Is Brad McFall a fruitcake or what?

Thanks for the "pony up" all. If there is a GERMAN speaker here I need a little help with the word "Anschauung" but I supoose I should not complain and just look it up. It is becoming quite clear to me that Gregor Mendel may have used the same "active thought process" which appears in the English translation of Cantor's defintion of "set" but this is not the kind of work that I expect you to get into my threads as a take home from me rather for this kind of thing is more not on documentation (which tHIS is). I have always wondered if Husserl souped up some of Cantor's infinite philosophy at Halle but I have no "intution" for Mendel's land or Cantor's for that matter as I do abut Conneticut NOT being a part of NJ,NY and Penn. Mental illness looks more and more like simple social demotion to me as the years go by and nothing psychologically poor at all ever happens for me. I am sorry that it does for you. I can not help it but Mendel seems sooo much smarter to me than Darwin and after wading through thousands of Croizat's-Darwin-bashing I even find finding time to simply read Darwin, which is what Gould for one expects every good biologist to do, does a chore or task for me again rather than a field trip it was I willed panbiogeography to be. We all know willing something does not cause its' effect necessarily.

So I guess mistakenly some one may read the "or" in the following defintion as the Welt"" modification for I do perceIve a transition in English from look to observe to watch that could take one thru a considerable amount of Anglo-Amer philosophy I've been through before."DEFINTION: By a "set" we mean any collection M into a whole of definite, distinct objects m (which are called "elements" of M) of our perception [Anschauung] or of our thought. "(on Page 170 in Dauben Georg Cantor His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite)What I have been exploring that seems to have led to enough controversy that garnerd some threading under my name is whehter or not Ernst Mayr was absolutely mistaken and phenomenologically deviant in asserting the the term "element" in Mendel's plant experiment paper is 'best" understood as what we call today "genes" by comparing it (in thought) to this use in English of the word "element" you see in the above defition. If I can find INTRONS with different point subsitution rates in different parts within the introns I am currently reading about the case aka Mayr's refereeing Wright vs Fisher IS closed no matter how Gould desired to change a Mayrian growth but I need to learn all of these things before I post something here new some of which are traditional and others factual outside of getting the motivation to try where others rarerly if only spiritually trod. It seems quite obvious to me but perhaps not those who are still trying to wonder if I am an evolutionist or creationist that 2by2 OF NOAH IS Mendel's A+2Aa+a and only by subcellular discoveries and ability to increase the rate of mutation (note: I asked about relative mutation rate increses per organics) did we find some OTHER quantification of what I am trying to say is the same magnitude by reading word "element" since I do not longer read this as Weisaker's "transformation" in the periodic table of elements which was possible on the notion of Kervran's "biological transmutations". Wright simply remanded knowledge about the alleomorph SERIES. If all data were ordinated via this question then it would not be necessary to try some of my other ligusitic explorations of the language biologists use but the elite historians do not think that the Fisher-Wright difference had or has any modern use case. They just havent found "it" yet because they largely only change relative to Anglo-US philosophy which I was quite quickely disuaded from but Croizat showed me that I could just stick to the biology and not try to deal with what Mayr thinks he needs to about the philosophy of science itself arising academically in Darwin's time or circle. I would not teach biology let a lone the history of the subject with all of this reading and writing they put on students today but exactly what I would do in their shoes still remains.thank you that helped.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-31-2003]

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.