Ich habe das Weblog mal bei Technorati registriert....
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Indian Ladies In Sarees With Nice Boobs
God or evolution? Yes, please!
Zwar ist mir die Ges. der Ges. noch nicht über the way gone, but I versucghe yet another volte.
ad God & Evolution: I think the use of evolution for a secular substitute for the function of God himself always sounds even on the concept of evolution is a ontogeny beyond an understanding of historical contingency: "Evolution" historical contingency tried so its complexity to deprive (whether by "selection" or "drift" or "survival of the fittest" as a function), which I think seen analytically useful than bring it to a "common denominator". Terms such as "differentiation" or "increased complexity" are simply "empty", so they can fill different werden (je nach Gebrauch). Naja anders ausgedrückt: Wenn man bei einer Antwort nur zwischen Gott und Evolution (oder Intelligent Design oder Ausserirdische oder sonstige "letzte Prinzipien") wählen kann, ist vielleicht die Frage falsch gestellt, dann zielt man auf eine Art theologisch-teleologisches Erkenntnis/Erklärungsmodell.
Zu Deinen/Luhmanns drei Punkten:
1. Komplexitätssteigerung: okay gibt es, selektiert aber die Anschlusskommunikationen oder bringt andere Erwartungshaltungen hervor. Die Frage bleibt schließlich, ob sich die K-Steigerung auf die strukturelle Zusammensetzung oder auf die Anschlußmöglichkeiten bezieht (Es wäre ja auch denkabr, das z.B. Hybridgemenge (z.B. Gummi und Porzellan) hochkomplex aufgebaut sind und auch noch eine höhere Verwertbarkeit (also Anschlüsse) als die anderen besitzen.
2. Die Frage zwei lässt sich nicht beantworten, da es zwar strukturelle Koppelungen gibt, aber die beeinflussen ja die anderen Erwartungshaltungen nicht direkt. Der Staat z.B. mag seine Aufgaben nur noch in der Grundsicherung des gesellschaftlichen Lebens sehen und diese Selektion als Evolution betrachten (heißt das, dass ein liberaler Staat eine anderes System des Wohlfahrtsstaates darstellt? Oder stellt diese eine Umorganisation des politischen Systems dar?) Gleichzeitig mag die Bevölkerung noch immer dieselben Forderungen (Erwartungshaltungen) an den Staat erheben (egal ob es eine Umstrukturierung, an evolution or an increase in complexity is). So I would not assume that a selection of leading communications connection to a change in the expectations have. I do not know if I can actually agree with this observation.
third Heteronomy of car or Evolution: Since I stay dialectic own actions objectify itself in the exchange with the environment and contribute back structuring - so they should not be deterministic, but the system does not leave sufficient degrees of freedom to decide whether to deal or not. And the system structure requires then, as it deals with it, otherwise the forces so strong that it hazardous for system could be (social facts have forced character!). No, the principle of self-development irritated from the outside I do not see. I think that society is taking both heteropoietisch genesis and autopoietic.
ad "company in another state beyond": In the tradition of Marx socialization is seen as not necessary, and certainly not for the future. What connects the Sytemtheorie with the KT insight into a historical contingency, what separates them is the acceptance / rejection of a futuristic contingency. The company must follow for Benjamin not just society that is indeed understood as a non-transparent structure of the individual (so far systems theory would be an analysis of the current situation, but not the desired state), just to be blown up. That other systems and are transparent themselves, may make from their systemic nature, but perhaps not all systems, which provides social organization us. I hope at least ... 
Zwar ist mir die Ges. der Ges. noch nicht über the way gone, but I versucghe yet another volte.
ad God & Evolution: I think the use of evolution for a secular substitute for the function of God himself always sounds even on the concept of evolution is a ontogeny beyond an understanding of historical contingency: "Evolution" historical contingency tried so its complexity to deprive (whether by "selection" or "drift" or "survival of the fittest" as a function), which I think seen analytically useful than bring it to a "common denominator". Terms such as "differentiation" or "increased complexity" are simply "empty", so they can fill different werden (je nach Gebrauch). Naja anders ausgedrückt: Wenn man bei einer Antwort nur zwischen Gott und Evolution (oder Intelligent Design oder Ausserirdische oder sonstige "letzte Prinzipien") wählen kann, ist vielleicht die Frage falsch gestellt, dann zielt man auf eine Art theologisch-teleologisches Erkenntnis/Erklärungsmodell.
