Re: von Neumann quote

[James N Rose <***>]

To John M, sorry for the long delay in my reply,
basically because my prior note was directed to Jack,
not you.

For you to imply 'don't discount JvN just because RR
came along with benefit of added development time'
I really didn't mean to do that, just wanted to show that
JvN didn't quite come up to speed as far as RR had taken
things.

Both indeed worked in the same developmental vein,
but had notable uniquenesses.  I discount neither
men's genius.

As far as the sociological generality I hinted to
of having to wrest several prior paradigms firm-grips
on ideas and realities, when one ventures to pioneer,
your and my experiences probably differ, though not by
much.

Sometimes the 'new' is so blatantly obvious that the
old blows away like chaff.  But that doesn't happen that
often.  The 'new' typically has to account for it's
'insubordination' to the established and conventional.

It the darwinian struggle writ conceptual: survival for
survival's sake even when things move inexorably.

I'm sure more than one blacksmith pissed and moaned
about the advancing automobile mania.  Things became
transitively easier when smithies were encouraged to
learn mechanical trades and use their experience to
participate in the transition.  Though doubtless the
generations who chose to remain farriers and similar
are valued for their devotion to old-ways rather than
lose what can't be easily replaced in this internal
combustion world with its fast-lube jobs.

When it comes to pragmatism though, we are still
mathematically jailed in a house not yet suited
to the vision of RR and others (as Jack pointed
out in a Sat, 12 Jun 2004 post here).

There are still details needed, to make the insights
indisputable.

>From my perspective though, fine tuning with elaboration
of the intimacies of hyper-feedback retes in metabolic
biochemistry is not going to be satisfactory to raise
math to the level of perfect open-systemic dynamics.

The math needs a reworking at its most fundamental levels.

Maybe JvN or others would have succeeded given more time,
but I don't see many in the present pool of thinkers
who even recognize the deep necessity for revamping
wholecloth the current body of mathematics.  I only see
high experts pushing asymptotes and not quantum leaping
to the perspective RR presented.

There is so much weight of invented 'traditional paradigm'
math - event lauded chaos nonlinearity - and novel hyper
dimensionality - and non-commutative geometry - that no
one (though some cloistered few perhaps) even identify
the information transforms that umbrella all the above,
and without which RR's vision - and I stake - even the
visions of the General Systems founders, will never be
attained, except in  noble aspirations.

My only intent, in those several postings ago, was to say
that efficient transitioning requires parallel presentation
of the new and empathetic reflection on the old.  I mean,
for better or worse, humanity survived quite functionally
and adequately in the Ptolemeic paradigm.  And my hat is off
to him for his schemata of universe.  He presented shared
essentials of relations that we still use today, only just
not the same combination of them as we use or apply.

The modern resistivity and tendency to say: all value or
no value, is sad and pathetic, if potentially cruel in
that it doesn't allow for adaptive blossoms sometimes.

Scientists who play king-of-the-hill instead of
raise-our-shared-plateau, are victims of darwinian
politics writ academic.  Too bad.

But that's life and open systems I suppose - vulnerable
to many trends whims and patterns.  :-)

Jamie
06/14/04