Re: Anticipation/Anticipatory

["John M" <***>]

Dear Judith,
let me reply to your questions to the best of my ability/knowledge (I cannot
rely on something better...) and will paste it between your lines below
John M

----- Original Message -----
To: <***>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 9:41 PM
Subject: FW: [ROSEN] Anticipation/Anticipatory
> Forwarded on behalf of Judith Rosen.
> John (M),
> I can only attempt to illuminate what confuses people about my father's
> mode of expression and thought patterns. One thing I cannot do is
> "defend" his scientific ideas. The work will have to do that on its
> own. I am only qualified to clarify what he meant, and there-- only up
> to a point. I'm not sure I've been able to do that in your case, so I
> have some questions for you, based on your post:
>
> Why do you refer to the maple tree dropping its leaves as a "disease"?
<
[RPL]: I refered to the falling off of the leaves as a disease of the
leaves,
because in our 'human' terms we usually call it a disease when a
functioning part of a living organism undergoes a process to discontinue
its functioning. I did not qualify it as good or bad, that would be too
much of an anthropocentric position. Nature does not 'go' for benefits:
the variations show their outcome in the aftermath.
>
> Are you still trying to understand what my father was referring to
> (with the word "anticipatory"?
<
[RPL]: Since he chose this word, in my opinion it could not be for any
other meaning than "to prepare for the next step" (in whatever way).
Which I expressed as a "precondition", a facilitating position. I was
sure that your father did not suggest a "free will" for the anticipation
of the next changes in a complexity. Some anti-Rosenists may do so,
even may include: "useful" (what is really outrageous).
So I still find the use of the word questionable.
>
> How can you expect to see the entire picture (the set of ideas he was
> describing) with "anticipation" if you "forget about time"?
<
[RPL]: I consider "the set of ideas" he used as his chosen
didactical model to give rise to his explanation. In the
'entire picture' I see influences effective right away or a
million years later, in the same 'picture'. There is a
sequence of changes in our view, which is time realted.
Since in my narrative the entire universe with its billions
of years (inside) "time-span" is indeed only a timeless
momentary fulguration (less than a 'flare-up' which still
has its duration, I consider neither the 'timing' nor a
'spacing' as primary conditions in understanding changes.
Mostly necessary attributes.
>
> How do you define "Time" such that you feel it is expendable in any
> discussion of Rosennean Complexity?
<
[RPL]: Why do you think I can? Our reductionistially working
mind thinks "timed" -  the thought may be atemporal-aspatial
(I can see myself watching Attila's burial and an Inka sacrifice at
the same time/space e.g. in a dream) but I sweated blood when
I tried to "speak untimed concepts".  Does a deep sea fish have
a clear concept of water?
>
> Do you really believe that Occam's Razor is the correct approach in
> anything, much less "biology"?
<
[Rpl]: There are two edges to Occam's razor: it is useful when
we exercise strawmanship and involve unnecessary points in a
discussion, yet I consider O.R. a "super reductionism" in that
it restricts the model even further. As I consider the territory
a restricted model, a map a more restricted model within, -
O.R. makes an even stronger restriction in the map. I do not
approach biology (nor biologists) if I can avoid it.
>
> Regards,
> Judith
<
Regards
JohnM
>