----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Grimes" <cgrimes at rawbw.com>
>
> I don't know why Gould picked the word hierarchy. What he is
actually
> describing are nested sets and lattices. Some mathematics buddy
should
> have given him some conceptual model besides hierarchy to use.
But
> this same complaint can be applied to his concept of tiers of
> time. Again the properties of a lattice can be used that have a
> direction or orientation constructed on a precedent relation
(the
> arrow) but not necessarily the top-down orientation of a tier.
On the
> other hand Gould uses a drawing of a segmented coral (tree like
> structure) as a illustration for the basic metaphor of the
structure
> of evolutionary theory.
===============
The coral structure-approach is in Darwin's Species Notebook; "the tree of life should perhaps be called the coral of life, bases of branches dead, so that passages cannot be seen". See Michael Ruse' "The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw" pages 168-172. The metaphorization and - pardon the cumbersomeness- similitudenization of life in terms of itself, mereology meets ontogeny meets phylogeny meets self reference and all that, is probably inescapable for us.
>
> ``How many times does the word complementarity show up in the
index
> compared to competition?'' (IM)
>
> Competition shows up as: Dawin and 469, 470-471, species as
> interactors, 705-706, 738. And under biotic competition
(Darwinian
> dilemma about progress, extinction by, predominance of, sequelae
of,
> themes in Origin..)
>
> Complementarity doesn't show. One of the reviews I read
(American
> Scientist, see Book Reviews) made a related complaint that Gould
> didn't avail himself of enough ecology--which I think is
conceptually
> related to notions of complementarity. And I think I agree with
this
> criticism.
>
> Oh, well, only another 1300 pages to go.
>
> Chuck Grimes
=================
Hey, Wolfram's tough going too..............
Ian