To: Igor / Ted / Stan
First, Igor.
I found your perspective here to be 180 degrees off from mine!
On Feb 5, 2007, at 6:01 AM, fis-request@listas.unizar.es wrote:
> Reply to Steven and Ted
>
>> By "genetic constraints" I assume you simply mean that we
have
>> certain capacities and are not omnipotent. Is not conflict and war
>> an indicator of our individual failure to manage social
>> complexity? Or would you argue that war is social complexity
>> management?
>>
> I was referring to the hypothesis that we have the propensity to
> function in relatively small groups bind by strong cultural bonds.
From my perspective, enriched by chemical relations,
genetic system serve as fundamentally creative activities.
Genetic networks are not an amalgam of soft concepts, rather a
genetic network is a discrete interdependent network of chemical
relations.
The enumeration of the creative genetic network is complete for some
organisms, some species.
In Aristotelian logical terms, the position of the species is between
the individual "point" and the "genus".
It is the chemical capacity to create species that I find to be
absent from your narrative.
Thus, I would re-phrase your hypothesis generating sentence:
From:
> I was referring to the hypothesis that we have the propensity to
> function in relatively small groups bind by strong cultural bonds.
To:
"I was referring to the hypothesis that genetic networks have the
creative capacity to function in very large associations that are
linked together by very weak bonds."
Ted's comment seems to be based on a some recent innovations in the
mathematics of hierarchies. The issue of how we select the meaning
for our symbols of representations of the world can be a very
complicated one. The profound limitations that linear and quasi -
linear mathematics places on the symbolic carrying capacity of signs
may be relevant to Ted's statement. But, I am not certain of the
origins of his views.
Stan's comment deserves to be attended to.
"The many
complexities facing us as society can be parsed as follows, using a
specification hierarcy:
{physical constraints (material/chemical constraints {biological
constraints {sociocultural constraints}}}}."
As I search for the substance in this comment, I focus on what might
be the potentially misleading usage of the term "parsed." Nor, do I
understand why brackets, signifiers of separations, are used in this
context.
I have no idea what it would mean to "parse" a "material / chemical
constraint" in this context.
Indeed, chemical logic functions in exactly the opposite direction.
The creative relations grow with the complexity of the system. Is
this not what we mean by evolution?
On a personal note to Stan: We have been discussing similar concepts
since the inception of WESS more than 20 years ago and it does not
appear that we are converging! :-) :-) :-) Unless you choose to
embrace the creative capacities of chemical logic, I fear your mind
is doomed to the purgatory of unending chaotic cycles, searching for
a few elusive or perhaps imaginary "fixed points." ;-) :-) :-
( !!!
Cheers
Jerry
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Mon Feb 5 16:17:59 2007
