|
On Dan's suggestions:
It seems wise to look for practical areas to
forward the Rosenean Principles, which in fact reflects the theory of
everything. A powerful and incisive mental shift is,
however, essential to derive a lasting success from such efforts.
In practical terms the prime requirement for those who form
integral parts in such an endeavour seems to be their
well-matured aesthetics perception in order to grasp well the basic idea of
complexity. They may then allow intangibles to interfere to tangible operations
to make the resulting whole bigger than the total of the individual inputs.
There, in fact two cultures meet and intellect and intuition are
integrated. Ecological Complexity, for that matter is a
potentially good area as those coming from fields sensible for ecological
imperatives are in the meantime have the right mind to grasp the need for unity,
(not uniformity) such as imbibed in 'Rosenean Principles', without forgetting
the ideas of the founders of the GST, present ISSS. This may be a way to raise
consciousness for perceiving the "Theory of Everything Concept" which
encompasses integrated actions with a unified ultimate higher purpose. It may
then pave the way for furthering the Rosenean Thinking in the process of living
at large.
Aydin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:30
AM
Subject: Re: Rosenean theory
catch-22's
(Forwarded on
behalf of JohnK. The message got hung up as an error by the
listserver.)
Tim, sounds like a good
idea. We'll keep thinking about this and maybe from time to time ask for
some review here, as if gets formulated.
Tim Gwinn wrote:
JohnK,
Three remarks of yours:
[1]
I suggested today that we
launch a lecture series or seminar series on ecological complexity and
informatics as a means of getting people from different disciplines
exposed to and partly confortable with discussing ideas out of their
traditional boxes. I wouldn't attempt to suggest a "synthesis" as such,
but a mutual understanding of the relationships and possible
translations from one view to the next.
[2]
But the problems we are facing in
environmental science demand new and innovative approaches, so even the
hard nosed determinists seem willing to listen.
[3]
And yet....my main concern about this approach is that those attending
and watching will not appreciate the communication potential it is
intended for, but will instead just watch for opportunity, to co-opt or
capitalize on something by again identifying polar opposites so that
both the positive and negative arguments can build one's case.
Would it be possible to frame the lecture/seminar series not so much as a
forum for exposure to other ideas, but rather as a forum for
problem-solving? Exposure to other ideas as a series theme leaves open the
usage of those ideas to their individual whims, and that leads into your
concern (#3) about the ideas being co-opted for negative ends.
Dan's remark came to mind: "...the reason I see value in Rosen's work is
that I was looking for something like he provides - I wanted it, I needed it
for my own work...". If they need it, they will come. Remark#2 seems to
indicate that the need for new approaches is a genuine problem agreed upon
by all (or most), so it strikes me that organizing the series theme around
this problem might make sense, since this common ground already exists.
What I am envisioning is a lecture/seminar series on "Fomenting New
Approaches to Ecological Complexity and Informatics" (or some such title).
The idea being to frame it as an open quest for new approaches, with the
presentations being fodder for those new ideas. This gives each attendee an
opportunity to participate in finding/creating/synthesizing new approaches,
yet does not necessarily mean replacing any existing ones. (I might even use
a different word than "New" in the series title, changing it to one that
does not have the connotation of "replacing".) This might be a way to make
positive use of any of their individual desires to capitalize and co-opt
ideas so that they still support a common endgoal.
Just a thought,
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum []On Behalf Of John
Kineman
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:03 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Rosenean theory catch-22's
Dan and list,
I am very sympathetic to this suggestion. While I also recognize and
appreciate Tim's response, I think some consideration should be given to
looking for an integral approach to communication. Note that I identify
communication as the issue, not integration of science or worldviews
(which I have previously advodated for). It is in that context that I
think Dan's suggestion can work, and in the latter that I now think
Tim's rebuttal is correct (due to the politics of science). But they are
two different things.
More and more I am reacting with disgust at the academic community's
tendency to polarize and fight. It always has to be A vs B, and we think
in terms of "which one is right." Even if it is recognized that the
choice isn't that discreet, the question is modified to "which one is
better" or "more important" which ends up being the same thing. For
example, it is fairly clear to most scholars of evolution that Darwin
was not a fundamentalist as many of his followers have become. But the
politics of science, the reaction against religion, and the desire to
identify the "dominant" process to the near exclusion of others, has
led to what Gould called Darwinian Fundamentalism. That is just one
example. Gould and Lewontin then created their own form of
fundamentalism, which Tim seems to have correctly associated with
"radical materialism" and Marxist social ideology (not necessarily bad,
but certainly limited). All this has been to defend the idea that
evolution by natural selection is necessarily passive, even if not
driven by just one mechanical process, and because all of nature must be
seen in this "scientific" view as also passive. The underlying faith is
that for every seemingly non-passive phenomena (of which there are many
in social and ecological management), we must believe that there must
necessarily be mechanistic explanation. Even if other paradigms are
proximally more helpful, they must be rejected on these grounds. I
strongly suspect that the tenacity of these views has much to do with a
simple and incorrect dichotomy that is imagined between scientific
mechanism and solipsistic religion. So I ask, whom does it benefit to
polarize the discussion in this way? Can REAL sceintists talk about the
continuum?
So, one way I imagined this happening is in the context and for the
purpose of interdisciplinary communication. While a goal of synthesis
would be viewed with great suspicion from all sides, perhaps it is more
feasible to erect the goal of understanding multiple views and models. I
think Rosen's approach is great, but in answer to my own question about
how to sell the ideas in a very conservative academic environment, and
with the great advice received on this list, I suggested today that we
launch a lecture series or seminar series on ecological complexity and
informatics as a means of getting people from different disciplines
exposed to and partly confortable with discussing ideas out of their
traditional boxes. I wouldn't attempt to suggest a "synthesis" as such,
but a mutual understanding of the relationships and possible
translations from one view to the next. This could be one way of
exposing people to Rosen's ideas without being an evangelist. If the
ideas really are clear, then as people learn to translate they will
naturally adopt the most parsimonious way of undestanding. I'm sure that
many people, including some on this list, would be willing to
participate in such a seminar series. Bob Ulanowitz has already agreed
in principle. There was tentative agreement today to do this as part of
an experimental "Theme" in the Institute leading toward a future
ecosystem complexity and informatics program thrust. It is all very
speculative and in a group that is traditionally physically
deterministic (and often dogmatic). But the problems we are facing in
environmental science demand new and innovative approaches, so even the
hard nosed determinists seem willing to listen.
And yet....my main concern about this approach is that those attending
and watching will not appreciate the communication potential it is
intended for, but will instead just watch for opportunity, to co-opt or
capitalize on something by again identifying polar opposites so that
both the positive and negative arguments can build one's case. It is the
prisoner's dilemma with a vengence. At this point, I begin to turn to
cultural values as the cause. What roots do we have as a culture to
appeal to integral or cooperative perspectives? If this were the Far
East I would have ancient traditions to appeal to. Here, we don't seem
to have even the cultural roots of cooperation; a fact being accentuated
these days by foreign policy (but I won't go farther into that).
Sorry for being so windy, but in summary/conclusion, I wonder if an
inherently synthetic concept such as Bob Rosen's can in fact be
presented in a culture that is inherently not synthetic?? If so, perhaps
the best approach is to present it as a cross-cultural dialogue.
JJK
--
© 2003 John J. Kineman
all rights reserved
|