[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

A Future Forum was Re: The Goal of this List

Let me amplify what Judith says here. It seems clear, as the goal of
this list is taking palpable form, that perhaps what I am saying here is
a bit off topic; it's not a discussion intended to refine any
understanding of Rosennean Complexity, but rather, it is more like a
meta-level comment which speaks to topics that Judith and I have
discussed offlist. Like Tim, I have a strong sense of need, or urge, to
better understand (grok comes to mind here) what Robert Rosen has said.
I also don't have a need to try to change what he said in this forum.
But, occasionally, I really need to form links between what he said, and
what others have said, and to think long and hard about those new links.

I have therefore proposed to Judith an application of something I call
"augmented storytelling", which involves combinations of things, those
combinations intended to render the stories navigable, discussable, and
more easly linkable.  Slides from a paper I gave on augmented
storytelling can be found at

http://www.nexist.org/sc2002/

In the largest picture, I am proposing to use a Topic Map [1] to unify
the many concepts (topics) roaming about in the modeling space.
Rosennean Complexity, itself, is one such topic.  The specific
definition of a Topic (in the topic maps paradigm) is this: A Topic is
the one place you go to find out everything that is knowable about one
particular *subject*. That subject, in the case where Judith would serve
in some capacity (manager, thread leader, whatever you want to call it),
is Rosennean Complexity.  At the logical level, Rosennean Complexity is
but one topic in a large topic map which includes topics covering, say,
category theory, relational biology, reductionism, causality,
entailment, and so forth. Notice the opportunity to forge powerful links
(called Associations) between those topics. At the implementation level,
perhaps Rosennean Complexity is an individual portal with its own topic
map, which is "federated" into a larger topic map formed out of those
from many different individual portals. Such implementation details are
still up for grabs.

If there remains interest this fork in the original thread, I will be
happy to say more, and entertain discussions which can, and perhaps
should be taken off list.

Jack
[1] Topic maps are now an ISO standard. I participated in the work that
created XTM, the XML topic maps specification, and produced the book
_XML Topic Maps_ for Addison-Wesley.

Judith Rosen wrote:

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