Hey, I like that line of thought, that laws are not necessarily absolute and constant, but evolving and changing always. But isnt change a constant, sort of paradoxical...
There is a theology that goes along with a science of process, which posits both a transcendental (unknowable) Godhead (Being) who involves itself giving rise to our created world of becoming, which then evolves until it reaches Godhead once again. neat story : )
Ok, so we cannot conceive of the totality of the universe, even assume a totality because that implies a finite quantity. So, we can't then concieve of ourselves as we are part of infinity?? This is confusing.. Ken Wilbers idea of a Holon comes to mind, spiral dynamics.
Infinity is precisely that holarchic relation between all beings. The "whole which is a part of a larger whole" idea seems to go all the way up and all the way down. The Godhead is in a sense the groundless ground of everything. Infinity can't be said to have 'parts,' as no amount of parts could add up to infinity. It is one of those things that cannot be conceived of not because it doesn't exist but because rationality cannot comprehend it.
Yes, Steve. Biosemiosis is the study of signs in nature, whether between organisms or within the organisms themselves. Neo-Darwinism is already doing biosemiotics by way of all their talk of "information" in the genome... they just don't realize they are doing it. The semioticians are trying to make them conscious of the use of such concepts as "interpretation," which explicitly (and contradictorily) are rejected by standard reductionism/materialism.
*Peirce (pronounced same as purse)
Shadowxxxhome 5 months ago
Hey, I like that line of thought, that laws are not necessarily absolute and constant, but evolving and changing always. But isnt change a constant, sort of paradoxical...
cosmanthony21 3 years ago
There is a theology that goes along with a science of process, which posits both a transcendental (unknowable) Godhead (Being) who involves itself giving rise to our created world of becoming, which then evolves until it reaches Godhead once again. neat story : )
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
So if there were an ultimate being, us as finite ones could never conceive of it?
cosmanthony21 3 years ago
That'd be like biting your own teeth, as Watts says.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Ok, so we cannot conceive of the totality of the universe, even assume a totality because that implies a finite quantity. So, we can't then concieve of ourselves as we are part of infinity?? This is confusing.. Ken Wilbers idea of a Holon comes to mind, spiral dynamics.
cosmanthony21 3 years ago
Infinity is precisely that holarchic relation between all beings. The "whole which is a part of a larger whole" idea seems to go all the way up and all the way down. The Godhead is in a sense the groundless ground of everything. Infinity can't be said to have 'parts,' as no amount of parts could add up to infinity. It is one of those things that cannot be conceived of not because it doesn't exist but because rationality cannot comprehend it.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
So thats it?
cosmanthony21 3 years ago
I don't know, what is it?
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
haha : )
cosmanthony21 3 years ago
@0ThouArtThat0
Vitalism?
gerontodon 1 year ago
I've read some Semiotics -- Pierce, Saussure, Roland Barthes, Umberto Eco... but that was about human sign use, language, culture.
Apparently this Semiosis takes the study of signs and relates it to biological organisms, evolution, and so on...?
StevenErnest 3 years ago
Not completely related, but Steve, what do you do for work? Thanks for the video Matt, btw.
cosmanthony21 3 years ago
Yes, Steve. Biosemiosis is the study of signs in nature, whether between organisms or within the organisms themselves. Neo-Darwinism is already doing biosemiotics by way of all their talk of "information" in the genome... they just don't realize they are doing it. The semioticians are trying to make them conscious of the use of such concepts as "interpretation," which explicitly (and contradictorily) are rejected by standard reductionism/materialism.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago