Re: Teleology and vitalism

[John M <***>]

Ayten,
>" It may be a linguistic problem on my side."< Polite, but not true. The
word
has many facets - ie. historically loaded (ab?)uses so it is up to the user
to pick.
I started out from my theory, in which I considered the humanization of that
early australopithecus by a 'degeneration'<G> of its brainfunction into a
sloppy observation: "A DOG" - no matter if it was a chihuahua or a Dane.
Well, at least if facetiously put. This provided a 'concept' without single
identification. The first step IMO (contrary to many linguistic scientists
even neuro-historians) to a "symbol" which (again IMO) was the starting
point to 'language'.  I don't care where "consciousness" enters the story,
because I like to omit this word altogether as universally unspecified and
an immaterial stuff for bickering.
So 'my' abstraction is not extraction, rather a way of thinking more
comprehensively than just sensory imput churnings. I said jokingly
'degeneration' because it implies a certain laziness of the memory,
remembering mostly the main features (vaguely?) in one box, not as a
computer: all details unchanged.
It also supplied a way to logic etc., superseding the 'here and now'.
But this would be too much of abstraction on abstraction.

And you are right to point to my trend towards integration (maybe a better
word than I used: generalization into total). Thanks.

Cheers

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ayten Aydin" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: Teleology and vitalism


> John M,
> Thank you for your comments. With my definition of 'abstracting', I did
not
> mean reductionist modelling. It may be a linguistic problem on my side. I
> meant as a first step actual or virtual action towards grasping the whole.
> On the other hand I must admit that we look into the matter differently.
> There is a difference between yours and mine. You define abstracting as "
> the capability (and process) of comparing the not-so-identical members of
a
> pattern - recognizing the pattern as such, and finding the common features
> in them. So an abstraction would duly identify a pattern by its
> characteristic - and all included - features while disregarding the
> individual differences not preventing the pattern issue." This is an
> interesting way of looking to abstraction which, to my mind,  prepares the
> ground for integration. I liked that. Am I right interpreting it this way?
> Ayten
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John M" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 7:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Teleology and vitalism
>
>
> > Ayten,
> > isn't your
> > >... I did interprete abstracting as picking a
> > > piece out of something, a bigger whole, such as an art work or a
> > scientific
> > > discovery.<
> > indeed a reductionist modeling (at whim or some boundary condition)?
> > I took the more profound meaning of 'abstraction' when imposing it into
> > human development that lead to language communication:
> > I figured that abstracting is the capability (and process) of comapring
> the
> > not-so-identical members of a pattern - recognizing the pattern as such,
> > and finding the common features in them. So an abstraction would duly
> > identify a pattern by its chatacteristic - and all included - features
> while
> > disregarding the individual differences not preventing the pattern
issue.
> >
> > John M
> >
> >
> >