|
There is a fallacy in the view that Professor Rashevsky
"influenced" my father into his view of "Complexity" or was the genesis of these
ideas. Quite the reverse occurred.
Rashevsky had managed, on his own, to realize that the reductionist
approach wasn't working, and try casting about for reasons why. His relational
theories were groundbreaking and were different enough to be regarded as
dangerously treasonous and unscientific by the "mainstream" in academia.
However, when my father stumbled onto Rashevsky's office at the U. of Chicago,
he had already arrived at all of those conclusions and taken it a great deal
further. His decision to change his major from mathematics was motivated by the
existence of a man with the vision to recognize when precious notions about the
"way things are" is not compatible with the way things "really" are... and with
the courage to stand up and say so. In effect, Rashevsky saved my father a good
deal of time: He made it possible for my father to switch from "tool
acquisition" (which was why he was in mathematics in the first place) to the
"real" work. It was a very lucky set of circumstances, indeed.
Is there anyone on the list now who has not been sent the
"Autobiographical Reminiscences" of Robert Rosen? Please email me privately and
I will send you that paper, via return email. I am making that paper available
to everyone, free of charge, because it is so important to understanding my
father's work, his approach, and his personality. In it, I think, you will find
that Rashevsky provided a "safe harbor" in which to do the work that my
father set for himself, and which Rashevsky was merely aiding and
abetting. In other words, it is inaccurate to characterise
Rashevsky as the "genesis" of any of my father's theoretical
beliefs.
My father took great pains to give credit to Rashevsky for his
vision and his courage, and felt that Rashevsky was given a bum deal by
academia. He sought to ameliorate that by including Rashevsky's name in print as
often as possible, pointing out where his friend had seen the truth before the
rest of science. It would not suit my father's purposes to say whether he had
come to the same conclusions first or at the same time, because it wasn't
about that. He loved and respected Rashevsky, and mourned his loss. He held
on to his anger at academia for the treatment of Rashevsky even more tightly
than any anger he felt over his own treatment by academia.
It is my assessment that Robert Rosen was light years ahead of
Rashevsky before he even met him. It is also my assessment that my father would
have done the work he did regardless of Rashevsky's involvement. Rashevsky may
be responsible for my father's willingness to write down what he was
discovering, though. That, he DID influence.
Judith
|