Zu Deinen/Luhmanns drei Punkten:
1. Komplexitätssteigerung: okay gibt es, selektiert aber die Anschlusskommunikationen oder bringt andere Erwartungshaltungen hervor. Die Frage bleibt schließlich, ob sich die K-Steigerung auf die strukturelle Zusammensetzung oder auf die Anschlußmöglichkeiten bezieht (Es wäre ja auch denkabr, das z.B. Hybridgemenge (z.B. Gummi und Porzellan) hochkomplex aufgebaut sind und auch noch eine höhere Verwertbarkeit (also Anschlüsse) als die anderen besitzen.
2. Die Frage zwei lässt sich nicht beantworten, da es zwar strukturelle Koppelungen gibt, aber die beeinflussen ja die anderen Erwartungshaltungen nicht direkt. Der Staat z.B. mag seine Aufgaben nur noch in der Grundsicherung des gesellschaftlichen Lebens sehen und diese Selektion als Evolution betrachten (heißt das, dass ein liberaler Staat eine anderes System des Wohlfahrtsstaates darstellt? Oder stellt diese eine Umorganisation des politischen Systems dar?) Gleichzeitig mag die Bevölkerung noch immer dieselben Forderungen (Erwartungshaltungen) an den Staat erheben (egal ob es eine Umstrukturierung, an evolution or an increase in complexity is). So I would not assume that a selection of leading communications connection to a change in the expectations have. I do not know if I can actually agree with this observation.
third Heteronomy of car or Evolution: Since I stay dialectic own actions objectify itself in the exchange with the environment and contribute back structuring - so they should not be deterministic, but the system does not leave sufficient degrees of freedom to decide whether to deal or not. And the system structure requires then, as it deals with it, otherwise the forces so strong that it hazardous for system could be (social facts have forced character!). No, the principle of self-development irritated from the outside I do not see. I think that society is taking both heteropoietisch genesis and autopoietic.
ad "company in another state beyond": In the tradition of Marx socialization is seen as not necessary, and certainly not for the future. What connects the Sytemtheorie with the KT insight into a historical contingency, what separates them is the acceptance / rejection of a futuristic contingency. The company must follow for Benjamin not just society that is indeed understood as a non-transparent structure of the individual (so far systems theory would be an analysis of the current situation, but not the desired state), just to be blown up. That other systems and are transparent themselves, may make from their systemic nature, but perhaps not all systems, which provides social organization us. I hope at least ...
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
What Does Chip Runner Do?
Evolution - goes on
Dear Hr. Alberth, here is the next course of your abdomen and stomach, or you could also say theory and awareness course: Evolution (with or without lobster).
Actually I am if your sharp words against the most analytically only difficult to replace the concept of evolution, rather surprised. Sit on it but to be able to observe in the past evolution (If the question is allowed, go to your sociological theory assumes that you and your theory was created by God, I miss it then just the text that which says: And God created the Critical Theory and looked ... well, I will not say, after a further order ... but so ...), in the direction you require for the future that may not even know it (unless you are prophet), a radical ( R) evolution.
Lars wrote: "it is not about the historical genesis of the system, but the" blowing out "of the" now "from the historical continuum."
a collapse of the system of society is apparently a new system of society . Follow One in which all the parts at one time have been replaced, that can stabilize and still be unequal to much more complex than it is the (high) modern Ges. And the structures that make be expected, are in the destructive criticisms.
....-----
One can observe evolution taking place as always, but this is not the core message. I must have expressed myself wrong, so you had to read the text of Sun Pardon!
Maybe we should go point by point (I'm really looking forward to working with you to work in parallel on Luhmann text ... do not worry, it's still there ... just only read the lobster in it ...)
