|
Dear Judith,
I believe we are in perfect agreement (you
believe it or not) all the way to your last par below. The 'system-hood' you
call a relational property, is in my used words: a system is a model. The target
of "being observed". You asked about "my point". - I try...
Science (in my wording: reduced to topical views
of our ever changing epistemic enrichment process) - as anything else (!)
cannot be 'objective' because anything we may know is absorbed - and only that -
by the mind and interpreted into our understanding (if...). So ALL
objective knowledge is subjective and since it is interpreted: also virtual. I
had long (and not unsuccessful) discussions on that (objective reality =
subjective virtuality) on lists for more than a decade, with international
professional opponents in psych, consciousness, philosophy, neurology, physics,
mystics, etc. We have NO (other) WAY to
access 'reality' that is "out there", than through consious learning and
don't forget" our mind is also part of the "out there".
(In this process even the 'fundamental' physical
constants ARE the consequences of our long-long mental process within the
fantastic evolving edifice of 'reductionistic' science what I do NOT use
pejoratively, rather as a differentiation from the wholistic
view).
I also concur that 'theory' is speculation
(mostly mathematically aided). Science "can do better" in allowing wider
connotations into the topical cuts and drawing conclusions in a wider horizon
than restricted so far by the quantized models cut to size as they may
compare by the "applied math" equations. This is a philosophical aspect, it
would hurt the practical resultfulness of the reductionistic technological
advancement, but would lead to a better understanding of the world we live in. I
don't pejoratize philoso[hy either. RR developed a philosophy, you like the word
or not. I changed from his 'complexity' because there is so much non-RR type
meaning attached to this word (especially:
'complex') that one has to define always.
Wholeness seems less polluted (if I keep it out
from holistics).
Now let us take a car-ride.
"...Not the organization of the atoms or the molecules or the next
larger category of components.... "
because we take the ubiquitous model for
granted. With another organization of those molecules (e.g. the Fe would be
liquid, etc.) you would not drive. Also in the design of our usual model all the
connotations from the (reductionistic) mechanical, electrical, chemical, legal,
etc. 'givens' are presumed and cut out from the model we speak about. And in
your closing sentence:
"In a car, that organization is simple: pretty much the sum
of its parts."
I would be careful with 'parts': do you really
restrict them to the usual material parts, taken from reductionistic cuts? If
you call it an organization, it implies all the functions and connotations
leading to the "total" - not to the limited model material parts only. (I
have problems with 'organization' (I
consider also societal, mental etc. beside biological ones) - all are
more connected than just fitting into the utilitarian model-selection. My
problem is in cutting the limits of interconnections, if ever, so - though
starting from a named kernel - it seems unlimited into the wholeness. I am not
ready with that. )
John M
|