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

[John M <***>]

Ionel, thanks for your post, I really did not want to raise a capital case
(nuclear war?).  My idea was that since this conference IS misunderstanding
those aspects we are working with (RR), maybe someone from the list could
inject our ideas in those minds.
I just received news about another meeiting "Complex04"
in Cairns in December for which a (non Rosean) friend prepares papers with
titles:
*Dynamics of machine translation
*Trapping in an extended 1-d lattice of harmonic potential wells
*Simulation for engineered complex system design
*Domestic gardens seen as complex systems.

Same considerations may apply to 'this' conference, as well.

Regards

John M


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ionel" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [COMPLEX-M] CFP: Coping with Complexity, Workshop, 16/17
September 2004 (Bath, UK)


> 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:
> SNIP