Re: Teleology and vitalism

[Ayten Aydin <***>]

Tim,
Thank you for your clarification.  I did interprete abstracting as picking a
piece out of something, a bigger whole, such as an art work or a scientific
discovery. Each person appreciates the former differently depending on
his/her level of consciousness understand its reality differently. This is
natural and as it should be. This is its potential  to expansion both
horiziontally and vertically. The latter is bound to be taken as it is and
be understood as intended by the discoverer/scientist, let's say here there
is no potential for horizontal expansion, but it is open to vertical growth
as new and new discoveries are made and the scene is left to the new comer.
In both cases the abstract is the seed of a bigger message in one way or
another. It then grows further as circumstances permits or calls for. That
is why I said it has a potential for expansion , in a way tacitly operating
in an open system. Certainly Lawson "Closure" also have the same
characteristics, it is also an aid for making understanding easy.

I must perhaps remain with these two concepts for a while within my
philosophical appreciation level and meditate further on your views before I
clarify the concept for myself, in the first instance. Thank you anyhow for
your guidance. Any further comment on this theme will be appreciated. I have
Lawson's book by the way, if you refer to a specific passage or part in this
regard I may consult it.

This topic is important for me for my other study on an enquiry into seeing
where(at what level) the art and science meet, in a way where the
subjectivity and objectivity unite, where the time and space become one
entity. I wonder how much all these are relevant to RR's all encompassing
philosophy? Judith may also wish to comment.

My best,
Ayten

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: Teleology and vitalism


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Ayten
> > Aydin
> > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 12:56 AM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Teleology and vitalism
> >
> >--snip--
> > 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.
>
> Ayten,
>
> I think you misunderstand "closures" as Lawson means them. Any kind of
> recognized pattern would be a closure. The use of the different criteria
> that you mention will lead to awareness of different patterns. Each such
> pattern recognized is also an abstraction since in the recognizing of any
> pattern, we are ignoring other qualia. Further inspection can always lead
to
> additional closures. So, the only limitation on closures is the ways in
> which we can perceive patterns. There is no loss of freedom in this view.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>