Re: The Goal of this List

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Kevin et al,

In regards to this thread as a whole, I largely concur with what has been
said already by Judith, Jamie, Jack, JohnM and JohnK, so I see no need to
restate their remarks. Kevin, I want to address your specific question:

> 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?

The problem with a word like 'dissenting' is that it is too unspecific:
dissenting from what? I consider that the common currency of this list is
the paradigms and ideas expressed by Rosen, as we have them in his writings
(and in Judith's first-hand accounts). Interpreting those writings certainly
can be difficult and has fostered (and will likely always foster) dissimilar
and dissenting views, but they all essentially take place within that common
currency. Likewise, discussions that seek to advance these ideas rest on
this common currency even if at the same time they seek to stretch outward.
However, if by "dissenting" is meant a view that does not inhere in this
common currency, then it strikes me that presenting these ideas within this
list is largely a moot or unproductive exercise.

For the latter type of 'dissent', I stated previously that I feel that there
is a need for a discussion list or forum on the internet which is more
broadly-based in concept, which might accomodate views different from,
and/or meta to, any particular paradigm. As JohnK pointed out, if such a
list is too open-ended, that can be problematic, because of the lack of
common ground - the lack of some common currency for that list. Defining the
goal or mission statement for that list will require alot of thought. If it
is his desire, I'd like to see JohnK pursue that list. Jack's idea of topic
maps and "augmented storytelling" may also show another possible avenue for
having disparate ideas and paradigms be related without having to be
restricted to today's discussion list structures.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Kevin
> de Laplante
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 12:35 PM
> To: ***
> 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