From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Oct 06 2002 - 15:26:36 MDT
On Sunday 06 October 2002 12:52, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> Charles Hixson wrote:
> > I'm thrown by the word "holonic". For many possible meanings, the
> > assertion is true. I want to say obviously true, but what I mean it
> > true due to analysis at the level of propositional calculus (mostly) ...
> > it wasn't obvious at first or second reading, because it was complex.
> > And without knowing the meaning of holonic, I can't decide whether it's a
> > small subset or (possibly) an identity. I.e., it's unchunkable.
>
> Sorry. "Holonic" refers to the way in which a thing can be simultaneously
> a whole composed of parts, and a part in a larger whole. Due to
> Koestler's "The Ghost in the Machine".
Mnh... That looks like it's true of everything short of (possibly) quarks and
electrons. (I.e., the kind of thing that gets described as "elementary
particles".) What does creating a word for it add?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:26 MST