(1) Evolution I always have: Achieving a new level of complexity. It's simple: hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) are in themselves phenomena with special properties. Under certain circumstances, however, they can combine to form water (H ² O) and develop entirely new abilities, but also lose what they had as individual phenomena yet.
you see it that way?
(2) If we have to do it then with a new "system" that is entirely different than that from which it has developed, without which it would not be able to develop, we can not then this system things expected with a probability that we can expect it is only because there is this new phenomenon?
you see it that way?
(3) Can we observe in common that systems evolve only themselves, but that while the environmental conditions to which it must adapt, can certainly degrees of freedom / self-limitations of the system affect destructive? An example would be for me: Penguin lands in the Sahara and having to change Each Aerosoft survive. He begins with the perception that it is responsible (it is way too hot!) To confuse himself and exchanged by and by old, no longer valid points against new, more customized items. In the beginning, like this mini-evolution (yes, he does not sleep morning as old-school Penguins, and wakes up at night as a new school penguin, but he needs time) the observer (this includes the Penguin when he for the cognitive capacity for it, features a striking not) easy, but after some time major changes are easier to observe. He is inspired by the heat in its evolution, but was not determined.
See it that way?
---...----
I leave it at that for now, but your description of modern and unmodern ST also think, well and look forward to your next post.
thousand kisses, your heart you are finished ... no, not Talcott, but ... Yes, if I were not myself intra span rent so ... But the fact remains: A thousand kisses! 
Dear Hr. Alberth, here is the next course of your abdomen and stomach, or you could also say theory and awareness course: Evolution (with or without lobster).
Actually I am if your sharp words against the most analytically only difficult to replace the concept of evolution, rather surprised. Sit on it but to be able to observe in the past evolution (If the question is allowed, go to your sociological theory assumes that you and your theory was created by God, I miss it then just the text that which says: And God created the Critical Theory and looked ... well, I will not say, after a further order ... but so ...), in the direction you require for the future that may not even know it (unless you are prophet), a radical ( R) evolution.
Lars wrote: "it is not about the historical genesis of the system, but the" blowing out "of the" now "from the historical continuum."
a collapse of the system of society is apparently a new system of society . Follow One in which all the parts at one time have been replaced, that can stabilize and still be unequal to much more complex than it is the (high) modern Ges. And the structures that make be expected, are in the destructive criticisms.
....-----
One can observe evolution taking place as always, but this is not the core message. I must have expressed myself wrong, so you had to read the text of Sun Pardon!
Maybe we should go point by point (I'm really looking forward to working with you to work in parallel on Luhmann text ... do not worry, it's still there ... just only read the lobster in it ...)
(1) Evolution I always have: Achieving a new level of complexity. It's simple: hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) are in themselves phenomena with special properties. Under certain circumstances, however, they can combine to form water (H ² O) and develop entirely new abilities, but also lose what they had as individual phenomena yet.
you see it that way?
(2) If we have to do it then with a new "system" that is entirely different than that from which it has developed, without which it would not be able to develop, we can not then this system things expected with a probability that we can expect it is only because there is this new phenomenon?
you see it that way?
(3) Can we observe in common that systems evolve only themselves, but that while the environmental conditions to which it must adapt, can certainly degrees of freedom / self-limitations of the system affect destructive? An example would be for me: Penguin lands in the Sahara and having to change Each Aerosoft survive. He begins with the perception that it is responsible (it is way too hot!) To confuse himself and exchanged by and by old, no longer valid points against new, more customized items. In the beginning, like this mini-evolution (yes, he does not sleep morning as old-school Penguins, and wakes up at night as a new school penguin, but he needs time) the observer (this includes the Penguin when he for the cognitive capacity for it, features a striking not) easy, but after some time major changes are easier to observe. He is inspired by the heat in its evolution, but was not determined.
See it that way?
---...----
I leave it at that for now, but your description of modern and unmodern ST also think, well and look forward to your next post.
thousand kisses, your heart you are finished ... no, not Talcott, but ... Yes, if I were not myself intra span rent so ... But the fact remains: A thousand kisses!
Shopping With No Under The Skirt Movie
lobster soup - primordial soup - Uhrsuppe ...
was eating Whether Hummer moral or not is an open question (though I leave your request, the finger of morality, because that is morally, not divide would - I am a little too easy, but maybe that is also just the brandy in my chocolates - then I will understand why you have to find them).
