Joseph -- Regarding:
?As it turns out, however, Speculative Realism possesses its own set of
weaknesses which can be ascribed in a general way to its retention of
concepts embodying classical binary, truth-functional logic. These include
an ontology of 'things' rather than processes as the furniture of the
world, a logic of non-contradiction and a ground of existence that has
reason and value, but excludes the possibility of a ground of existence
which includes incoherence and contradiction.
S: Well, why cannot processes be described by subsetting? As in: {energy
dissipation {work {building a box}}}
and
{energy dissipation {finds quickest route around an obstruction {fails to
win the race}}}
STAN
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>
wrote:
> Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>
> The last couple of postings have opened the discussion in a direction
> their authors may not have intended. Bob's felt personal plea for a
> phenomenological approach to biology, and hence to other sciences, and as
> the foundation of a philosophy, begs the question of non-phenomenological
> approaches which may be equally or more valid.
>
> We all agree the mind is capable of phenomenal experience and is not a
> machine, but the (correct) arguments being made seem to me expressions, in
> various styles, of the non-fundamentality of matter and energy. Unless I am
> wrong, this is at least a still open question. Further, Terry's (again
> correct) statements about the importance of the Liar and Goedel paradoxes
> perhaps overlooks one aspect of them: they (the paradoxes) themselves are
> only relatively simple binary cases that can be considered reduced versions
> of some more fundamental, underlying princple governing relationships in
> the real, physical world. These relationships are crucial to an
> understanding of the non-binary properties of information.
>
> A recent book by Tom Sparrow is entitled "The End of Phenomenology". It
> proposes a new science-free doctrine, Speculative Realism, to provide a
> link between phenomena and reality which in my opinion also fails, but may
> be of interest to some of you. I wrote about this doctrine:
>
> As it turns out, however, Speculative Realism possesses its own set of
> weaknesses which can be ascribed in a general way to its retention of
> concepts embodying classical binary, truth-functional logic. These include
> an ontology of 'things' rather than processes as the furniture of the
> world, a logic of non-contradiction and a ground of existence that has
> reason and value, but excludes the possibility of a ground of existence
> which includes incoherence and contradiction.
>
> All for now, for various reasons,
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert E. Ulanowicz" <u...@umces.edu>
> To: "Stanley N Salthe" <ssal...@binghamton.edu>
> Cc: "fis" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 7:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Clarifying Posting
>
>
> Dear Pedro,
>>
>> Most of the discussion has centered about phenomenology in the sense of
>> Husserl. The topic is broader, however, and remains the foundation of the
>> engineering philosophy that has guided my career.
>>
>> I have long advocated a phenomenological approach to biology as the only
>> way forward. I have devoted years to the phenomenological study of
>> ecosystems trophic exchange networks and have shown how hypothesis
>> falsification can be possible in abstraction of eliciting causes
>> <
>> https://www.ctr4process.org/whitehead2015/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/PhilPrax.pdf
>> >.
>> I have gone so far as to propose an alternative metaphysics to
>> conventional mechanical/reductionist theory that followed from
>> phenomenological premises.
>> <http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/publications/philosophy/3rdwindow/>
>>
>> So I would submit that phenomenology is alive and well as a practical and
>> even quantitative tool in science. It's just that, as an engineer, I find
>> Husserl tough going. :)
>>
>> Warm regards,
>> Bob
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
