Re: The Goal of this List

[John M <***>]

Jamie,
what a beautiful post!
I concur - even accept to curtail MY (own) ideas from airing
here, if they happen to be in domains different from RR.
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "James N Rose" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: The Goal of this List


> Robert Rosen, as any good innovative thinker,
> was well aware of the conceptual alternatives
> to his/their posited ideas.  They are encountered
> when alive, and become afixed when the person passes.
>
> Typically that is taken for granted.
>
> In this (list) situation its subtly problematic.
>
> For the expansive notion of natural systems RR
> presented, all possibles are requisitely
> open to be encountered, considered, engaged,
> and generate intereffective results.
>
> Anything less signifies a limited model and incompleteness.
>
> The list, even Judith who represents RR's voice and mind,
> even Tim as RRconcepts champion, are subject to the
> diminishment of his not being here.
>
> Howard P saw this forum as a place to continue the
> conceptual differential debates he had with Bob
> while he was alive.  It isn't.
>
> I myself initially saw this forum as a place to
> 'converse' with the creative notions RR loosed
> into the world and springboard/correlate my own
> novel exploration towards a Grand Global Systems
> Theory.  It isn't.  I'm fortunate to be here, close
> to the fount of RR and his concepts, but anything -
> any notions, alternatives to RR etc. are -my- domain
> to pursue elsewhere, not advance on this list.
>
> I have much to offer in the way of interesting
> alternative akin-concepts to RR's.  But this is the
> RRosen list, not anyone else's.  It isn't a general
> open forum to look for natural-alternatives to RR
> perspectives or framings.  Its a forum to keep
> RR's work and clear specificities intact, and keep
> clarity that is true to his living sentiments and
> perceptions.
>
> Judith wrote me early on that she thought her father
> would have enjoyed talking with me, discussing ideas,
> based on the ideas I wrote when I joined in here.
> I value that review, am saddened by my not having
> made contact when he was with us, and respect him to the
> point of -not- using this list to surrogate it for
> him in some faux post-mortem dialogue.
>
> RR's concepts are no longer open to amendment (albeit
> possible 'improvement').  They are definitely affirmed
> against any further disputation where he -might-
> have concurred with arguments and amended his views.
>
> The goal of this list - is to advance the notion
> of openness and connectivity and adaptivity - while
> not being morphable beyond RR and his cache of
> concepts as they were during his life.
>
> It seems a disparity, but its not.   Its the
> status of a firm worldview, generous in its
> scope and words but cast in concepts that
> now remain as they are - exactly.
>
> Expressive, visionary, important.
>
> Jamie Rose
> Ceptual Institute
>