Re: Maps, models, and anticipatory control mechanisms...

[John M <***>]

OK,Judith, so we are in agreement ...

What I dissent about is a mix of positions.
You father was a wise, experienced scientist who knew his profession and the
ways his 'professional collegues' think (do business).
He spoke about them and he also spoke about his own ideas. The two ways are
different and I doubt if we separate them sufficiently.

RR's analysis of reductionsitc (scientific) modeling etc. is NOT Rosenism.
He also invested a lot of braingrease into mathematical argumentations, the
only kind the ongoing scientific establishment acknowledges with credit,
while in his OWN system the lesser mathematical impredicativity and
Turing-incomutability lurked.
There is a fine line and in his writings he spent most of the effort to
"get" (to?) the audience, to induce a concord towards HIMSELF to get credit
for the unusual what he was up to say.
He started out (and was indeed to his last day) a mathematically trained
biologist, as the first level of his scientific mental domain.
This is an important point why I honor him: to become independent from his
college brainwashing and establish a wholistic system in such depth and
clarity. Indeed a rare scientific schizophrenia.

My idea of the topic of this list is the pioneer-domain of RR, not his
analysis of "the other systems", however important that, too, may be. His
analyses have a "Rosenesque" flair, the aspects are not the conventional
ones, yet IMO it is not what I am looking at as the novelty callable
"Rossenism.
Copernicus did not want to 'fit' into an amended Ptolemyism. The
impredicative wholeness is not an amended version of reductionstic science
models. It is a worldview which has a lot to advance until it can ever serve
for practical results. We, pioneer-helpers, have a lot to do in achieveng
any step forward. Not on the basis of the past.

I may be too radical, but I sever myself from my past polymer and colloidal
sciences when I think in unlimited natural systems (aka - wholeness).  I
have no responsibility to my reductionist past. No
pertinent books, no pupils in the conventional avenues. No job.
Easy for me

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Maps, models, and anticipatory control mechanisms...


> > John M. wrote: Your explanations about maps etc. fits perfectly my
> distinction of the
> > reductionist meaning of sets, maps, territorries, - well, also sciences,
> > systems, organizations, - even entire topics --all as reduced from the
> > totality (wholeness).
>
> Yes, it was intended so. Maps are about reducing some real environment
down
> to an image on paper or some alternate facsimile. And you are very much in
> concert with Rosennean Complexity Theory in saying that (my paraphrase):
in
> the natural world, "systems" and their "contexts" are intextricably
> connected. It is science that has to delineate such things as "systems"
and
> "contexts". But, just because we break things down in order to study them,
> doesn't mean we have to brainwash ourselves into believing that things
> really ARE that way outside of scientific study. That was my father's
basic
> message on the seductive danger of reductionistic approaches. A big part
of
> "doing science" as my father put it is "map/model making" but it's
important
> to keep mindful of the fact that what we're modeling isn't nearly as
limited
> as our models. In that way, perhaps better ways of modeling-- that don't
> feed misconceptions about the natural world, can be created.
>
> Judith
>