When I run the Total of the Society on the way (Dear Daniel, you are sure that you the Hummer is more of a lost or they are familiar - perhaps? In heat - book) I will be with you in the third Chapter sink. For
me it sounds with the evolution with you more like Axomatik "Evolution always takes place in the system ...".
----- short with morality: the dictatorial character of axioms: do not question but accept it as neither provable nor refutable: it should apply, dass .. "-----
brings me in a tricky position: My question is now whether evolution is an adequate term to describe the system differentiation - and in response I get: Evolution always existed * At the head scratch *
ad schizophrenia 2: Well, clear: the concept of evolution. is a paradox ... but - correct me - put the system in response to the paradox of form and function dar. But that paradox replies a paradoxical concept.
ad primordial soup / Uhrsuppe: That a continuous period of a social organization was, and that can organize it still different (at the same time the linear idea of \u200b\u200ba progressive history, there is indeed circular representations of recurring patterns, such as calendar) is indeed that there is no system-specific need to see a development or evolution as a leading paradigm of social differentiation. So that there should be a big bang (again, there are a cyclical view of the universe), depends on our organization by the time clock and narrative. Somehow I feel the same radically modern system theory and radically unfashionable same time:
Modern because they experience the classic of the modern (development, differentiation, continuity, rationality, Forschrittsnarrativ, increasing complexity, etc.)
unfashionable because they objectify can not be because she claims to be all described from a perspective and to objectify (even if they know that there are various descriptions).
paradox ... but to tie it, I leave Dir 
was eating Whether Hummer moral or not is an open question (though I leave your request, the finger of morality, because that is morally, not divide would - I am a little too easy, but maybe that is also just the brandy in my chocolates - then I will understand why you have to find them).
When I run the Total of the Society on the way (Dear Daniel, you are sure that you the Hummer is more of a lost or they are familiar - perhaps? In heat - book) I will be with you in the third Chapter sink. For
me it sounds with the evolution with you more like Axomatik "Evolution always takes place in the system ...".
----- short with morality: the dictatorial character of axioms: do not question but accept it as neither provable nor refutable: it should apply, dass .. "-----
brings me in a tricky position: My question is now whether evolution is an adequate term to describe the system differentiation - and in response I get: Evolution always existed * At the head scratch *
ad schizophrenia 2: Well, clear: the concept of evolution. is a paradox ... but - correct me - put the system in response to the paradox of form and function dar. But that paradox replies a paradoxical concept.
ad primordial soup / Uhrsuppe: That a continuous period of a social organization was, and that can organize it still different (at the same time the linear idea of \u200b\u200ba progressive history, there is indeed circular representations of recurring patterns, such as calendar) is indeed that there is no system-specific need to see a development or evolution as a leading paradigm of social differentiation. So that there should be a big bang (again, there are a cyclical view of the universe), depends on our organization by the time clock and narrative. Somehow I feel the same radically modern system theory and radically unfashionable same time:
Modern because they experience the classic of the modern (development, differentiation, continuity, rationality, Forschrittsnarrativ, increasing complexity, etc.)
unfashionable because they objectify can not be because she claims to be all described from a perspective and to objectify (even if they know that there are various descriptions).
paradox ... but to tie it, I leave Dir
Rewetting Drops Silicone Hydrogel
morning on lobster
"Hi Hummer! Where are you from? Intelligent Design? Drug-induced psychosis?" (Representative cross selected operation of a student breakfast cognition ...* Laughs * ... * Cough * ... * Spitting blood *...)
