Alfred, thank you for your response to my thoughts about the term
"systems." You indeed provide many good, and persuasive, reasons why you
avoid this term. Your reasons in part strike me as tactical, in the sense
that you choose not to challenge the turf of mechanistic systems theories -
and their central term, systems - with your theory of semiotic ecology, at
least not at this time.
You write that you "want to differentiate as clearly and as realistically
as possible between structure and process in relative distinction in order
to bring them in their proper co-relation: processes always involve
structures, and structures result from and carry processes." This
reasoning is similar to what Frederick Engels said about matter and motion
- that there can be no matter without motion, etc. Also, like you, he was
a critic of mechanistic materialisms. So I have a question. How does the
dialectical materialism of Engels compare with SemEco?
BTW, your website is awesome.
Cheers, Steve Gabosch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 01:00:07 PST