Re: Robert Rosen's working notes...

[Judith Rosen <***>]

John M.

Why do you say that the notion of sexual reproduction allowing greater genetic 
diversity is a "teleological" argument? 

In my view, there's nothing teleological about it, it is simply an expression of 
anticipation, at work in the evolution of living systems on this planet. It's an example 
of "final cause". It's part of the same process of 
evolution that took "life" or living systems from single celled organisms to 
multicellular 
organisms, from plants that reproduce one via "runners" to plants that reproduce 
multiple ways, including "sexual" reproduction. It's just one of the variations on the 
theme.

Judith 

-----Original Message-----
From: John M <***>
Sent: Feb 9, 2005 10:50 AM
To: ***
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Robert Rosen's working notes...

Judith,
> I suspect the reason has something to do with "complementarity".< Does
this MEAN anything?

I think you attack the gender topic with a phenomenological view "after the
fact". As an outsider to the biological model,
I ask the question: what indications may we find for the change from
prokaryotik unisex mitosis to eukaryotik bisexual? Do not refer please to
the benefits of diversity-production: that would be teleological in the
'higher' design of good old god.
If we think of the Margulis symbiotic step, that would bring a gay nature in
the frontline - occasionally (?) dividing into the bisexual variation<G>.
Are we mostly 'occasionals'?
How was (bi)SEX invented?

I would go back to the origins and start with the phenomenon called in the
physicist view 'polarity', as (+) and (-) division, yet attractive. Is it
the consequence of the oxygen pollution, changing the apolar (anaerobic)
world into a polar hell? Those blue-gree algae!!!! Was the primordial world
gay?
(You know that I don't accept the 'bio' and 'life' topics related
superstitions (!) as "fundamentally different" from the rest of nature, just
another type of motion/activity with more of our involvement, so more
consideration in reductionist sciences).

Is there a link from the split polarity to the split genders? Is it a -just
more involved- representation of the natural dynamics like a sexual
Yin-Yang? is it part of a universal trend? (I used "involvement" - I do not
approve "higher complexity" in the natural (unlimited) view. Maybe: "higher
complexity we (reductionists) know of").

Then we can valuate the details for the model we are.
(You may have not received the right answer from RR, because you did not ask
the right (broader) question).

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: Robert Rosen's working notes...


> Hi Everyone,
>
> I'm down in Virginia on a business trip right now but finally able to
retrieve my email.
>
> Ayten's comments and questions on comparisons between male and female
brains
SNIP

Web address: www.rosen-enterprises.com