Re: Interesting analogies...

[James N Rose <***>]

John M wrote:
> 
> Jamie,
> 
> with my 'mental blockage' for the unrestricted (total)
> interconnections, I keep the possibility open that all
> we MAY know today is insufficient for anticipating the
> possibilities for the next change - (in practical
> cases mostly true, but I don't care for practicality
> when I speculate theroy) - I have a remark on your
> viruses:
> > ..."destruction
> > of virues is incomplete and presses them to mutate
> > into more virulant strains. ...<
> 
> The model of a virus is just that, a pattern, a view,
> a limited description of whatever 'science' finds
> relevant. There are always subtle differences not even
> acknowledged in most cases, some resistent to the
> applied antibiotics (or whatever), which survive the
> "attacj" of the medics. So the habitat is emtied from
> most of the competitors and the survivals have a
> blanket windfall space for proliferatio. And they do.
> The subsequent examination finds "the same model"
> virus live and kicking in spite of the proven drugs.
> So what happened: the answer is exactly what you wrote
> however untrue. Wait a minute: you wrote "mutate" and
> in some respect that is true: from a small variant it
> HAS "mutated" into a majority. With the rest missing.

I sit here, happily corrected   :-)    (though, real 
mutagenesis -does- occur in -some- of those circumstances)


> >"... even entailed-systems harbor functional negatives
> > in the scope of all possible entailings.<

> I would add: this is the power of our ignorance about
> many of the 'beyond-boundary' (unobserved, maybe not
> yet even discovered) factors. So I would call those
> 'negatives' really positives in addition to what we
> consider.
> 
> Just nitpicking
> John M

sure ... the net net outcome might be negative, but the 
net net net net net outcome, eventually positive.

Hell, John, a person has a right to a value judgement
at -some point-, don't they??!!?  can't be an indefinite 
liberal -all- the time! 

;-)


Jamie