----------...----
Evolution, Mr Alberth is, in Niklas Luhmann (whether it is good or bad, is a question advance of morality, well, if made, even has a moral issue ... therefore better: Stay away from the moral), for example in the Ges Ges treated, Chapter 3
is analytically impossible to save the term, but he surely ought to be in a situation that could differ in one to save or prefer to unwind. The observation that results in systems with a separate, self-reproducing operation way of making the improbable be expected on the structure of education, then we can either say, was that always there (Did Hummer has always been? Was it the science has always been? (Creation / Construction)) or, we observe such a way that we think were certain phenomena for some time, for developed (the education system consists of certain elements (communications), the gain but only in the education system be expected, they have. For example. One observes paper and his handing round some time, and in other contexts, but all at once can be expected with a certain regularity, that paper, imprinted with "evidence" of each year in the summer there. And with what is on the papers (I mean, there are indeed only figures and abstract concepts like "art" on it) very specific connections are likely, namely, admission to the next grade or not. But if you can maintain a loving relationship or not, so first time to do absolutely nothing (what would be sad for youth!) (Kontingenzbildung)).
finds evolution always takes place in the system, there is no equivalent for that which takes place in the system, in the environment. The environment is unobservable - too complex. We observed only Mr Alberth and not all-other (we wash dishes at the sink and do not scratch from the universe).
your term schizophrenia paradox reminds me a lot of problems in systems theory be treated. In fact, the beginning is undecidable, because it presupposes already that someone asks about the beginning and him of something different, what then but just as much a part of the beginning like the beginning itself, it is the unobservable context that mitsch weaves always, but not is observed. The question of the beginning is made Mittenmang and when they re-enter into itself, it can only choose "the beginning is the beginning" (a tautology) or "not the beginning is the beginning" (paradox). And they would overturn their observation of the operation if they would not start by using self-and external reference to develop the operation and say, "This is part of the beginning of it .. and the one to the beginning than to its context / environment / Milleu in which it is located on this, but so far no part of it. But let us not forget that the beginning when he observes himself (as one side of a distinction), a distinction which is then observed difference in itself and therefore processed only oscillations ... this takes time.
is ultimately the system itself is not transparent and the environment for the system and also why some start to say they understand the environment, while they only understand that they can not be understood, nor the environment.
-----...---
"Oh no, now is the lobster made from there. No matter, its environment, no matter where he is, is still there. Then I eat shut ... * Do-not-laugh *...* Knurr stomach * " 
"Hi Hummer! Where are you from? Intelligent Design? Drug-induced psychosis?" (Representative cross selected operation of a student breakfast cognition ...* Laughs * ... * Cough * ... * Spitting blood *...)
----------...----
Evolution, Mr Alberth is, in Niklas Luhmann (whether it is good or bad, is a question advance of morality, well, if made, even has a moral issue ... therefore better: Stay away from the moral), for example in the Ges Ges treated, Chapter 3
is analytically impossible to save the term, but he surely ought to be in a situation that could differ in one to save or prefer to unwind. The observation that results in systems with a separate, self-reproducing operation way of making the improbable be expected on the structure of education, then we can either say, was that always there (Did Hummer has always been? Was it the science has always been? (Creation / Construction)) or, we observe such a way that we think were certain phenomena for some time, for developed (the education system consists of certain elements (communications), the gain but only in the education system be expected, they have. For example. One observes paper and his handing round some time, and in other contexts, but all at once can be expected with a certain regularity, that paper, imprinted with "evidence" of each year in the summer there. And with what is on the papers (I mean, there are indeed only figures and abstract concepts like "art" on it) very specific connections are likely, namely, admission to the next grade or not. But if you can maintain a loving relationship or not, so first time to do absolutely nothing (what would be sad for youth!) (Kontingenzbildung)).
finds evolution always takes place in the system, there is no equivalent for that which takes place in the system, in the environment. The environment is unobservable - too complex. We observed only Mr Alberth and not all-other (we wash dishes at the sink and do not scratch from the universe).
your term schizophrenia paradox reminds me a lot of problems in systems theory be treated. In fact, the beginning is undecidable, because it presupposes already that someone asks about the beginning and him of something different, what then but just as much a part of the beginning like the beginning itself, it is the unobservable context that mitsch weaves always, but not is observed. The question of the beginning is made Mittenmang and when they re-enter into itself, it can only choose "the beginning is the beginning" (a tautology) or "not the beginning is the beginning" (paradox). And they would overturn their observation of the operation if they would not start by using self-and external reference to develop the operation and say, "This is part of the beginning of it .. and the one to the beginning than to its context / environment / Milleu in which it is located on this, but so far no part of it. But let us not forget that the beginning when he observes himself (as one side of a distinction), a distinction which is then observed difference in itself and therefore processed only oscillations ... this takes time.
is ultimately the system itself is not transparent and the environment for the system and also why some start to say they understand the environment, while they only understand that they can not be understood, nor the environment.
