|
Tim, thanks for the 'common sense'
words.
I believe we are here (on this list) in a
frontline of a war in "promoting even understanding" Robert Rosen's ideas.
We are not chatting common sense 'Webster
terms', which may divert the meaning of words from the usage within RR
terminology. (Did you refer to such as your term
"Another definition"?
It is dangerous to 'en passant' exempt "us" from
the totality,
from the RR-complexity, in form of using a
limited 'human model' whenever it seems convenient, because it dilutes our
efforts from concentrating on the RR-ways of thinking.
I find it of paramount importance to use the
terms as applicable to RR's totality-implying sense (wholistically) and not as
the (obsolete? conventional? non-Rosennean)
common meaning would allow. If we choose the
latter, it should be unambiguously pointed out - as you did.
(Just consider the term:
"complex".)
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 6:06
PM
Subject: Re: Humans and nature
JohnM,
I think the term
'natural' (as in "naturally occurring") often carries a connotation
derived from the first definition of 'nature' in Webster's
Dictionary: "1. the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing
independently of human activities.". Thus, 'natural' can
imply:
"independent of human activity". This connotation is commonly used not
only with regard to machines not being 'natural', but also to things like
ecosystems, in the sense that the presence of humans is sometimes considered
to alter or harm some otherwise 'natural' ecosystem.
Another
definition of 'nature' encompasses all the material world, including humans.
With that definition, machines are thereby products of 'natural' activity and
so are "naturally occurring", as would anything else in the
universe.
It depends on
the definition used at the time. I think Judith clearly meant the former
definition.
Regards,
Tim
|