From: Dave Zachariah (davez@kth.se)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2008 - 05:31:25 EDT
dogangoecmen@aol.com wrote: > I used in my other post natural language because Dave Z claimed that > dialectics is not applicable to physics and biology and so on and his > exampamles were from that area. As a requirement of communication and > dialogue I was referring to his examples. > > But I still do not quite understand why we should give up the > expression *dialectics*. It is a concept evolved over thousands of > years and it does not refer merely to natural language. It is a > concept of totality - of *being* (nature and society) and consciousness. Dogan, I did not claim that dialectics is not applicable to e.g. physics and biology. What I'm saying the conceptual apparatus it uses does not add or improve any modern theory cast in the current conceptual apparatus. In this sense it is redundant. (Consider my example of predators and prey.) One could argue that the computational approach will open up new fields of inquiry in e.g. physics, biology and economics, bringing in a fruitful conceptual apparatus rather than an imprecise or redundant one. //Dave Z _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:00:18 EDT