Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: RR-centric "Process"
Definition?
Hi Pete,
Any definition we find, in my father's work, is going
to be a context-dependent definition. That is as true for the word "process"
as it is for any other word he would ever have felt was important enough to
define or was different enough in his usage, or whatever. So right there, you
have a variable. I can promise you that if he was still available for you to
ask him this question ("What is your definition of the word
Process?") directly, he would say, "What's the context you are using it
in?" and then he would define it in that context for
you.
If you were to ask him to define the word, with the
specified context being the generalities of his body of ideas
(Rosennean Complexity Theory), then I believe I know what his definition
would be:
Biological systems are replete with "processes".
SNIP
So the definition for "process" in biological (living) systems is
quite different from the definition for the process used for making
baklava.
Snip
Does that help?
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 8:42
PM
Subject: [ROSEN] RR-centric "Process"
Definition?
Howdy Folx:
It's
been a long time since I've been able to keep up with my reading of posts to
the list -- let alone post anything -- owing to the fact that the next phase
of my research is fully funded and I've been fully immersed in the work
since February.
I'm writing to ask a favor of all ye denizens of
RR-space. I've searched in vain for a semantically precise definition of the
noun "process" anywhere in RR's, Rapoport's, or von Bertalanffy's works (the
ones I have, at least), but no go. At this point, I'd be delighted to find
any definition -- whether general or domain-specific -- that provides
me with a comprehensive perspective other than my own.
(I found an example of a domain-specific definition in Rapoport's General System Theory, p.
82:
stochastic process -- a sequence of events
governed by certain probability laws
That's not
particularly helpful, actually...at least not for purposes of inferring
Rapoport's general definition of
"process", which in this case might presumably reduce to:
process -- a sequence of
events
I doubt that such a general definition would be completely
satisfactory to Rapoport. In any case, it's not satisfactory to me as a
useful general definition of
process.
Here's my question:
Does anyone know of a general definition of "process"
anywhere within RR's work, or at least somewhere within his antecedent or
subsequent ideological flowstream? If a general definition isn't known, I
would be grateful for any references to definitions of a domain-specific
nature.
I have my own, of course, but
I'd like to check my perspective against those of more expert
minds...ideally,
RR's.
Thanks!
Pete