I see that after the ISSS sessions you have a renewed
enthusiasm to assume a more active role in encouraging all who
were so far operating linearly within established mechanistic and certainly
materialistic systems. Economists are at the top of this list. They are usually
find it difficult to go out of their well-established relatively
simple systems. They operate within a close circuit, with some not
necessarily helpful deviations. The concept of complexity, in the first instance
to include humanistic and ecological considerations into their hard
to balance equations, which are still managed by prevailing hard economic
growth criteria, is to find its way into their thinking process, first.
Perhaps your initiative with the active participation of those who are
adequately enlightened and see the need could take us and the rest to
inventing more equilibrated and time and space sensitive diverse economic
systems. It may only then defeat the mis-conception of growth and development
spreading quickly all over the world. Perhaps it is not too late, especially
recent human made catastrophs made people suspicius and opened new horizons
in their minds. The Humanity is now mature enough to understand the concept
of complexity from their everyday experiences and will be willing to accept the
challenge to expand their world views.
Congradulations for your new effort.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:35
AM
Subject: Re: Anybody?
Hi John M.
I would be happy to talk to Buck. Would you give him my email and
ask him to write me? You don't have his email listed on this post or I would
consider writing directly to him.
As it happens, I have had several economists get in touch with me
from around the planet this year so far. Apparently, in doing searches on both
complexity and social systems science, they managed to find my father's work.
Trying to forecast the behavior of various sectors in global economic
systems was driving each one of them to look for more "scientific" modes of
analysis. Because complex organization was my father's "diagnosis" of the
general nature of systems in this universe, and because complex organization
has enormous similarity across type of system (meaning that organization and
behavior of complex systems is not dependent on what the parts are made out
of), my father's work is the lone beacon that is based on principles that hold
up to both logic and common sense. I have already put economists on my "list"
of professions which are in dire need of a "translation" of some of my
father's writings. They are in good company with medical personnel, computer
systems specialists, and political scientists, among others. One of the things
I'm working on are "reading guides" to my father's work, geared towards each
of the discipline areas on my list. I'm hoping that the combination of getting
my father's original works back in accessible form and offering companion
writings of my own that make the original works more absorbable will
help.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 4:30
PM
Subject: [ROSEN] Anybody?
On another list I mentioned RR and received
the included reply (I insert my post as well). I am NOT the person to
'teach' about RR and his books are
disattractive to many in not the proper domain. (I could not read them
either).
The list (as is Buck) is mostly
composed of management consultants pursuing the complexity-related ways -
not in Rosen-terms.
Anybody wants to give hints what to read, or
even hints what Rosenism could be concentrated into for econo-people? (a
personal e-mail to Buck may trickle down into the list). No deterrent communications, please! I
wouldn't use to them "impredicative", "Turing non-computable", or
"anticipatory" etc.
^^^^^^^^^
John,
Very interesting. Could you share more about Robert Rosen's
ideas? This
is news to me.
Buck
On Jul 16, 2004, at 4:46 PM, John M
wrote:
> Buck,
> time for my paraphrasing - I hope it won't
annoy the list. [You wrote]:
>> ..." the implicate order drives
living things,..."<
> Order (at Bohm) is 'our knowledge' as we
developed it of a system.
> Implicate is the 'not yet(?) discovered'
part of nature which gets
> gradually into the explicate (really:
order). So to understand 'living'
> things we have to reach to the
still unknown to understand. All our
> 'implications' (intended pun)
are premature, - we assume...
>
> I don't take Bohm's 40+ year
old statements at face value within the
> 'new' image just getting
developed. They are good foundations.
> With ideas of Robert Rosen and
some very agile younger active minds on
> the market, the wholistic
(my _expression_ for complexity) business is in
> full fleurishing. Hard
to follow, because we have not even adequate words
> (without
historical ambigue loads attached).
>
> John M
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^