Interesting observation. That's rather common in how conversations and languages evolve I think, reusing pieces snatched from old ones, without the whole. In culture the 'compost' is very nutritious. Natural systems, biology and economies often find new uses for the compost of prior constructs left over, bent a bit maybe, used in combination with other bits of things from other origins maybe. That's how technologies cross fertilize too. The most natural thing around, really.
Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:38 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [FRIAM] 1. Re: Rosen, Life Itself (Marcus G. Daniels) > > As I continue to struggle, page by page, with Rosen, I begin to realize > that much of his LINGO is category theory LINGO. > > As I read Daniels and Riopella below, I wonder if much of THEIR lingo > isnt > category theory lingo. > > So, I am beginning to wonder, is it possible that Category Theory is > one of > those intellectual developments that has been roundly rejected by the > mainstream, but whose language has crept into the mainstream to a very > great degree? > > N > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
