Re: Self-replication incompatible with stability


"John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f0qrob$k8p$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Entertained by my own EIMC" write_to_eimc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Nothing is more stable in this environment than the collective
'life'.


Persistent, yes, but "stable" (as in rigid or imutable), not quite.
However, since language is an evolving (and, loosely, 'living') thing,
and
I
don't have an exclusive right to be an Etymologically Pioneering Type
here
in s.b.e. (at least Edser is one - without the capitals, that is), I'm
not
very critical about this. :-)

JE:-
Science deals in concepts; it does not deal in trendy nomenclature. What
science must have are _unambiguously defined_ concepts, i.e. concepts
which
can _easily be distinguished_ from each other. For this reason I (unlike
many others who post here, including some professionals) attempt to define
my terms, unambiguously.

Believe it or not, I have been trying to do a similar 'defining thing'
against (or for) the flabby and floaty concept "trauma" and the hollow and
patchy "PTSD"; And, it seems that I have also been trying to pour (or offer
;-)) a "philosophically fortifying supplement" into the utterly week (feebly
understood) "area" (of science and philosophy) that is supposed to "cover"
(or can be presumed to pertain to) how and by what factors ('both' past -
not excluding phylogenetic, present, endogenous, and exogenous) we are kept
selectively conscious (aware and preoccupied) and motivated.

P


.