Re: Question, version 2, abstraction

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Ayten,

Yes I would agree those are consonant, same, similar.

I would also add that I think "communication" is a better general
goal for science than "control". Or maybe I should say that it is
better in some contexts, at some times, like the current situation
in the world - i.e. global, systemic, ecological and social crises and
need for fundamental change in science and society. Maybe later,
if we get through this mess, we can let the pendulum swing back
to control mode...

Dan

Ayten Aydin wrote:
> Dan, John.M
>
> Dan, you say:
> "ask if or how these two seemingly fundmental differences
> (RosenXLangton)might be unified or transcended with the aid of some other
> perspective. This would seem to be the Eastern religious and philosophical
> tradition to see unity in apparent opposites
> and to assume/assert that relational and physical/material laws/realities
> must arise/emerge/evolve and forever "go" together."
>
> I agree with your statement here.
> I gather it is also in consonance with John.M 's following view regarding
> meaning of 'abstraction' concerning human communication:as
>
> " I figured that 'abstracting' is 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"
>
> towards unity. Am I right?
> regards
> Ayten