|
On the catch question of Judith, that is "How to
be a chameleon while you are making your own luck? My humble reply is: "by being
healthy/well-fed, courages, bold and more importantly free, with no dependence
on material things and binding ties, though difficult these days. Therefore, not
everybody can easily become a RR or the like, especially these days. WE may,
however, be one as a group by getting the strength necessary from each
other by healthily organizing ourselves to grow relying on a healthy
dialogue into a whole within a sound framework of principles. This
scenario can be created under the leadership of someone with a good
understanding of such principles and with the right credentials to perform this
function in as a part, not as a head. For this purpose 'Rosenean
Principles' perhaps suitably re-phrased to siuit to the purpose, could make
the framework; 'What is life/living?' the common thread and
J.J. Kineman, the learning leader, he
appears to have the credentials needed to fit into this garb.
Aydin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 2:57
PM
Subject: Re: Rosenean theory
catch-22's
Tim's got it right, in the excerpt below:
> The Rosennean framework does comfortably subsume the
>
mechanistic/Newtonian/reductionistic realm. The beauty of the the
Rosennean
> approach is that it enlarges physics and science in a way
that leaves intact
> mechanistic models and reductionistic approaches.
Simple (mechanistic)
> systems become a subset of the now-larger
universe of systems that we can
> model.
So there really isn't a conflict except the ones we keep making
for ourselves, as a species.
I once asked my father why there was so much hostility
between different groups of "science". He said there IS NO hostility between
the sciences, the hostility is between the scientists... He said
politics enters the picture as soon as a third person enters any discussion.
Politics quickly becomes a religious fervor. It doesn't take long before human
beings are ready to kill or die for their point of view. It's almost as if
killing or dying for it strengthens the point of view, as in "it must be
right, if he feels that strongly about it..."
If you know what the truth is, and you don't care if anybody else
knows that you know... you can walk away. That's freedom. But it's hard to
come by in the modern daily life of your average working folk. My father
managed by being a chameleon of sorts. Maybe that's part of the reason his
work is hard to find-- no one was really sure "what" he was. He was lucky to
have tenure, though, and that is increasingly rare now. I have no idea what he
would have done if he was just coming up at this point in time. He'd have to
make his own luck, I suppose, like all of you are doing. So the trick becomes:
How to be a chameleon while you are making your own luck... This takes us back
to the phrasing issue that Pete mentioned. The way a grant is applied for is
the place to match one's appearance to the surroundings. Whatever the
pattern of the gatekeeper of the grant, that's what you shoot
for.
Judith
|