-----...---
"Oh no, now is the lobster made from there. No matter, its environment, no matter where he is, is still there. Then I eat shut ... * Do-not-laugh *...* Knurr stomach * "
Brett Corrigan Move Free
sister, the double tongs please ...
simple attacks, unfortunately only in one direction (Hummer is due!)
ad schizophrenia: I mean absolutely no development or adaptation, but simply state of the notion of "evolution" of a drift (ie, movement) or even denotes connotations, but which is observable only as an updated breakdown. Evolution does not seem to decide whether to flow or break now.
beloved addressee stay quiet for a moment a few inches off the ground, because I agree in the context of systems theoretical considerations on a phenomenological-analytical Level (from the side so it can no objections to the theory given as a system), but consider the concept of evolution of these same considerations for not adequately because undecidable (= "schizophrenic" in popular language use).
Since help thinking of Maturana and Varela even more limited (ascertaining numerical even if they want to make the effects of internal only)
way, there would be another question that you could perhaps save the term:
Is Evolution may therefore only observed internally, but never, however, externally? Evolution is even what one might call a first-order observation of a specific subsystem? Is there therefore a differentiation in the system, that his observation concerned only with the change of the system, although the system would be an observation of 2nd order, but certainly for the Subsystem 1ter right? Perhaps therein lies the Nichtkommunizierbarkeit the drift, because it can be communicated only ex post as the difference? But no, so the state would be the "everything is communication" Lever ...
All roads that I bestride to rescue the concept of evolution will fail.
Oh, Daniel, help! Where is the good Niklas (no, not the good Talcott) deals with the concept? Maybe you can find there a solution (or evolution)?
PS: Is there a state of apparent complexity? (Perhaps as a terrible inflation of the males on the courtship?) 
simple attacks, unfortunately only in one direction (Hummer is due!)
ad schizophrenia: I mean absolutely no development or adaptation, but simply state of the notion of "evolution" of a drift (ie, movement) or even denotes connotations, but which is observable only as an updated breakdown. Evolution does not seem to decide whether to flow or break now.
beloved addressee stay quiet for a moment a few inches off the ground, because I agree in the context of systems theoretical considerations on a phenomenological-analytical Level (from the side so it can no objections to the theory given as a system), but consider the concept of evolution of these same considerations for not adequately because undecidable (= "schizophrenic" in popular language use).
Since help thinking of Maturana and Varela even more limited (ascertaining numerical even if they want to make the effects of internal only)
way, there would be another question that you could perhaps save the term:
Is Evolution may therefore only observed internally, but never, however, externally? Evolution is even what one might call a first-order observation of a specific subsystem? Is there therefore a differentiation in the system, that his observation concerned only with the change of the system, although the system would be an observation of 2nd order, but certainly for the Subsystem 1ter right? Perhaps therein lies the Nichtkommunizierbarkeit the drift, because it can be communicated only ex post as the difference? But no, so the state would be the "everything is communication" Lever ...
All roads that I bestride to rescue the concept of evolution will fail.
Oh, Daniel, help! Where is the good Niklas (no, not the good Talcott) deals with the concept? Maybe you can find there a solution (or evolution)?
PS: Is there a state of apparent complexity? (Perhaps as a terrible inflation of the males on the courtship?)
Monday, June 5, 2006
Free Letter Of Condolence From Church
sister, caliper please ..
If you agree with me more readily Mr Alberth, we have to have so thoroughly written over one another laughing * cough *...* *...* float away *. ..
----...---
Structural drift of a system is only possible if the system already exists. Is, since a boundary between system and environment and on the system side of the border is, the organizational form an operational unity to: ". Your identity is characterized by a network of dynamic processes that do not exceed the effect of the network"
(Maturana / Varela, Tree of Knowledge, p.100)
Within this system there are specific forms of operation carried out by certain final elements (eg communication in social systems, systems of thought in consciousness).
