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!
0 comments:
Post a Comment