|
Hi
Judith,
Thanks for the
clarification. I had to go back and re-read your father's comments about
Rashevsky in LI and AS, and his posthumous
"sketch" (his wording) of Rashevsky in the beginning of Progress in
Theoretical Biology #2, and realized that I had previously read
more into them than was actually there about Rashevsky's influence.
In my quick
review, the only comment that I saw where Robert Rosen explicitly granted
Rashevsky a precedence of ideas was in his "Is there a Unified Mathematical
Biology?" in Foundations of Mathematical Biology Vol
3:
"We believe it
was Rashevsky who first grasped that it was relational characteristics which
underlie the basic intuitions which provide the very stuff of biology." [p.
386]
Of course, this
may have been one of those instances where Rosen, as you say, "took great pains
to give credit to Rashevsky", perhaps omitting that he had already reached a
similar conclusion on his own . Certainly, although they both fell
under the rubric of 'relational biology', Rashevsky's biotopological mapping and
Rosen's relational approach were quite distinct, and led in very different
directions.
Regards,
Tim
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
|