilted.
(In Hungarian - as said frequently - I simply have weird ideas <G>).

I am glad for your statement on a match with RR - and I lately always
emphasize  that the 'reductionistic' thinking is the only one our mind can
manage for the time being. Which does not reduce my goal to approach an
understanding in terms of wholism (even when knowing that it is premature)
See my post ½ hour ago to Tim.

My motto is: learn and do reductionistic science & technology, with keeping
in mind that this is a partial view, quantities are approximate and
uncertain, effects are cut to the limitations of the model we use.
In the meantime try to work on a different view (wholistic that is) -
erecting a more expressive vocabulary and NOT COMPROMISING - caving in - to
the reductionist science-view as a philosophical stance.

I can be irresponsible:
firstly I am not committed to any 'school' 'system' or organization, I am a
free-lance thinker on my own -
secondly I have a very limited time left (not to live, that may be from 0 -
20yrs)
but to think 'clearly and reasonably' which will go probably soon. I don't
expect to 'see' a clear wholistic theory develop. I try to provide
ammunition.
Some of it may backfire. But so be it.

John M