OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

topicmaps-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: [xtm-wg] The Nature of Things...


I have found a paper at http://www.umist.ac.uk/csc/fstb/udine.pdf .  The
document is titled "Fuzzy Relational Biology."  Its author, O. Wolkenhauer,
applies Rosens Relational Biology, combined with thinking from Popper and
Schopenhauer and Zadeh to talk about genome analysis.  By page 87, under
Systems Theory in Molecular Biology, he begins to discuss Rosen's thinking
fairly well. I believe that a brief scan will allow readers a glimpse into
the point of view I reference in this thread.
Cheers
Jack

From: Jack Park <jackpark@verticalnet.com>

> Hi Matthew, comments below...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK <matthew.r.west@is.shell.com>
> To: <xtm-wg@egroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 8:39 AM
> Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] The Nature of Things...
>
>
> > Dear Jack,
> >
> > I do not mean the "framework" I present (mostly other peoples ideas
> > collected into one place) to be reductionist. I agree fully with you
that
> > the way things are built up is of critical importance. Hence the section
> > which is about "organisational levels". However, you need to identify
the
> > parts before you can try to explain how they fit together.
> >
> And I did not mean to imply that I was anti-reductionist but rather that
> reductionist thinking can carry us only so far.  I agree fully with you
that
> one needs to identify the parts before trying to explain them.  I am just,
> perhaps, amplifying your "organizational levels" section by pointing out
> Rosen's work.
>
> > I am also aware of other viewpoints, Armstrong's in particular. However,
> in
> > general I have found that the approach I have gravitated to is able to
> > explain other viewponts, rather as general relativity can explain the
> > Newtonian view of gravity.
> >
> > I am always open to challenge on specific points. I might learn
something.
> >
> I like to think that my point was not offered as a challenge to anything
you
> wrote, rather to illuminate some scholarship that I do not think gets
> exposed sufficiently.
> Cheers
> Jack



============================================================================
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
of the message and its attachments and notify postmaster@verticalnet.com
immediately.
============================================================================


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/4/_/337252/_/972947961/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC