|
Hi Jamie, Hi John M.,
OK, Jamie, I understand now. It is true; there is apparently
far more agreement between your philosophy and Robert Rosen's theories than it
seemed. However, surely you realize that when you put forward sets of ideas that
you don't really believe, just to make a point, there's no way for me to
understand what you're doing. We don't have body language and tone of voice,
here, as cues to help us decipher when humor is intended or when
exaggeration for effect is intended, or what-have-you. Unless something is
really over the top/obvious, I tend to be rather literal-- when in doubt, I take
words at face value. So be warned: when you tell me stuff you don't really mean,
I will think you do mean it. When you subsequently tell me you didn't really
mean that, I might begin to question everything you say as being another
instance of "I was just making a point."
John M.,
I have finally figured out what our communication problem is, at
least from my end (meaning; I can finally describe MY problem): It's the same
literal tendency I was referring to in my response to Jamie's post. I'm a
writer. I'm also an English speaker. I live and breathe language. So, I have
this reliance on language which tends to become a problem when I'm attempting to
decipher your sometimes unusual (and unusually creative) English. You obviously
have an active "inner life" of the mind and a great many strong
opinions-- and you have a lot to say because of it. When your fluency with
English falls short of the thoughts and ideas you want to convey, you don't let
the lack of words stop you; you just get really creative. I have a bit of
trouble telling when/if you are being deliberately insulting and/or when unusual
turns of phrase are merely improvised English without any malicious
intent.
Judith
PS: Jamie... I always gave Gorbachev the credit for the dismantling
of "the Iron Curtain". He could've sent in the tanks to tame the crowds, but he
didn't. Did Reagan have any impact on it, either way??? No, not as far as I
could tell.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Description of
evolution
Interesting set of reactions Judith/John.
I think I got
over enthusiastic in my word-substitution
word-play ; that led to both of
your interesting interpretations.
ok, try this on for size
[particularly Judith because I
see my ideas paralleling your father's ; you
saying they're
antithetical, blows me away :-) ] ...
the most
general thesis of that paragraph of your's that
I lifted Judith, I took to
be:
How to describe human explanatory connection with: systems
that
transform according to rules (known or unknown).
Your phrasings
focussed in inanimate systems and/or human
interactions with them - where
incomplete models are used
and 'entailment' is difficult to apply (in
contrast to
natural systems and RR
completeness).
I attempted to substitute living systems references
into
your description structure, to show that that would have
worked
just as well, because, living or non-living, you
were inherently
describing:
..systems that transform according to rules (modelled or
unmodelable).
And - effectively - my living systems spin-depiction
of -your-
relations-phrasings, ends up being a depiction of raw
entailment
in its basic incarnation. For that's what evolution is:
entailment
in operation.
The differences show (animate v inanimate ;
entailed v non-entailed) when
it become obvious that models organize
-known- information, and weaken
to the point of failure when the RR
high-standard of holistic completeness
is used as a measure guide for any
model's reliability and accuracy.
The lines blur, if one accepts that -
the activity - of 'states then
responces' is the rule-of-process ... for
both modelled (linearly/
limitedly entailed) systems as well as for natural
(completely/complexly entailed) systems.
John, existence is
systems responding to 'living together',
intricately involved in a tapestry
of intertier connections;
involved/entailed in more ways than any one model
can account for.
For the past few years in America, a large segment of
the USA
population has labored under the 'model' that President
Reagan's
leadership against the 'evil empire' was the sole pile
driver
that collapsed the ideological economic behemoth called the
Soviet Union. Cause celebre', and all that; firm
convictions
held by the politically devout.
Three nights ago I
watched a History Channel show that described
the conflict that went on
wholly inside the Soviet Union during
and after WWII under Stalin's reign
-- inside the prison system.
The presence of rival gangs, impacted by their
call to fight
during the Great Patriotic War, the decimation of their
ranks
as freedom fighters, the internal decimations when they
were
forced to return to jail rather than allowed to remain free,
the
policies of the Stalin regime toward them .. and ..
the organizations the
prisoners congealed into during those
years and took to the social streets
with them .. becoming
members of the KGB and other political arms .. and
bringing with
them hardened gangster mentalities and ingrained systems
of
corruption which ... eventually ate away at the entire
internal
social structure of the Soviet Union.
A wholly unaccounted
for factor here in the "West". Self adulation
that the 'great bastion
of democracy and capitalism' defeated the
Soviet Union .. a myth of
wholecloth proportions .. still remains
to this day. The completely
and wholistically 'entailed' truth, only
now just coming to light .. where
both factors (of many) contributed
to the historically/outwardly
obvious. But likely not to have
an impact on the comfortable
mythos perpetrated here. Nor to stand
as a warning as to what social
policies might be convenient and
easy in the short term, but ruinous in
the long, as this nation too
builds more prisons and biforcates its
population internally ..
the (im)morality of imposed dis-enfranchisement
[politically, morally,
economically].
Humanity suffers the short
coming that all high life-systems suffer:
each generation has to learn all
over again and will always make
the same mistakes all over again.
Genealogy recapitulates conceptualizations.
[genealogy
recapitulates gno-ology]
[generations recapitulate the social
knowledge-body]
anyway,, you get the drift.
:-)
Jamie
|