|
Hey All,
Glad you're back Dan. I
hope that you feel rested or at least vacated.
I feel that I'm definitely going out on a limb
here, but as Dan has said we must take some risks (set down fears and
inhibitions) and be willing to make some mistakes to proceed. I'm glad you
jumped in Judith. I've been in a near paralysis with this thing.
What you said below has the feel of it. So please, launch
away.
I am asserting that it is critical that we
understand 'simple' complex but non-living open systems like the overflowing cup
and it's analogs. It is critical because the overflowing cup is a
microcosm in which life is and will be established. Knowing this is what
allows me to understand what Judith is saying when she says that the only reason
an ecology has life is because of or through the life in it's
organisms.
The analog of the overflowing cup that I'm
considering has a name that apparently I'd forgotten. It's similar
to a Stirling engine. This can only be considered as some sort
of hyper-idealized analog. What I need to get to is an explicit grasp
of something like an overflowing cup that is actually capable of growing and
diminishing in size, representing the fact that a bio-sphere can do the
same.
The engine works because flow is manifested in it
by the two compartments of it trading off with each other or taking turns
being more and less 'substantial'. There is a vs. relation between them
and a cooperative relation between them.
And I hope that I'm making some kind of
sense. I can try and post some pictures if that will help. There are
echos of the citric-acid cycle or Krebbs cycle in them. Thanks
guys.
David
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 12:00
AM
Subject: Material causation vs material
entailment
I've had some trouble conceptualizing the question David has been
trying to ask, so I've remained mute, reading the discussion, hoping to attain
some understanding of his ideas/questions. So far, my intuition says that
his question is different from the usual question about life
and "material causation" (as in "What role does matter play in a living
system?")-- instead, it seems to me that David is asking "What makes
matter matter?" Or, putting it in other words; "What entails material
form?"
I may be way off base, but the phrasing from the paragraph,
copied in below, talks about "the intuitive notion of substance"
whereby"substance is some sort of amalgamation, interplay, or
function of something like mass/energy/volume" such that the total effect is
material (substantial). How much of this am I getting, David? I'll wait to get
confirmation before launching into what my thoughts are on
this.
Judith
David Macy wrote:
I guess it's related to that intuitive notion of
'substance' (whatever that may be). We know that the magician didn't
really pull that rabbit from thin air, nor did he make the coin
disappear. So whatever else substance may be it is -conserved and/or
accounted for. So maybe I have this idea that substance is some sort of
amalgamation, interplay or function of something like
mass/energy/volume. So if I'm imagining or actually observing a 'simple'
system like a cup that has only water flowing in and flowing out. I've
got this notion of substance that is ghosting the observation or actually
supporting the imagining. So then do I not have a model (having fidelity
or not) of material entailment? I hope that was enough to clarify
it.
|