Because I am unclear about just what was received by FIS members
and what was not, I am copying my response to Salthe and my response
to Pedro below. Kindly excuse the repeat performance if it is one--
it won't happen again!
Cheers,
Maxine
Response to Pedro:
With respect to nonhuman animal
In my response to Pedro, I wrote,
“Simply as an event of possible evolutionary interest and one
that is both innovative and provocative, I attach a write up of
'A Human Enclosure at Edinburgh Zoo'.
It was not possible to attach the file. If anyone would like a
copy, kindly email me directly at
Response to Salthe's response:
So, as I understand the discussion, we are using the term origin in
at least two different senses: origin as in Darwin's "origin of
species,"
which passes muster, and origin as a big bang of some order or other,
which does not pass muster, muster in the sense of
Response to Steven Ericcson-Zenith:
Thank you for the reference. One might possibly relate King's notion of
"catastrophic evolutionary pressure" to Stephen J. Gould's 21st century
thesis of "punctuated equilibrium," though Gould hardly dismisses
"natural selection by incremental mutation" in the
, and that movement is a change of position—-overlooks a
primary
kinetic fact: any and all movement creates its own distinctive dynamic,
whether
a tennis serve, an ocean wave, the hammering of a nail, or a sneeze.
Maxine Sheets-Johnstone
___
Fis mailing
To all colleagues,
I hope I may voice a number of concerns that have arisen in the course
of the ongoing discussions that are ostensibly about phenomenology and
the life sciences.
The concerns begin with a non-recognition of what is surely the ground
floor of real-life, real-time realities,
To FIS colleagues,
First, an open-to-all response to Lou Kaufmann:
Thank you for your lengthy tutorial—some time back--but I wonder and am
genuinely puzzled given the “phenomenology-life sciences theme” why none
of the articles that I referenced were read and a response generated at
least
in
Many thanks for your comments, Lou and Bruno. I read and pondered,
and finally concluded that the paths taken by each of you exceed
my competencies. I subsequently sent your comments to Professor
Johnstone—-I trust this is acceptable—asking him if he would care to
respond with a brief sketch of
To all concerned colleagues,
I appreciate the fact that discussions should be conversations about
issues,
but this particular issue and in particular the critique cited in my
posting
warrant extended exposition in order to show the reasoning upholding the
critique.
I am thus quoting from
