Re: The Goal of this List

[John M <***>]

Judith,
you are kind, I am not. Exceptions and objections.
>"Some people think they see inconsistency because they try to >take an
excerpt out of context and use the definitions he was >using inside that
context as "general" definitions. <
There are more who simply use their own "meanings' for the expressions and
it does not make sense to them. Example: at the ominous I. Intern'l
Complexit Symp Nashua NH/97, (where Don made a "Rosen-Dinner" for his
lecture, since the topic was  excluded from the Symp. by the organizers) an
ingenious MIT professor said in his inaugural teaching talk: complexity of
an  airplain is the number of blueprints it requires. Now how would this man
relate to Anticipatory? or as I misunderstood the term anticipation?

I think a primary task would be a comprehensive RR-Glossary.
Not only for chapter titles, also for functions and ideas.
I wonder if we could bring it together collectively? (I doubt).
Including yourself (that was nasty!) Unless you got from your father the
reasons as well, why saying this way and not that way, which e.g. would fit
a person educated in another reductionist principle.  I could sense his
agony to include in his readership the differently "talking" audience as
well. This is why I first objected to certain "reductionistic" signs in his
complexity.


John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: The Goal of this List


> John M.
>
> I think you are right on track. Thanks.
>
> My only qualification would be that, because of certain aspects to the way
> my father wrote his ideas down, it can be very difficult to ferret out the
> consistency which is there, underlying the entire body of work. Some
people
> think they see inconsistency because they try to take an excerpt out of
> context and use the definitions he was using inside that context as
> "general" definitions. That doesn't always follow. I had long discussions
> with him about this very complaint, in fact. It used to throw me off, when
I
> first began trying to read his books and I had to learn how to navigate
his
> idiosyncracies in language in his books-- which were radically different
> from his use of language in casual conversation. I was used to his spoken
> usage patterns.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that I see a definite need for
clarification
> in some of his work, particularly for any audience who isn't right at my
> father's level of math, science, history, and imagination (like an M.D. or
> an environmental legislator). I was lucky enough to have Robert Rosen
> guiding me through the concepts, over decades, as he was generating the
> concepts. The older I got, the easier it was for him to discuss new
concepts
> with me because each phase of the earlier work laid the foundations for
the
> subsequent ones. It just doesn't seem right to hoard what I know about the
> work, any more than it would be right to hoard the work itself after he
> died. As you said; it doesn't do anybody any good as a museum exhibit.
>
> Judith
>