Re: Promoting Rosennean concepts

["Judith Rosen" <***>]

I think Jeff is right on the money with the language issue; that plain
language would reach a far wider audience. However, the math was brought in
by my father for slightly different reasons. It's not that he couldn't find
the words to describe the concepts. I know first hand that when he was
talking to people who had their minds open, he used words rather than math.
It was for the rest of the readers, who were all set to disbelieve the
concepts from the outset, that he used the math. Math is a language that
transcends country boundaries or cultural boundaries and it's much harder to
refute an argument written in math. People could, and did, quibble with the
words he used, but the math is more ironclad.

Judith

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Pridaux" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Promoting Rosennean concepts


> Someone once wrote that to reach a general audience, each equation in the
> book cuts the audience in half.  The challenge in promoting Rosen's ideas
> is to explain them in common (everyday) language.  Of course our common
> (everyday) language comes form a reductionist world-view.  Sometimes there
> simply are not the words to explain the concepts....  thats why Rosen went
> to the math.
>
> The other challenge is that since Rosen's ideas will probably not lead to
a
> new predictive theory (like solving differential equations), there needs
to
> be an identifiable "effect".  My hunch is that the "effect" will be in the
> creation of some kind of "self-organizing" system that will turn out to
> do "something" useful for us.  Something like we put the ingredients in
> a "soup", let it sit a while, and it "self-organizes" and starts making
> some "useful" by-product like a hydro-carbon (that we can burn).