With each operation, ie, with each self-preservation (soperation), the system's new frontier and differentiates itself from time and again. there is no operation is, there is no system. The operation will burn up as it were, from the moment of completion.
The evolution has taken place, can be seen probably really only in retrospect, because the observers are blind to the current operation, what will be its effects. Empirically will be probably find that there are systems in which only allow very specific communications port communications expected because structures were trained, be expected due to make a function that is given. So we can now - in hindsight watching - that there is a Gastronomic subsystem that can be communicated in the only successful, which is about Tasty / non-Tasty, while not eaten 60Years in National Socialism and Fascism, what political / nationalist " degenerate "was. And with this difference had almost everything else are encoded (illness, politics, art ...). 
If you agree with me more readily Mr Alberth, we have to have so thoroughly written over one another laughing * cough *...* *...* float away *. ..
----...---
Structural drift of a system is only possible if the system already exists. Is, since a boundary between system and environment and on the system side of the border is, the organizational form an operational unity to: ". Your identity is characterized by a network of dynamic processes that do not exceed the effect of the network"
(Maturana / Varela, Tree of Knowledge, p.100)
Within this system there are specific forms of operation carried out by certain final elements (eg communication in social systems, systems of thought in consciousness).
With each operation, ie, with each self-preservation (soperation), the system's new frontier and differentiates itself from time and again. there is no operation is, there is no system. The operation will burn up as it were, from the moment of completion.
The evolution has taken place, can be seen probably really only in retrospect, because the observers are blind to the current operation, what will be its effects. Empirically will be probably find that there are systems in which only allow very specific communications port communications expected because structures were trained, be expected due to make a function that is given. So we can now - in hindsight watching - that there is a Gastronomic subsystem that can be communicated in the only successful, which is about Tasty / non-Tasty, while not eaten 60Years in National Socialism and Fascism, what political / nationalist " degenerate "was. And with this difference had almost everything else are encoded (illness, politics, art ...).
Friday, June 2, 2006
Team Paper Plate Award Ideas
But that's my argument
Gee whiz, you're right completely. However, denke ich, dass der Begriff der Evolution diesen Komplexitätssteigerungen und Selektionen nicht gerecht wird.
Maturana/Varela schreiben ja: "Wir sehen die Evolution hier als ein strukturelles Driften bei fortwährender phylogenetischer Selektion. Dabei gibt es keinen 'Fortschritt' im Sinne einer Optimierung der Nutzung der Umwelt, sondern nur die Erhaltung der Anpassung und Autopoiese in einem Prozeß , in dem Organismus und Umwelt in dauernder Strukturkoppelung bleiben" (S. 127).
Also entweder haben wir es mit einem Drift zu tun, dann ensteht eine Bewegung des Übergangs, wie es Maturana/Varela nahelegen oder wir haben es mir einer sprunghaften Komplexitätssteigerung zu tun, denn es lässt sich indeed observe only the difference, but not the process of differentiation (unless you play flip, but then organize the differences after an evolutionary view and one gets always watching what you want and that is and will remain boring and there would be no counter code - that is, the zero -. to 'evolve'
I hereby plead for schizophrenia of evolution and thus indeed for their creativity and productivity, but not for appropriateness as an analytical concept 
Gee whiz, you're right completely. However, denke ich, dass der Begriff der Evolution diesen Komplexitätssteigerungen und Selektionen nicht gerecht wird.
Maturana/Varela schreiben ja: "Wir sehen die Evolution hier als ein strukturelles Driften bei fortwährender phylogenetischer Selektion. Dabei gibt es keinen 'Fortschritt' im Sinne einer Optimierung der Nutzung der Umwelt, sondern nur die Erhaltung der Anpassung und Autopoiese in einem Prozeß , in dem Organismus und Umwelt in dauernder Strukturkoppelung bleiben" (S. 127).
