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

Re: The Goal of this List

Its an interesting question that I've thought about and discussed a bit
with Judith. Like you say, no easy answers.  Judith is in the unusual
position of curator and afficianado, but not likely theoretician on all
aspects of the work (some, for sure, like the rest of us). My thoughts
tend to be rather dry. That is, it seems to me that none of us can
really speak about what Rosen thought, even Judith. It is a doutful
claim to know someone's thoughts  when they are alive, so how is this
known retrospectively? If I say what Judith thinks, or John Mikes, or
Howard Pattee, they will object and feel compelled to correct me. Rosen
would as well. However, degree matters too and apparently Judith had a
special closeness and there was a mutual understanding (Judith can
corrector improve  my statements in this regard). What we know is from
records. There are published records and Judith has unpublished records.
She also has memory records that none of us have.

So my view is that all any of us can talk about is our own ideas (about
other ideas and our own -- (a complexity), and we attempt to get that to
commute with some truth through whatever records are available. This is
always a process of interpretation no matter who does it, so training
and skill in the appropriate kinds of interpretation are needed, and
peer review is needed to keep it reasonable. That pretty much defines
what the scientist, historian, biographer, etc. all do professionally.
I'm not sure there is a preferred position in this analysis and
interpretation, except with regard to dissemination of the records.

So, what this list can do is perhaps primarily improve familiarity with
the records. These however are not the ideas. The ideas now exist in
each of our heads, in complex relationship to the records, which used to
be in relationship with Rosen's ideas. Complexity itself says we cannot
recover the original ideas accurately, only our own which we may seek
agreements on among ourselves, but not with the original mind from which
the records were generated. This, of course, overlooks the supernatural
affinities between minds that one often senses and that seem to appear
with uncanny validations. Judith may have some claim to that, but
otherwise, the records are only triggers and attractors for the ideas we
buiild and possess from our own experiences, most of which are not
separable. Hence any work that gets done, aside from making the records
available, will necessarily involve interpreting beyond the material,
into the material, between the lines, synthesis, analysis, speculation,
comparison, innovation, etc., what the business of science runs on.
Hence, if the list is to have any role beyond simple repetition, it then
becomes an open-ended disciplinary discussion where all ideas related to
the material and the topic or question at hand have legitimacy. In
between these two functions lies the cult syndrome, supernatural
channeling of ideas, religious enshrinement, legitimate memorials, etc.

Just thinking out loud,

John K.

John M wrote:

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



--
© 2004 John J. Kineman
all rights reserved