Gary,
Your concluding comment:
We are worlds in conversation, turning still.
Sometimes we spin in synchrony and sometimes we don't. When we do, we
have structural coupling, as Maturana and Varela called it. And when we
don't, we may have a chance to learn something new.
for some reason brought to mind this famous one.
"I do not think much of a man who is
not wiser today than he was yesterday."
Abraham Lincoln
Gary
gnusystems wrote:
Vinicius,
[[ I think the best definition of Entelechy given by Peirce, done in
terms of Semeiosis, can be found in his definition of "Perfect Sign"
(EP2: 545, n.25). ]]
I see what you mean -- although Peirce doesn't mention the word
"entelechy" there, "perfect sign" seems synonymous with it.
Janet,
I'm relatively new around here myself, so i know it takes awhile to get
oriented. Welcome to the list! (I don't recall whether that's been said
to you already, but if so, another welcome won't hurt.)
[[ I am surprised, however, to see the entrants under "Models and
simulations of mind." Aren't the views of Hofstadter, Dennet and Minsky
generally at odds with the spirit of rest of your list -- and explicitly
at odds with Damasio, Lakoff, Maturana and Varela, Rosen, and
Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations? ]]
No more at odds than the latter group are among themselves, if you allow
for some major differences in focus and idiom. But i have to admit that
i don't find much of interest in Dennett or Minsky nowadays. They were
central to my reading and thinking 25 years ago (before the others that
you mention appeared on my horizon), but much more peripheral now. I put
them on the list because i think much of what i learned from them is
still valid; and in Hofstadter's case, because my work in progress still
draws upon his concepts of "tangled hierarchy" and "strange loops" and
(especially) his modeling of the creative process. Besides, Hofstadter
was quick to pick up on the emerging concepts of chaos and complexity.
Actually, if i had to list those who are most out of step with the rest
of the list, i'd name Pinker, Dawkins, Koch and Crick. But they still
have a place there, if only because i think that any point on which they
agree with the others can be assumed to have very broad support, simply
because the supporters are so diverse.
But really i'd rather not speak as glibly of these folks as i have here,
as if i could fit each one neatly into some mental pigeonhole. Each one
of us is a whole world. We are worlds in conversation, turning still.
Sometimes we spin in synchrony and sometimes we don't. When we do, we
have structural coupling, as Maturana and Varela called it. And when we
don't, we may have a chance to learn something new.
gary F.
}The simple fact is that no measurement, no experiment or observation is
possible without a relevant theoretical framework. [D.S. Kothari]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin University
}{ [EMAIL PROTECTED] }{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/ }{
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
