Re: specialization momentum


"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d9p9be$ctc$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:d9o3nb$1ej$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> (This is a tentative conceptual effort to arrive at some terminology
>> whereby
>> evolutionary biology can be discussed by author with others, and whereby
>> others might translate what they mean on the subject into words author is
>> sure have mutually understood meanings with regard to discussion of
>> evolutionary biology. This is a formidable challenge. Renowned authors
>> have
>> done this, but others have muddied the water behind them to the point I
>> need
>> new terms for them. Nothing taken away from better authors, and renowned
>> scholars.)
>
> You seem hopeful that "others" will be willing to "translate what they
> mean" into your language. I am skeptical. Especially as you seem so
> unwilling to express what you mean in the accepted terminology.

I truly and profoundly do not wish to attack accepted terminology. If I
were to
try -- sink or swim -- to invent a kind of engine that would be more fuel
efficient
in pushing a rocket into outer space, I would not intend by that effort to
insinuate
that all the giants on whose shoulders that new technology were reliant were
demeaned by my trying.

>
> I was particularly put off by the word "specie". Is this your own
> coinage?
> (Pun intended, sorry about that!).

I don't really grasp the pun here, although that does NOT mean it may not be
a
poignant one, and grasped by everybody but me. The word "specie" is very,
very correct and enormously useful, and I DO ACCEPT CORRECTION in that
it has been pointed out to me that when I am trying to seek some clarity for
myself and
hopefully others on an issue, I must become more careful to say "the
elephant specie"
when that is what I mean, rather than "the elephant." Yes. Clarity demands
it, where
distinctions are being made. With that having been said, may I ask what I
said that
indicated I do not like the word specie, because whatever it was, I retract
it
unequivocably. Be assured I shall go back and rewrite to correct every
ambiguity in
that regard. Be assured, also, that I am fallible and was doing the best I
understood
to do at the time when making references to "our little oranism," and such.
And
please continue to show me where I make (or you perceive me to make) such
blunders
in quest of the clarity I would desire.
>
> I was also annoyed by the claim that "there seems to be an abundance of
> evidence of vertical linearity of specialization in plants and animals,
> over time". Now, there may well be evidence, but it is hard for me to
> judge that evidence, since I don't have a clue what you mean by "vertical
> linearity".

I am glad you brought that up. It was not I who came up of my own thoughts
with
the notion of perpendicularity (a conception useful in graphing what occurs
in
a specie's propagation through time, AS OPPOSED TO the conception of
"horizontal"
as applying to things occurring among members of, say, a herding animal,
such as
tail raising, to signal the approach of a predator). Another sbe
contributor, in another
string, drew that to my attention and I grabbed hold of it, thinking all in
sbe were
attuned to that participant's depiction of it. If you have a still more apt
way of
describing this distinction, I welcome you to help me on my way to clarity
by
sharing it with me not toward argumentation, but toward the goal of mutually
unambiguous discussion of something we both may already see the same way,
but
articulate differently.

>Are you simply saying that specialization has increased in
> many lineages over time?

While that is acurate in a very broad and summary way, I have tried --
continue to try -- to say something much more intricate than that, where it
seems to me that lack of specificity is in the details, and not in the broad
generalization. If the point (clear to me in my own head) were not going
to have some very important application in up the road in trying to put
my conceptions on the table and find corrections whereby we all would
be getting a crystal clear meaning, I would not dally with it now. So, yes,
the generalization is in accord with what I said, but barely gets to the
issue that is key to something later.

Please allow a distinction between what I am saying and what I am trying
to say. That, too, is a very, very important distinction I would ask, if
you
are to allow me to move forward cooperatively, rather than bog down.

At any juncture my intent is, and shall be, to seek clear common
understanding. So if I am perceived to be countering something other
than problems I have in trying to understand others, even brilliant others,
and their understanding me, then I am failing to communicate ever the
most fundamental elements of what seems to me a useful mutual
benefit sought.

> at a constant rate?

If you ask this, then you have not read all of my "sent" posts, which
hopefully will answer it fully.

Your "momentum" metaphor suggests that this might
> be your claim, and it is quite standard to use the word "linear" with
> regard to constant rates of change.

Help me then to say what I mean, for all I have intended to suggest by
linear is a direction... not a constant pace within, as I have spelled out
in greater detail elsewhere. Also, in that elsewhere place, I have
discussed that even direction can change... thus obviating the implication
of the aforementioned graph with parallel vertical lines to represent
what occurs through successive generations, and distinguish that from
things occurring (as mentioned above) in a horizontal way.

