the organic principle

[inscara]

Hi again,

Answering your question about why there is not feedback from other people in the forum, my personal opinion is that biologists (in all the flavours) are very busy researchers. Most of them do not have time to read and be worried about anything else other than biology. The reason? Biological phenomena are so complex that it takes a lot of time to understand them! It's paradoxical, isn't it? .

Regards,
inscara.-

[inscara]

Hi,

Could you explain a bit more the concept of forces? Can you name them? I mean, you were talking about coherence force as the force to keep the parts together. What could be the names for the other parts?

inscara.-

[inscara]

Hi, thanks for the explanation. If I don't misunderstood, then the forces could be something like the components of the SWOT analysis in a project management scenario. I mean, those things that defines the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. I was wondering about it because thinking about the comparison between two scientific fields as we have been already discussing, I think that it could be convenient to have some reference about what each force represents. It is the same for the parts. For example, if you name the parts as "hard part" and "soft part", then you can easily make a correspondence between "hardware" and "molecules" and "software" and "genes" in regard with the example about "computer science" and "molecular biology" fields. I know that you refer to them in your site as "male" and "female" parts but "hard" and "soft" could still be reflecting that difference, and it should be more easier to understand when you have to compare parts of cores without an intrinsic "male" and "female" attributes. Summarizing, I think that there should be some correspondence principle between each classification attribute (part, level and force) between different cores. Does it has any sense for the OP?

Regards,
César.-

[inscara]

Originally Posted by charles - topthy

Draft


TOP standard reference table

This table lists the standard order and labels of the elements in an organic structure.

EN is the entity

Co is the core

P1 is the defining part or group of parts
P2 is its complement or group of complements

L1 is ground level
L2 is middle level
L3 is top level

F1 is about the nucleus, the driving force
F2 is about matter, the physical aspect
F3 is about time and progress
F4 is about coherence and relations.

HO is a host element

SU is a subelement

---

Proper use of the table implies that the order and labelling of the standard reference table be respected.


---


Custom tables

A custom table can use its own set of symbols for labelling as long as the order of the general reference table is respected and where the label for:

Co is an unmistakable singular

P1 designates the main attribute(s)
P2 designates its (their) complement(s)

L1 lists the basic or start level
L2 lists the standard or middle level
L3 lists the top or end level

F1 indicates a central or main influence
F2 indicates a complementary or attractive influence
F3 indicates a hierarchical or progressive influence
F4 indicates a cohesive or grouping influence

---

Hi guys,

I've been a bit busy last week, so that's the reason I was not able to answer. I think that this kind of labeling is what I was requesting for. However, still I think that you should define some criteria to determine what is considered a main part and what is considered a complementary part. I was just thinking in our previous friend "Charly" with some knowledge about computers and trying to know a bit about molecular biology. If somebody defines the main part of molecular biology as the molecules and the complementary part as the genes then Charly will understand that the molecules are something that can be physicaly described (like the hardware in a computer) and the genes have to be some kind of concept not so tangible like the molecules. However, if somebody else reverse that order of parts for molecular biology, then Charly will be confused. So, I still think that you need a more strong labeling in principle for parts but probably later also for levels and forces. I understand that the two parts have to be complementary, but still I think that one part is more tangible than the other. In the case of brain hemispheres still you have one hemisphere that is more related with intelectual and racional thinking and the other has been associated more to artistic and emotional functions. I think that still the hard/soft concept could valuable. Sciences can be classified like hard and soft and for instance there is also an acid/base concept in chemistry also based in hardness/softness classification of ions. So, I think that for most people the hard/soft concept should be easy to assimilate.

Summarizing, I think that there should be a one-to-one correspondence between the terms describing a core in order to facilitate the comparisons between two cores.


Regards,
inscara.-

[NATHANALANPATRICKROGERS]

Originally Posted by jtwyler

I've just read a new theory"the organic principle".

The only online reference I have is topthy.org

JT

Quote from [Only registered users see links. ] -

--
If we give the thing "that is" a quality "with E" and the thing "that is not" a quality "without E", then the thing with E is the thing that is and the thing without E is the thing that is not.

From which it would appear that E makes the difference between what is and what is not.

One could then conclude that by ordering everything into what is and what is not, E would be the most fundamental ordering element in the Universe.
--

It would appear that Eric Prydz has secretly crossed over into the field of metaphysics

[NATHANALANPATRICKROGERS]

Originally Posted by charles - topthy

If we give the "thing with E" a value 1 and the "thing without E" a value 0, then that explains the metaphysics of Bill Gates' fortune. If we give a "song with Prydz" a value 1 and a "song without Prydz" a value 0, maybe that explains the metaphysics of a good DJ?

I heard that Eric Prydz uses a computer to make his songs, but he ain't that rich. I also heard that Bill Gates knows Snoop Dogg so maybe all three share a common interest in organic principles.

[NATHANALANPATRICKROGERS]

Originally Posted by charles - topthy

If one relativizes general forces such as spiritual, economical, social and educational influences, their basic structures might indeed have quite a lot in common from an OP point of view.

I aggree. However, must all these [this relates to that] theories be forward thinking and lead the believer towards the bosom of positivism?

Does anyone have an opinion on purely degenerative theories? e.g. there are no associations between anything.

A lot depends on how [the philosopher] views the world, and the spiritual, economical, social and educational influences that affect their objectivity.

Are all these concepts cyclic because the earth is currently round?

[NATHANALANPATRICKROGERS]

Originally Posted by charles - topthy

The OP is a generally valid classification system. It classifies. It is therefore neither positive nor negative.

So is Creation; more people believe this than do science.

Originally Posted by charles - topthy

Maybe I misread you but you can find theories not associated to any known human thought patterns in all forums and most show significant signs of degeneration. Google "theoretical research on linguistic labyrinthism" (or its acronym).

I searched for your terms but google only provided me with an example of degeneration.

Originally Posted by charles - topthy

Depends on who depends on the philosopher and by how much and why. Most philosophy is muck as is most economical theory but it's the muck that one has to wade through to get to the other side. For example, particle colliders are by nature philosophical. As such they are mostly muck. But they are necessary muck. But if you see muck as fertilizer, even philosophy and colliders become respectable.

Philosophy can be contradictory, economic theory becomes outdated and particle coliders are largely conceptual. Plants prefer organic matter for healthy growth.

Originally Posted by charles - topthy

Obviously yes. Imagine a square world. It wouldn't work, concepts would fall off the edge.

Imagine an infinite universe; theories would travel forever.

[Liquid Nitrogen]

Originally Posted by jtwyler

I've just read a new theory"the organic principle". Although I am not exactly sure what it is, a theory, an idea, it is definitely a different approach to understanding things, at least it's a very novel approach to seeing life. Would anyone care to check it out? I'd like to hear other views, especially on what it really is or if it's useful. It is not commercial, it is not googleable, it's not referred to one specific science, it looks like a simple way to compare fields. A bit strange to tell the truth.

The only online reference I have is topthy.org

JT

Yes, you are right. I searched through the net, there is not much available on the topic.

[educthms]

The Principles of Organic Agriculture serve to inspire the organic movement in its full diversity. They guide IFOAM's development of positions, programs and standards. Furthermore, they are presented with a vision of their world-wide adoption.