Marcus -- You have an interesting point regarding plants and phenomenology. Their behavior occurs over a time scale where we phenomenologists see nothing happening. This slow time scale was illuminated by non-phenomenological science studies, while also inquiring into faster-than-phenomenological time scale events. Is phenomenology to be grounded in our animal time scale only? Or, in what way or sense can phenomenology transcend that scale?
STAN On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Stanley & Loet, > Gentlemen, when you speak of "origin" I am unsure of what *exactly* > you have in mind. Is it the "origin of the capacity for movement" that you > think about? The origin of life, itself, along with all its causal roles? > Or? > > Then, many of the living do not ‘move’. . . Plants move slowly by > growth. How could a phenomenologist view this at all?< > I think studying *differential movement* could fall within > phenomenology, but explaining the *origination* of autonomous movement, > would not. Also, it seems (to me) a bit unreasonable to think such an > origination (origin of life) narrative would be addressed in this group. Or > do I mistake your meaning, or the group's ultimate aim? Thanks! > > Maxine, > I am unclear from your extended abstract on what exactly you aim to > accomplish in the study you present. Also, are we to read the > "Phenomenology and Life Sciences" piece as well? I read its abstract and > its mention of "coordinated dynamics" seemed to say "yes!" but I am unsure. > The emphasis you seem to offer in "Phenomenology and Evolutionary > Biology" I find interesting. Also, your mention of "static" and "genetic" > aspects along with movement. To my mind this points to kinematics, statics, > and dynamics in a more directly mechanical sense – but which you now wish > to tie to evolutionary biology? Is that correct? I find that an interesting > line of thought. > Also, I like Pedro's notion of a connection between dance and mate > selection. Dance then being a display behavior demonstrating an > advantageous capacity for navigating the evolutionary landscape. > Still, I find what you present a bit "too raw" and I am not exactly > sure how I should view the material. For example jumping form > dance/movement to teeth leaves me with a big gap in joining the two. I get > the sense that you aim to close "a gap" but I am not clear on how exactly > you do so. "Where did the notion of a tool come from?" This is an important > question, but how is it precisely answered or addressed? Do you attribute > the entire genesis of "six simple machines" all to teeth? > Lastly, I too work in this area and I am just now finishing (very > rough draft) a piece that looks at this issue. I agree that it is an > overlooked area of study. I am happy to share what I have wth you, if you > might find it of interest. > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
