1. I am not aware of Korzybski but welcome references.
2. I am aware of the work on "autopoiesis" but no, I do not draw
inspiration from it. It has no sound epistemology and reduces to
materialism.
3. My approach is algebraic/geometric. But I am not familiar with this
work. I welcome the reference. (01)
My focus in the book is to explore the extent to which complex
analysis can be applied and why my experimental geometry may be a
better solution. Mach hints at a similar geometry. (02)
Regards,
Steven (03)
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Paul Tyson <phtyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Steven,
>
> All I know of your work is from your posts to ontolog forum and your
> first Stanford lecture on youtube. Would it distract you too much to
> respond to a few questions? ("Wait for the book" would be an
> understandable response.)
>
> 1. Did you draw any inspiration from Alfred Korzybski, or consider his
> "Science and Sanity" as any sort of precursor to your work? I noticed
> some similarity in his and your interest in epistemology, structure,
> mathematics, biology, the Einsteinian revolution, and their
> intertwinings.
>
> 2. Is there any overlap or parallelism between your theories and the
> autopoeitic theories of Maturana and Varela?
>
> 3. Do your maths include anything of geometric algebra, as revived and
> extended by David Hestenes in "New Foundations for Classical Mechanics"?
>
> Regards,
> --Paul
>
>
> On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 02:10 -0800, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
>> Thank you Anny. That is an interesting interpretation of my position.
>>
>> As will be made clear in the book, for me a religion is simply a set
>> of ideas such that we cannot look upon the world without consideration
>> of them. In this sense, science is my religion.
>>
>> I should make it clear that I am personally indifferent to the notion
>> of "God." But I understand its context, the motivation and origin for
>> its use. In my next lecture, however, I will speak about the view and
>> motivations of Benjamin Peirce, his son Charles, and the attempt by
>> them and other radical Unitarians to re-conceive the notion of God in
>> scientific terms.
>>
>> But it should be clear that this attempt, led by Benjamin Peirce, from
>> influences and peer encouragements that can be traced back to Descarte
>> through Malebranche and the Unitarian logical challenge to divided
>> conceptions (i.e. Trinity), and articulated in his book "Ideality in
>> the physical sciences" is rightly paralleled with the positivist and
>> existentialist movement in Europe during the nineteenth century.
>>
>> In my view it is a direct parallel to the existentialist challenge to
>> historical conceptions of divinity. I describe Benjamin as a "cautious
>> positivist" in that he argued for true positivism (that science may be
>> universally applied) but did not want science to lose touch with the
>> deeper cosmological issues and issues of "quality." (In this he, and
>> the others of his ilk in and around Harvard, were thwarted by
>> conservative social forces and subsequently Unitarianism lost its
>> way).
>>
>> These same motivations led in Europe to a concern over the social
>> implications of the failure of past conceptions (in the rise of
>> science and rejection of scripture) and in the absence of an
>> alternative. A concern expressed in terms that "God is dead."
>>
>> The social pragmatism of this Harvard centered group was to place our
>> concerns over the nature of our existence clearly into the domain of
>> science and to re-conceive of the notion of God in scientific terms. A
>> view articulated by Charles in his "Neglected Argument." I've been
>> saying that it is a sort of atheism without the "a," but this is not
>> quite fair I think since atheism is most generally a form of
>> materialism. This move acknowledges the common ground in the inquiry
>> of science and theology on the deeper issues, i.e, the intimate human
>> inquiry into the nature of the world and our place in it.
>>
>> Anyhow, this narrative has unfolded before me during the development
>> of my work and provides the historical context and precedence for it.
>> It is discussed in one chapter of the forthcoming book and I will
>> speak of it (working from this chapter) on January 15th when I lecture
>> at Stanford on the life and work of Charles Sanders Peirce. This
>> lecture will place Charles in this broader context. As you know, 2014
>> is the centenary of Charles' death.
>>
>> For others, if you have not yet caught my lecture last month, you can
>> see it here: http://youtu.be/zF5Bp_YsZ3M The transcript of the
>> lecture is available as a book review here:
>> https://www.createspace.com/Preview/1137409
>>
>> Again, my thanks for your kind comments.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Steven
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Anny Ballardini
>> <anny.ballardini@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Steven Ericsson-Zenith,
>> >
>> > I finally had some time to follow this interesting presentation of your
>> > book. And if I understand properly, which is also connected with some of
>> > your previous contributions on this list, the fact that you want to show
>> > that light is static is an hermetic statement that God exists in an
>> > ever-present presence. And as far as I can remember, you will be able to
>> > show mathematically your supposition. This draws back to your previous
>> > commitment as a religious member of our community. You also say that "new
>> > ideas are not familiar," but as you know, new ideas are the bread of
>> > artists, and this goes well along with what research is supposed to be. The
>> > only difference in-between artistic and scientific research is that the
>> > latter requires an armamentarium of historical information (precise
>> > quotations, previous theories) that artistic performance does not have.
>That
>> > all belongs to the digestion of art criticism.
>> > I am wondering in this moment about Leonardo. He simply skipped all
>previous
>> > history and created on his own in a gut-lived process that put himself in a
>> > competition with his own self. Those who play an instrument or paint,
>> > perfectly know what I am talking about.
>> > After this book, which I can see as a major contribution to the scientific
>> > community, maybe you will finally be able to get to pure research, your
>own.
>> >
>> > What might be difficult here for people like me who do not have extended
>> > studies in mathematics or physics, are the extended drawbacks to these
>> > specialized sciences.
>> >
>> > Anyhow, congratulations, and let us know when the next lecture comes up.
>> >
>> > [I have been absent from this list because of several commitments. The
>major
>> > one probably being the relapse of my 9 year old niece into leukemia. I am
>> > shocked by the way she is being treated.]
>> >
>> > Best wishes,
>> > Anny
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Please forgive my cross-posting.
>> >>
>> >> The video of my Nov. 13th lecture is now available on YouTube,
>> >>
>> >> http://youtu.be/zF5Bp_YsZ3M
>> >>
>> >> it includes the first chapter of my forthcoming book. The full
>> >> transcript is now also available as a book preview here.
>> >>
>> >> https://www.createspace.com/Preview/1137409
>> >>
>> >> In a follow up lecture on January 15th I will speak about the life and
>> >> work of Charles Sanders Peirce. In this lecture I will place Charles
>> >> in the broader context of intellectual developments in and around the
>> >> formation of Harvard University.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Steven
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----------------------------
>> >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
>> >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
>> >> peirce-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
>but
>> >> to list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
>> >> the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dott.ssa Anny Ballardini, MFA, PhD.
>> >
>> > http://annyballardini.blogspot.com/
>> > http://www.fieralingue.it/modules.php?name=poetshome
>> > http://www.lulu.com/content/5806078
>> > http://www.moriapoetry.com/ebooks.html
>> >
>> > I Tell You: One must still have chaos in one to give birth to a dancing
>> > star!
>> > Friedrich Nietzsche
>> >
>> > « Stulta est clementia, cum tot ubique
>> > vatibus occurras, periturae parcere chartae »
>> > Giovenale
>> >
>> > Professionista di cui alla Legge n. 4 del 14 gennaio 2013, pubblicata nella
>> > GU n. 22 del 26/01/2013
>> >
>> > Freiberuflerin laut Gesetz Nr. 4 vom 14. Jänner 2013, veröffentlicht im
>> > Amtsblatt Nr. 22 vom 26.1.2013
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (05)
|