First, I urge any and all readers of this list to read the Jon-Doyle
exchange titled, in cryptically Gothic cathedral anonymity, ``no subject.''
To the contrary, I can't even count the subjects that were glanced at here.
Jon has come upon a way of structuring his response, turning it into an
exchange out of a play text, that's a hoot to read. Thanks Jon.
But then, this, first from Doyle--
. I am thinking of two meditations on
this issue which I think are profound, first from Susan Oyama, "The Ontogeny
of Information, Developmental Systems and Evolution", Duke University press,
second revised edition 2000. Secondly, I have not read this book, but I am
starting to read, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory", S.J. Gould,
Harvard, 2002.
And Jon replies: As Bob Dylan sings in 'Idiot Wind' - "I can't even touch
the
books you've read"
Well. First, the ``S.J. Gould'' referenced by Doyle is the actually much
better known and just-departed Stephen J. Gould. And I'm sure, Jon, that you
have probably read him. I'll wager that even ``Zimmy'' (Bob Dylan) has.
Gould is not only not remote, he was the finest example in science of a
writer-researcher-academic who could communicate the most complex ideas in
his field--in his case, evolutionary biology--with supreme clarity,
precision and economy of langauge. Gould will always be a model of the
writer who communicates complexity with great clarity. He even wrote about
the pan-science realm known as ``Complexity,'' which strives to unite the
sciences in an understanding of what makes systems develop from simple units
to highly complex and integrated wholes. Gould is not only NOT out of the
reach of the average reader or non-science reader, he's the first writer I'd
recommend for any non-science person to check out. More than anyone elese,
he has made the case for Darwinian theory most convincingly. His death is an
immeasurable loss; fortunately, he was so prolific that newbies to Gould
have years of wonderful reading ahead of them.
And then, Jon noted this:
I dislike the people that just sit there and dont write anything. Especially
the ones who have important things to say. Especially the ones who can tell
us all about George Lucas, for instance. Eh, Robert?
Well, Jon, I don't know. Am I an expert on Lucas? I don't think so. I'm not
sure where your comment stems from, except perhaps from the long-lost
exchange on ``Clones.'' I think, like most who post to this salon, that I
pick my spots. If I find something that gets me going, I'll respond. If I
encounter something--like now, the films of Bela Tarr--that gets me excited,
I'll post. On the other hand, you might just scrawled that in during a woozy
moment while watching the World Cup and Jubilee. (I'm sorry you're pretty
bummed out about England and the Cup. Here in LA, we're watching the Lakers
manage the nearly impossible: three-time repeat of the NBA championship. My
only concern is that after the Lakers win, that they will be another
riot...)
In any case, read Gould, see Tarr and keep on with the amusing posts.
Very fun to read....(I like Eric too...)
Robert Koehler
|