As, you know, I did not "offer" this I merely lifted some type from a book but what I can offer is that I dont mind my contribution historically being confined so far to what S. J. Gould admitted he had not thought-up by 1979 which I came accross in the process of if not "doing" set theory at least thinking rather rigoursly (ref: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory p. 1280-1281, "When I originally defined the the biological concept of spandrels (Gould and Lewontin 1979), with the pendentives of San Marco as my "holotype," I described only this gourp-not for any good or principled reason, but simply because I had not recognized the status of cross-level effects in a hieratchical theory of selection." I had thought this up during the winter of my senior year or at least what it denotes IN NATURE.
The point for Gould and not me is that eventually he came to feel of this "status" but as I met him in 1984? what I BSM, connote by it is likely that Gould had not had it thought by then as he had a hard time "eyeing" my raw veggie lunch. I "dove" into college at Cornell pretty much to REALLY determine the "Status" as Gould said about cross-level effects but I had not as Freshman clearly seperated out the levels with words - it was all just "biology" to me, which Richard Boyd haveing "validated" at the school my prior reading of "downward causation" I thought I was adjusting this "status" to that philosophy of biology. I am not this sure anymore after all that happened. I have no problem with you all struggling over whether to make me out as a freak or just a freeking biologist but when my Mother attempts to reach back to the pre-CU years to assert some problem THIS is while you find me objecting... So moving on.
As I came across Prigogine's dissipative structure mathmatics that permitted even a small gravitation change to potentially have large biological effects I realized that the "status" which might have been questionable when I was relating Kervran's concept of biological transmutations to it in high school was not an issue but rather that status accepted and given pay (in dimes?) for work in the Twitty Tradition thinking out some real levels by a terminological seperation of the causality in randomness BY chance was what I expected the biophysics when not the biophilosphy would remand.
Somehow the creation revival interposed here EVEN WHERE I was not looking for it such that Boyd evntually turned tail on me while I was supporting his instantiation on issue. He said I, was becoming "religous" on him, apparently becuase his wife whom I never met said so. This, not what Gould and I recovered is what makes c/e turn about.
I think that the new net tools may enable at least Gould's notion of this stuff from finding an encapusulation but becuase I am not wedded to probalism as Gould is/was it is not clear how this status being green will continue OUT of c/e. That it must is a given for me now. NOw is it for you? My guess is that Mendel USED Cantor's seperation in numbers. But tHAT has not this status.