Ben, Lists, I mean a historical individual with an origin and probably an end, localized in space. A concrete individual. This is the Hull-Ghiselen view that Is almost universally accepted by systematists and evolutionary biologists these days. It follows from the phylogenetic view of species, developed by Cladists and for which the standard text for a long time was Phylogenetic Systematics by my friend Ed Wiley.
John From: Benjamin Udell [mailto:bud...@nyc.rr.com] Sent: May 27, 2015 2:43 PM To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8690] Re: self-R John C., Just curious, by an _individual species_ do you mean something like an individual kind or do you mean (and I suspect that you don't) the species population as a large, somewhat scattered, collective concrete individual? Best, Ben On 5/26/2015 2:27 PM, John Collier wrote: We mean something different by “individual”, Edwina. I am using it in the sense that species are individuals. It was David HulI who put the ecologists onto me because of my work on individuality. I don’t think that further discussion with you on this topic is likely to be fruitful for either of us. John From: Edwina Taborsky Sent: May 26, 2015 8:23 PM To: John Collier; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee<mailto:biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee> Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8690] Re: self-R I don't see an ecosystem as an individual but as a system, in its case, a CAS. It doesn't have the distinctive boundaries of an individual - either temporally or spatially. I see a human being as a system, in that its parts co-operate in a systemic manner; and it is also an individual - with distinctive temporal and spatial boundaries. But a human being is not a CAS, for it lacks the wide range of adaptive flexibility and even transformative capacities of a CAS. I have long argued that societies are a CAS; they are socioeconomic ecological systems, operating as logical adaptations to environmental realities - which include soil, climate, water, plant and animal typologies etc. All of these enable a particular size of population to live in the area and this in turn, leads to a particular method of both economic and political organization. Unfortunately, the major trends in the social sciences have been to almost completely ignore this area - except within the alienated emotionalism of AGW or Climate Change...Instead, the social sciences tend to view 'culture' or 'ideology' as the prime causal factors in societal development and organization. Whereas I view these areas as emotionalist psychological explanations, as verbal narratives for the deeper causal factors of ecology, demographics, economic modes. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: John Collier To: John Collier ; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee<mailto:biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee> Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:59 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8690] Re: self-R
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
