LS Re: Explain the Dynamic-Static split


Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Tue, 30 Jun 1998 05:06:48 +0100


Hi Squad, Horse, Glove,
    *****************
(Notice how a new protocol/pattern has emerged - including the names of
specific contributors in the salutation).

Horse
>If a phrase or word is used which deviates from its accepted or usual
>sense then the context in which it is used should be
>explained. An example:
>
>Jonathan wrote:
>[in biochemistry, molecular recognition is considered synonymous with
reaction]
...
>Recognition, in the sense that you are using it, may be commonplace
>within biochemist circles, but the majority of people are
>not biochemists, chemists, physicists etc. and its unexplained use in
>this sense is confusing and anthropocentric. As you
>indicate above, "RECOGNIZE" is being employed to illustrate a
particular
>and specific usage. A couple of lines to indicate
>this, as you have done, clarifies your meaning and avoids unnecessary
>semantic disputes.

Point taken, though I must admit to being surprised by Horse's initial
objection in this case. To me it seemed perfectly natural to use
"RECOGIZE" in a molecular context. You can put that down to 20 years of
brainwashing, but there is actually something interesting about it - IMO
the use of the word RECOGNITION in the molecular context is not an
accident. It tells you something about the way scientists think.

>>Jonathan:
>>
>>"Horse, you can't stand on a giants shoulder's wielding an axe,
>>especially if the target is his head!
[snip]

Horse
>I don't think so. I think that Pirsig recognized that the Giant is deaf
>to anything except that which is expressed in (and on) its
>own terms. As this would appear to be the case and considering the
>various disparities, an axe in the head is quite appropriate
>in order to gain it's attention. I also don't think that either Lila or
>Zen are whispers. They are bold statements of reason in a
>forceful and level tone.

Semantics! Pirsig hasn't changed the world (yet).

>I've assumed that when you refer to the Giant
>you mean SOM. If this is the case then, personally, I
>would consider it to be anything but dynamic. It is one of the most
>static patterns in existence (although not completely static)
>and what I would prefer to do is subvert its immense power.
>The only Giants shoulders I want to stand on are Pirsig's and in this
>case I will be waving the brightest torch I can find.

Actually, my Giant is human understanding itself (currently dominated by
SOM).
Perhaps we can agree that it is insufficiently dynamic. Pirsig's
shoulders may seem inviting, but he's just at the top of the stack (no
offense intended).

========================================================

Glove, thanks for bringing up evolution because it serves as an
excellent example.

Glove:
[snip]
>there are many problems with the darwinian model of evolution as well.
>the geological history of earth tells us that over 90% of all species
who
>once walked, swam or flew on earth are now extinct, and furthermore,
there is
>growing evidence that many of these extinct species were superior to
the
>species now alive on earth. this is an indication of an evolutionary
ripple
>effect and not survival of the fittest at all.
[snip]
This isn't really a problem if you consider fitness as giving an
improved CHANCE of survival. We all know that the best sometimes fail.

>Rupert Sheldrake speculated on.
>
>there is geological evidence of 5 major mass extinctions (and many more
>smaller ones) on earth over the last several hundred million years. and
>after each extinction, there seems to be a proliferation of new species
>seemingly out of nowhere in very short order. there is no gradual
>development from a lower life form to a higher one, but rather there
>seems to be a spurt followed by a sputter, then another spurt and a
sputter as
>the ripples of cosmic interruption break over earth in periodic
intervals.
[snip]
Proliferation happens when times are good -plenty of resources, not much
competition. This is when mutations have the best chance of being
tolerated.
At times of stress, there is minimal tolerance for genetic change. Most
species are doomed and only a few slip through. This is when the
population profiles change dramatically.

The above is an elegant demonstration of the interplay between the
static and the dynamic. Notice the importance of static latching during
stress periods

>this is why the search for the missing link between modern human and
>proto-human has yet to be found...
The fossil record is dominated by species which flourished. Periods of
mass extinction would be characterised by small precarious populations -
giving a very sparse fossil record. If people expect to find a whole
family tree waiting for them, they'll be disappointed.

Jonathan

Jonathan B. Marder <MARDER@agri.huji.ac.il>
Department of Agricultural Botany, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Faculty of Agriculture, P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL
Phone: +972 8 9481918 Fax: +972 8 9467763
Web page: http://www.agri.huji.ac.il/~marder

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST