Re: Teleology and vitalism

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Ayten Aydin wrote:
> A united/concerted and for that matter teleological action
> appears needed.

A brilliant, and absolutely gorgeous use of the word, teleological. It's
perfect.

Judith



> Judith,
> Perhaps superfluous, but I would like to emphasise the reference you make
in
> your following paragraph:
>
> "One of my father's main secondary goals in everything he did and wrote
was
> to prove that biology WAS accessible through science; that the reasons for
> life in organisms is knowable and explainable in scientific parlance, it
> just wasn't quite the way we had expected. In the course of working
through
> this whole process, he discovered that the impediments in science were
> almost always caused by attitudes in science itself-- attitudes that were
> based on all sorts of things but, without exception, they were not based
on
> logic or truth."
>
> I agree that biology and fields beyond (within human sciences) should be
> explainable in scientific parlance, that is by applying to them scientific
> method provided that this method has freedom (not operating within
"Closure"
> as meant by Lawson) to apply different criteria for each level of enquiry
> representing different categories, for verification; not limited to the
> criteria rigidly applied to Physics. Even the chemistry goes beyond
physics
> and gets closer to biology.
> Somehow human being finds it easy to operate within simple systems without
> realizing or not wanting to realize that the life and living are complex
> matters and need a complexity minded approach in dealing with everything
> concerning the life.
>
> Once we agree on this among ourselves we should start thinking how we can
> break our boundaries and go outside with more practical applications to
> diffuse the related openness.
>
> In this context your idea of selecting a relatively simple and all
> embracing, that is directly involving all human body/mind and soul
triplex,
> area (such as health maintenance) is picked up and pursued within the RR's
> framework to start with and see where it takes us whether we make the RR
> theory evolve further or consider it already an open theory applicable to
> all with necessary wings to be added as needed to fly higher. A
> united/concerted and for that matter teleological action appears needed.
>
> A.A