|
Judith:
1. I never get deliberately
insulting.
2. Insult is in the eyes of the
insultee.
You are right with my problems in English - but
I think similar problems can be found in inadequate wordings of "English
speaking" ie mothertonguinal persons.
Interestingly: I use similar 'linguistic
creativity' in Hungarian and in German and there is no problem: people are
flexible in 'getting' what I meant. You are not the only with problems in my
expressivity in the artifact called English.
'entailment' is still my old foe: I figure
'entail' is as forming the 'tail' of something, as in e.g. a consequence,
originational result, a needed initiator to the entailed. Then again in my
totally deterministic world (as far as the origination of things goes, not the
outcome (as in: future - and that is a special topic) negates anything NOT to be
entailed by origination.
So your question startled me:
Where do the entailments come from, in
your respective views of evolution as a process of change?
as: entailing the change, or entailing further
changes? or even: who (what?) orchestrates the origination of the process?
(I also wonder about process without change -
now THAT is deliberately insulting - ha ha)
or even questioning the origins that create the
entailment leading to change?
If one questions evolution as "process of
change" I think the only alternative may be a process with a purpose - and let
us leave the teleology out. No entailment BY evolution itself.
Then again a nasty question: animate -
inanimate, is life, evolution etc. what you refer to
only relevant to "having a soul (anima)" or
"animals" if in English you forget about Latin?
Where is the relevance of the "-in-"? I tried
many times to regress the 'bio' to its limit, where further regression "jumps"
into 'non-bio', but the transitions were continuous, just as the 'bio' always
included 'non-bio' in its processes. I amnot talking about viruses, I talk about
the clay-complexes that proliferated in a (sort of) evolution into
proto-procaryotc.
To Jamie's:
"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."
is clearly model-talk while I consider existence
a natural concept. I used to consider existence as 'difference' as contrasted to
nirvana. Would definitely not restrict it to the elusive term 'living' until we
don't equate the two terms - and so it would make no sense.
Next time I will try to say something, not only
chat.
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Description of
evolution
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.
SNIP
Genealogy recapitulates conceptualizations. (decapitulates?)
[genealogy recapitulates
gno-ology]
[generations recapitulate the social
knowledge-body]
anyway,, you get the drift.
:-)
Jamie
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG
Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/37 - Release Date:
07/01/05
|