Re: The Goal of this List

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Funny you should ask, John K.... Jack Park has a philosophy of information
sharing that he's currently "testing" on the internet in sort of a "grand
experiment" that I've decided to participate in. It's a different sort of
thing from this discussion list in that this list is more meant as a place
to clarify what Robert Rosen was actually saying and why, as well as to
suggest ways to use those theoretical breakthroughs in developing new
science. As such, speaking personally, my heart is more in this kind of
forum; my father's work will be more fully discussed here. But Jack's idea
has the kind of applications that are more suited to what James was looking
for, etc. It's a general forum, which begins with Rosennean Complexity  and
then, as I understand it, extends outward in links to other pages that speak
to various aspects in greater detail, which then also ramify outward in
similar fashion... As such, others can create pages of their own, detailing
how their point of view differs from that presented, in a permanent
interactive archival link.

He calls it "Story-Telling" and it's a multi-dimensional forum for
discussion or research, via the accumulated and connected thoughts of many
minds. As such, it's an evolving, living data base of a very human kind.
I'll let him elaborate further, if he would, please....

Judith
PS: I think the troubles that beset so much of the world, as far as the
human species goes, is attributable to a disconnect between expectations and
reality. Expectations are a natural human creative process but are often
built on stuff other than what could ever loosely be called "reality"-- in
other words, human expectations are often built on wishful thinking or on
blind ego or on a cerebral principle. When reality doesn't coincide with our
expectations, there is a tendency to feel let down, disappointed, or even
cheated-- as if it's not fair that reality was "less" than we expected. But
what's actually "not fair" is to have expectations that are unrealistic, to
assume we played no part in the construction of our own expectations, and
then to blame the universe or whatever aspect of it our expectations
referred to, for not living up to those expectations. It's not really a
failure on some other ledger of responsibility; it's purely in the eye/mind
(ledger) of  each beholder. The person who taught me this lesson is my
sister, Donna. Those interested can link to her website from
www.rosen-enterprises.com and learn, as I did, just how pervasive and
controlling human societies can be in their unacknowledged expectations. We
are all guilty, because we are all human. However, as far as this list goes,
the tip off was there right from the start: The name, Robert Rosen. Can a
list that is created specifically to investigate one person's set of ideas
really be called "prejudicial"? Can a liver or a heart or an immune system
really be reproached for not serving a function other than what it was
designed to serve?


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] The Goal of this List


> Would another list venue be appropriate to pursue a wider discussion?
>
> I toyed with starting a list associated with the "What is Life/Living"
> ISSS SIG but didn't get a critical mass going, surely due to my absent
> management of it, but also I didn't have it technically set up right
> with an archive and so on. I could correct that. Over the 5 years or so
> that the SIG has existed we have explored (in papers) a wide range of
> ideas without constraints. I personally tend to represent concepts
> derived from Rosen, but I have never made that a constraint either in
> the SIG or on the list, but I'd like to begin drawing some threads
> together and thinking about modes of synthesis. Right now the list is
> still active as ***, but conversation has essentially dried
> up. There were only about 5 members starting it up last Fall. It seems
> being too open ended is also problem because then there is little common
> ground, but if the goal is to relate and synthesize multiple views,
> perhaps that could be sufficiently productive to keep things going. Any
> thoughts?
>
> John K
>
> James N Rose wrote:
>
> >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
> >
> >
>
> --
> © 2004 John J. Kineman
> all rights reserved