Ian,
I watched the YouTube link below and some others
I found as well that include his discussion. Natural
Inclusion instead of natural selection. Stephen Jay
Gould emphasized the positive, creative aspect of
natural selection, in which many have gotten trapped
into thinking natural selection is about extinction
and the by-gones that didn't make it. Gould
emphasized that science has gotten off-track on this,
and he goes back in his "Structure of Evolutionary
Theory" book and pulls out a lot of historical
context. He notes where evolutionary science went
off-track on many occasions, not just with the natural
sciences emphasis on the negative (in which Darwin
discussed the positive creative aspect, too). Gould,
in this very long book I mentioned, places some of
this 'off-tracking' of science due to the focus in
academics on the 'what is known now', instead of also
learning how 'what is known now' became as such.
History is full of many compromises, deals, and
forgetfulness. Gould mentioned Thomas Kuhn, in which
this latter person also discusses the mangeling in
science.
Somehow this negative aspect of natural selection
arose, and it's here. Either Darwin didn't emphazise
it enough, or over the years it is this same old SOM
perspective that focused upon this negative aspect.
As in the Rayner 'YouTube' in which he uses a piece of
paper as an example of this inclusionary. Once the
paper is torn in half to make it easier to focus on
one thing instead of bouncing ones perspective back
and forth, back and forth between two, then the one
piece of paper will be noticed, and the other
forgotten.
So, maybe it's not so much natural selection, but
the philosophy behind natural selection that channels
the results and conclusions people have about it.
Anybody else familar with this negative approach to
natural selection, but where the positive, creative
aspect of natural selection was discussed by Darwin?
woods,
SA
[Ian]
> In simplest terms its about making decisions where
> alternative views
> are recognized to be non-exclusive (excluded middles
> are allowed) -
> logic is more inclusive, causation more
> bi-directional. eg The path a
> river flows is defined by the bed / valley that
> constrains it, but the
> river bed / valley is cut by the river itself,
> neither exclusively
> causes the other
> Look for Alan Rayner. There is a new site being
> developed which is not
> yet public, but Alan's existing work is here
> http://people.bath.ac.uk/bssadmr/inclusionality/
>
> Here is my blog link to some YouTube videos of Alan
> explaining himself.
> http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1395
> I like the third link best "bewitched by bipolar
> craziness .... fixed
> by sellotape" etc.
>
> Enjoy.
> Ian
>
> On 9/14/07, Heather Perella
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What does inclusionality mean?
> >
> > SA
> >
> >
> > [DM]
> > > Funny how this sounds like inclusionality.
> > >
> > > DM
> > >
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
