Re: The Goal of this List

[John M <***>]

Kevin,
you make a lot of sense - not so easy to pinpoint though.
Let me elaborate my consent to Jamie's words (as you picked  from a rather
long text):
> ...now that "RR's concepts are no longer open to amendment... They are
definitely affirmed against any further disputation"  (from James Rose, and
seconded by John M), ...<

What RR said (wrote) cannot be changed: unfortunately he is not around
anymore to agree in changes. Pioneers are never expected to pop out prima
vista the perfect wordings to new findings/concepts, - that remains the task
of the successors. Us.
As I see (from both Tim's and Judith's words) this list has a task to make
RR's ideas (and words!) better understood. Any discussion should be
pertinent to "what" and "how" he said.

The discussion, replenishment, continuation of RR's novelties is a second
task, very important, life goes on (no matter how RR or anybody else defines
life <G>) and epistemic enrichment does not stop at Aristotle, Kant,
Einstein, or Rosen. Yet it should find another home, not this one - which
has been dedicated to Rosen's oeuvre as it WAS, - his teaching about (his)
complexity.
Darwin is still read and appreciated, in spite of discussions by neo- and
post-Darwinists.

There is a responsibility though for all providing explanatory help on the
list: the explanations should go at the level of RR!!!!
A hard task, one inadvertently adds own ideas to make things 'palatable'.
Best method IMO is to find and post excerpts from RR, with as little
"Talmud-Explanation" as possible.
(For those who are not familiar with the word: 'Talmud' is the compendium of
Jewish savants on religious items, in the absence of a central Jewish
religious (or other) authority over the centuries.)

I wonder if I am off track?

John M


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin de Laplante" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: The Goal of this List


> Friends,
>
> It seems there are some conflicting views of what the aims of the list
are.
> Judith suggested that her frustration with Howard was due primarily to the
> personal criticism that she felt was being levied against her father, but
> that she is in principle open to discussing thoughtful criticisms of or
> challenges to the paradigm that her father had developed.  I would have
> assumed that such a view would be consistent with the notion of a "Robert
> Rosen discussion list", since this sort of thing falls under "discussion".
> I also assumed it would in general be regarded as a good thing by
proponents
> of Rosen's work, for many of the reasons that Howard noted (e.g. that
> response to conceptual criticism has been one of the mechanisms by which
> theoretical frameworks have developed and advanced over the history of
> science and philosophy).  Tim's response to Howard was the first time I
> really saw this conception of the aims of the list challenged.  When I
read
> now that "RR's concepts are no longer open to amendment... They are
> definitely affirmed against any further disputation" (from James Rose, and
> seconded by John M), I am as taken aback as Arno.  Now, I can see reasons
> why one might wish to have a discussion forum predicated on a general
> acceptance of Rosen's scientific and philosophical paradigm, but I hope it
> is clear that this really is a very different conception than what is
> normally understood as a "discussion list", for it categorically rules out
> certain forms of discussion.  As someone who thinks Rosen's paradigm has
> much to recommend it but who also believes that some aspects of it are (at
> least) open to criticism and perhaps modification, this latter type of
list
> is both less useful and less interesting to me than the former.  Ideally,
I
> suppose, there would be other lists that could satisfy everyone's
> preferences.
>
> That said, am I correct to infer that it is the general will of the list
> members that dissenting views are not be aired here?
>
> regards to all,
>
> Kevin