For Pete's sake!
I used quite satisfied the word without
questioning my complacent common sense understanding. Now I am in trouble. RR
used the term problem-free, I suppose, (Judith?)
and I would be surprised to find a
'definition'.
I found the expected hogwash with the
remark:
"process philosophy pivots on the thesis that the
processual nature of existence is a fundamental fact with which any adequate
metaphysic must come to terms."
so process philosophy explains by processual
nature. Big deal.
I don't find 'sequence of events' processual by
itself, unless the
events are combined in some way "into a
process".
Pete, I try to verbalize (improvise) a 'first
attempt' version and am all in arms to see yours. It goes something like:
"A connected flow, as
in a sequence of events pertinent to a domain - the ocurring events
influenced by the preceding ones from within the domain or without, but
interactive with it". -
('Domain' taking care of the 'metafizix')
-
I am sure with more than these 2 minutes of
formulating I could come up with different wordings - not necessarily wiser
ones...
This one sounds awful. Not the one from a
"more expert mind"
Gimme your better one!
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 8:42 PM
Subject: RR-centric "Process"
Definition?
Howdy Folx:
It's been a long time since I've been able
to keep up with my reading of posts to the list -- let alone post anything --
owing to the fact that the next phase of my research is fully funded and I've
been fully immersed in the work since February.
I'm writing to ask a
favor of all ye denizens of RR-space. I've searched in vain for a semantically
precise definition of the noun "process" anywhere in RR's, Rapoport's, or von
Bertalanffy's works (the ones I have, at least), but no go. At this point, I'd
be delighted to find any definition -- whether general or
domain-specific -- that provides me with a comprehensive perspective other
than my own.
(I found an example of a domain-specific definition in Rapoport's General System Theory, p. 82:
stochastic process -- a sequence of events
governed by certain probability laws
That's not
particularly helpful, actually...at least not for purposes of inferring
Rapoport's general definition of
"process", which in this case might presumably reduce to:
process -- a sequence of
events
I doubt that such a general definition would be completely
satisfactory to Rapoport. In any case, it's not satisfactory to me as a
useful general definition of
process.
Here's my question:
Does anyone know of a general definition of "process" anywhere
within RR's work, or at least somewhere within his antecedent or subsequent
ideological flowstream? If a general definition isn't known, I would be
grateful for any references to definitions of a domain-specific
nature.
I have my own, of course, but I'd
like to check my perspective against those of more expert minds...ideally,
RR's.
Thanks!
Pete