Dear FIS colleagues,
I'm curious about why the discussion about momenta matters. Does it matter
because we believe it is important to determine the boundaries of specific
discourses? Does that matter because we fear incoherence or confusion in our
discussion if we don't demarcate boundaries? And yet the determination of
discourse boundaries throws in more complexity into the debate: The coherent
discourse we might hope for runs away from us as we try to grasp it.
What assumptions are we making in asserting momenta? What might it preclude? It
seems to me that a moment-orientation carries a philosophical realist undertone
(I'm familiar with it from Bhaskar's critical realism - this looks similar to
his dialectical MELDA formulation - difficult to get into but insightful) There
is an assumption about observers, and there is an assumption about natural
necessity - what speculative realists call 'correlationism'.
It seems that it matters more to academics than to ordinary people that deep
ontological issues should be decided upon. Science, after all, depends on
continual critical questioning about nature. Yet most sensible non-academic
people might prefer to have a drink with friends than hurt their brains: might
they take a more pragmatic view that such matters of deep ontology are
essentially undecidable? Or that their deep social (love) relationships really
matter beyond everything else?
Before embarking on schematising momenta, perhaps it would be useful to think
about what matters in this. Fundamentalism is an ever present risk for all
academics. And additionally, information has a bearing on both matter and
mattering after all...
Best wishes,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: "Stanley N Salthe" <[email protected]>
Sent: 30/10/2015 13:24
To: "Marcus Abundis" <[email protected]>; "fis" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Locality & Five Momenta . . .
Marcus wrote:
– I find myself thinking Five Momenta must represent five types of localities.
I ask if that “smells right” to you. If so, I would think that “localizing
hierarchies” would also be needed. For example, I see: 1) passive descriptions
of Nature (aka natural philosophy, general science) as a different locality
than, 2) anthropogenic or anthropocentric deeds (human semiotics+acts). One
might even then add 3) biological processes mediating between 1 & 2. All
represent essentially different systems of meaning, no? But then, the Five
(suggested) Momenta would be subordinate to 1, 2, and 3 in different ways, as I
read things. Evaluation (cataloguing) of different localized traits seems to me
as a possible useful path. Thoughts?
Marcus -- The momenta as given my Pedro:philosophy, biomolecular,
multicellular, sociality, information do not make up a logical hierarchy,
either subsumptive nor compositional. One possible, idealistic, reading is in
subsumption:
{mind {microbiology {macrobiology {sociality {conceptualization}}}}}
STAN
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Marcus Abundis <[email protected]> wrote:
Loet, thanks for your note (Sat Oct 24) . . . an interesting twist on things I
had not been considering.
John, re (Tue Oct 27) “rigorous connections using the entropy concept . . .
most people don't understand entropy . . . So I haven't published”
– This interests me, as my own work heads in a general “entropic” direction.
Pedro, Steve & Stan – re various notes on Locality, Five Momenta and Hierarchy.
– I find myself thinking Five Momenta must represent five types of localities.
I ask if that “smells right” to you. If so, I would think that “localizing
hierarchies” would also be needed. For example, I see: 1) passive descriptions
of Nature (aka natural philosophy, general science) as a different locality
than, 2) anthropogenic or anthropocentric deeds (human semiotics+acts). One
might even then add 3) biological processes mediating between 1 & 2. All
represent essentially different systems of meaning, no? But then, the Five
(suggested) Momenta would be subordinate to 1, 2, and 3 in different ways, as I
read things. Evaluation (cataloguing) of different localized traits seems to me
as a possible useful path. Thoughts?
Re Chatin – an interesting article, to be sure, but for the reasons Joesph
points out (and more) I agree with his posted thoughts.
Finally, in following the posted notes, I find this “discussion about
discussion“ instructive.
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