Also entweder haben wir es mit einem Drift zu tun, dann ensteht eine Bewegung des Übergangs, wie es Maturana/Varela nahelegen oder wir haben es mir einer sprunghaften Komplexitätssteigerung zu tun, denn es lässt sich indeed observe only the difference, but not the process of differentiation (unless you play flip, but then organize the differences after an evolutionary view and one gets always watching what you want and that is and will remain boring and there would be no counter code - that is, the zero -. to 'evolve'
I hereby plead for schizophrenia of evolution and thus indeed for their creativity and productivity, but not for appropriateness as an analytical concept
Mondeo Outside Temperature Gauge Not Working
Some notes ... to say
... before the feast of the intellect. (Pentecost) crazy ...
makes first: Find the proposal very well and I will look again, where is the Brandy chocolates in the beautifully wrapped box of critical theory are.
---------...----------------
A little about ...
EVOLUTION
evolution of systems theory is NOT: (linear) evolution from worse to better, or perhaps "less viable to viable," but from a level of complexity to another.
The focus is on selection processes that allow variations in the system - ie: You can select specific, not because everything must be selected.
The greater the complexity of a system (that they exist, must have provided be - and they can / will be observed separately by their system limits of their environment), the more evolutionary possibilities (possibilities for change with subsequent re-stabilization) are given to him. That means: The more selections of elements relation can realize it.
The relation of elements created in this way, you know to new / different qualities than the previous years or than the qualities possessed by the individual elements on their own merits. The whole here is more than the sum of its parts and less than the sum of its parts at once.
systems are to be considered but never isolated but always in a systems environment. Although the environment has no Control options (except destruction) and can not be controlled by the system. But she has by mutual irritation impact on system development. Also, in the environment of a system, there are several other systems, which are special environments.
It is expected that there may be more complexity in a system only if other systems could develop in the environment also have a higher complexity in order to meet requirements that one system is now on its environment, but their solution It even does not accept.
It is not clear who was first developed - the system or its environment - but it is Co-Evolution . An example is the co-evolution of social systems and consciousness systems, but also the evolution of individual social systems in modernity, but for the same evolution of other social systems that take each own unfulfilled tasks that would not have been possible (the science system is rely on in the environment, someone cares about politics and the economy, and the economy is not without science and policy in its present form possible). About Structural coupling, individual elements so even used by multiple systems together (eg certificates), but after intrinsic specific Process further processed (Economics: setting skills; Science: Career differentiations (?)).
... before the feast of the intellect. (Pentecost) crazy ...
makes first: Find the proposal very well and I will look again, where is the Brandy chocolates in the beautifully wrapped box of critical theory are.
---------...----------------
A little about ...
EVOLUTION
evolution of systems theory is NOT: (linear) evolution from worse to better, or perhaps "less viable to viable," but from a level of complexity to another.
The focus is on selection processes that allow variations in the system - ie: You can select specific, not because everything must be selected.
The greater the complexity of a system (that they exist, must have provided be - and they can / will be observed separately by their system limits of their environment), the more evolutionary possibilities (possibilities for change with subsequent re-stabilization) are given to him. That means: The more selections of elements relation can realize it.
The relation of elements created in this way, you know to new / different qualities than the previous years or than the qualities possessed by the individual elements on their own merits. The whole here is more than the sum of its parts and less than the sum of its parts at once.
systems are to be considered but never isolated but always in a systems environment. Although the environment has no Control options (except destruction) and can not be controlled by the system. But she has by mutual irritation impact on system development. Also, in the environment of a system, there are several other systems, which are special environments.
It is expected that there may be more complexity in a system only if other systems could develop in the environment also have a higher complexity in order to meet requirements that one system is now on its environment, but their solution It even does not accept.
It is not clear who was first developed - the system or its environment - but it is Co-Evolution . An example is the co-evolution of social systems and consciousness systems, but also the evolution of individual social systems in modernity, but for the same evolution of other social systems that take each own unfulfilled tasks that would not have been possible (the science system is rely on in the environment, someone cares about politics and the economy, and the economy is not without science and policy in its present form possible). About Structural coupling, individual elements so even used by multiple systems together (eg certificates), but after intrinsic specific Process further processed (Economics: setting skills; Science: Career differentiations (?)).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)