[no subject]

["John M" <***>]

Dear Judith,
I think you knock on open doors.
I will quote only some excerpts from your post in quotation marks.

"> I believe Roberto is correct in what he believes my father was saying:
when > discussing how systems are regarded as discrete (whole) systems even
when > they are clearly part of larger systems and made up of smaller
(sub)systems."

Of course he said that, see below. He talked about the reductionist view of
science (as I said: the only one we have and can muster) and condoned the
views to make people to accept his writings, as you said further down.
Just, please, do not substitute such condoning allowances for his teaching
about the totally interconnected wholeness. I try to draw a sharp line
between the two, you may feel more comfortable with the 'allowance'. Your
father made things understandable for you when talking to you, of course.

"> Reductionism wasn't a dirty word to my father,..."

I wrote several times that I don't use this word pejoratively. I just
separate it from my line of endeavor, which is in the opposite direction to
your father's: he started from biology (what's worse: mathematical biol),
and expanded into the 'general', I started from the general view and
consider all topically identified models (natural or simple in his
vocabulary) reductionist views. I think our definitions of reducionism -
even the ominous model - is a bit diverging. My view starts with an
evolving - and dissipating - universe in a view from within, in which
biology, as any other topic, scinetific, ideational, material, cosmic, etc.
are reductions of the total.
I had my line of thinking together when I first heard from him and was
amazed how much agreeable could be found. I had a hard time to grasp his
wording (still have), it is more than what I came up with in this - 5th -
language I learned. I learned a lot from your father, not without careful
pondering. I will always give credit to his ideas. I disagree with his math:
the 'fixed' amounts in formal quantizing point definitely to
reductionisically cut models.
Equality can be only between 'simple' models, two impredicative inclusions
cannot match.
(My take on 'simple' is the cut, how much WE include in the chosen model,
within our chosen boundaries (scalewise, quantitatively, qualitatively and
connectionally).

" So the idea that any hint of  "reductionism" with regards to my father's
work being all >wrong.... that's just not the way to look at it. "

I hope this was not addressed to me.
As I wrote many times, reductionist efforts helped to collect the knowledge
what we now have about the world and ourselves. He had to start with such
bases, coming from biology, even my opposite way had its origins in natural
sciences. Both are reductionist cut-offs in my terms. With the reductionist
cognitive inventory,  we now develop the non- (or: not-so) reductionistic
thinking. This is my take, a bit more than blaming just the language. E.g.:
You had a remark earlier about the inadequacy of the word "complex" because
of the historical garbage attached to its meanings (complicated, etc.). I
don't use the word whenever I can avoid it. I hope we will develop a
vocabulary devoid of conventional misunderstandings. If I may agree to deem
language reductionisitc then in may be in the sense of a  Rosenean natural
system at the most. IMO the evolution of language (I look at it as a
secondary level in human evolvement) goes back deeper than 'wording' of the
abstractions - which are primary. (In between may be the symbols if we so
name them).

One question, if you don't mind:
Was there a take of your father about how to describe *he mind*?
(I participated in many list-discussions about 'mind' and my identification
was *the mental aspect of the complexity human (meaning: a (R)-natural
system - - that was before I knew about your father) in which the brain is a
cooperative material tool* (something like a part of a Kohlerian gestalt).
The reason for our 'limited' material-bound understanding. I may come back
to that in my reply to Roberto.)

Please, do not consider me the 'enemy', even if I misunderstand some things
occasionally. (As Tim may know it: I am willing to learn - even to correct
my views. Just ponder first).

Best regards

John

PS I will reply to Roberto later, first I have to read his paper and think
more about his in-debth remarks . JM


----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 8:38 AM
Subject: Re:


> I believe Roberto is correct in what he believes my father was saying:
when
> discussing how systems are regarded as discrete (whole) systems even when
> they are clearly part of larger systems and made up of smaller
(sub)systems.
S N I P
> Judith
> Website address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roberto Poli" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:21 AM
> Subject: [ROSEN]
>
>
> John,
S N I P
> *************************************
> Dr Roberto Poli, PhD
> Editor-in-chief of Axiomathes, Kluwer:
> http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/1122-1151
> Papers and other information
> http://www.mitteleuropafoundation.it
> preferred e-mail: ***