Re: Fw: [COMPLEX-M] CFP: Coping with Complexity, Workshop, 16/17 September 2004 (Bath, UK)

[Ionel <***>]

Dear John M:

What I wrote in my sentences that you quoted, and that are reproduced
below, are nothing more than a possible explanation of why the "Complexity"
future meeting might not address real issues of Rosennean complexity. They
cannot, and should NOT be construed in any way as either a criticism of
what you wrote, or as a personal criticism. It is clearly neither of the
two. I made it perfectly clear that I am in full agreement with what you
wrote, and I did not attribute you any of the sentences that I wrote to
you. There was NO personal remark addressed to you whatsoever in my
comments, except about the fact that I had to change Complexity
into "Complexity" in your reference, to make clear that the term did not
mean what it claimed it did in the title of the meeting.
Hope this clears the misunderstanding that inadvertently occurred.

Regards and peace,

Ionel

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:19:57 -0400, John M <***> wrote:

>Dear Ionel,
>I follow my principle to be scientifically truthful and honest.
>I am at a loss which sentence of mine looked like:
>">...some people like complications  for the sake of complication ,
>>especially when they are less than genius level, 'pure' >mathematicians."<
>I appreciate quite a few "pure mathematicians" as geniuses and as far as I
>know I did not write about "complications".
>I mentioned "complicated structures".
>
>Also: I don't recall (re-read in my post below?) any
>>...inserted quotes around "Complexity"<
>if there is anything you claim as "yours" I accept it and acknowledge your
>authorship. The words I used are the regular expressions used by Judith, me
>and others on this list and also elsewhere, for years. (Could you be more
>specific?)
>Knowingly I never did or will commit plagiarism.
>
>Thanks for the agreement with my position
>John Mikes
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ionel" <***>
>To: <***>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 9:40 PM
>Subject: Re: Fw: [COMPLEX-M] CFP: Coping with Complexity, Workshop, 16/17
>September 2004 (Bath, UK)
>
>
>> I agree with John M. completely: this seems to be the norm, maybe even
in.
>> or at, Santa Fe. I was surprised to find on the web under "Higher
>> Dimensional Automata" that some cellular automatons claim " to simulate
>all
>> life...", etc. Obviously they didn't bother to read either Robert's "Life
>> Itself"  or his "Essays... " As John M. says some people like
>complications
>> for the sake of complication , especially when they are less than genius
>> level, 'pure' mathematicians.
>>
>> Ionel
>>
>>
>> Please note that the inserted quotes around "Complexity" are mine! Hope
>> John M. doesn't mind?!
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:02:36 -0400, John M <***> wrote:
>>
>> >Appeared on another ("Complexity") list. Short notice, but maybe
>> >some listers want to contribute a position in RR's views. It seems the
>> >organizers have the 'conventional complicated structures' in mind and
>think
>> >in computerized limited models, even restricting them further (by
>> >'abstraction') to simplify the problems.
>> >I don't know if they accept sent-in papers from people not going to Bath
>UK
>> >in September? I just saw the call an thought about the RR position
>missing
>> >in the writeup.
>> >It does not look like "THE" top cpnference of the century.
>> >Just FYI
>> >
>> >John Mikes
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "Anne Bruseberg" <***>
>> >To: <***>
>> >Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:21 AM
>> >Subject: [COMPLEX-M] CFP: Coping with Complexity, Workshop, 16/17
>September
>> >2004 (Bath, UK)
>> >
>> >
>> >> WORKSHOP CALL - UNIVERSITY OF BATH - 16/17 September 2004
>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Coping with complexity: sharing new approaches for the design of
>> >> human-computer systems in complex settings.
>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> The use of interactive information and communication technologies is
>now
>> >> thoroughly ingrained in society, but the complexity of their role is
>> >> constantly changing, and deepening.  The complexity of the interplay
>> >between