You see, I find myself having to crawl in describing things which I
believe you would concur with if I could plug a cable into my brain,
and send a picture to yours. The picture would not be a still shot, but
a moving, changing thing. A single graph on a single page, of what a
person does in a day, might represent some limited abstracted info
that is useful, but would be not only inadequate but also MISLEADING
to a conscious intelligent being who had never seen a human.

Please do not think that I would propose any graph which could
show. I am at a loss how to draw a graph that would tell the concept
I seek to make clear. Nor could anyone else do it.

But then what could "vertical"
> possibly mean?
>
> Your use of "symbiosis" to describe the relationship between two organs
> in the same organism is also very non-standard, but at least it was
> clear what you meant there.

I am willing to accept any conventional usage that will be equally clear,
and
not require subsumptive qualifications to make it clear. At the same time,
I WOULD like to draw some analogies between symbiotic codependence
as between two species, and codependence. And I will go ahead and tell you
why... but not get deeply into it. In my imagination is growing a
conception
of something akin to a "division of labor" which can be found in things
conventionally accepted as "alive" and things not conventionally accepted
as alive, and divisions between divergent morphologies within a single
specie. But, oh my gosh, I've just put up ANOTHER lightening rod to
draw attention to something before it is ready to lay out on the table.

Just let me say that I cannot lay the whole thing out on the table top at
once,
because I know of no unambiguous terms with which to do it. And the
consequence is that some of the pieces will be attacked because of what
they are perceived to mean before I have found a way to articulate their
place.

What I am trying to do is excruciatingly hard and is enormously maleable
by just such added value as individuals of your vast knowledge and
intelligence are required... absolutely required... to correct my course as
I stumble toward the goal.

Your input is not merely tolerated. It is totally desired and totally
essential. And without it I am dead in the water and would get nowhere
with it.

> You may be disheartened that I have chosen to direct my criticism to
> matters of style, rather than substance. Well, OK, sorry about that.
> But I would point out that a large fraction of your essay consists
> of your own discursive discussion of your own motivation and style.

If this is a fatal flaw, to anyone's thinking outside the box, or seeking to
contribute anything beyond sonorous arguments about existing arguments,
then help me to become aware of that and accept it, and stop trying to
do anything else.

> That discussion gets in the way of the ideas. For example, you write:
>
>> Nothing is more exhilarating for a concept surfer than catching a
>> conceptual
>> tall wave -- a synthesis of disparate facts and relationships and
>> subordinable smaller concepts -- and riding on that big wave for a
>> while.
>> Such a concept is what might be termed "specialization momentum."
>
> I initially read this to say "I will use the term 'specialization
> momentum'
> to describe those exciting concepts that you can surf on." It took me
> far too many re-readings before I hit upon the intended meaning: "I am
> going to talk about a concept I call 'specialization momentum'. I am
> quite excited about this concept."

I am sorry that my mind flows differently than the norm. My teachers in
grade school thought me a fool and an upstart until an IQ test, and then
they treated me as a freak. Okay. I am a freak. Maybe freaks should have
a plastic bag put over their heads when they are born. Heaven knows it
has been a source of pain to self as well as others. The only question I
can pose about this is: is there any justification in pissing others off by
being a freak, if there is any chance the freak might contribute something
even while thinking in his freakish way.

Your answer to that may give me the information I need to decide whether
to just keep it to myself, or try to share it. And I do not say this
facetiously.
Maybe I don't belong in a discussion with non-freaks. Don't think that has
not been a nagging question for me. It has. And I have vascilated on a
daily basis about it. I do not wish to try to input anything where it is
not
wanted, or will be rejected on basis of style. Your style is quite
acceptable
to me. In my heart of hearts I wish to participate, but do not wish to be
a thorn in your side.
>
> Perhaps if that last sentence has read "One such concept is SM." Or
> maybe "SM is that kind of concept".
>
> But that is enough criticism (and enough SM). Have a nice day.

Thank you. Your criticism is heard, needed, taken into account.

Thank you respectfully and sincerely. Your style of presentation is
accepted as being authentic and sincere and informative, so please
do not stop. However, it would not take much by way of stating that
mine is unacceptable for me to back out and cease and desist from
abusing anyone.

g
>


.