Re: Anybody?

[John Kineman <***>]

John M.

I would simply tell him that functions are as real as structures and
both have to be taken into account as semi-independent but related
factors when trying to model a system. This, of course, is becoming well
known in some applied science and much of business, where the principles
are being discovered empirically. But the value of Rosen in this context
is that he provides a strong framework for dealing with it as a
fundamental science and linking it to other sciences. There are many
management models that reflect Rosenean principles, but their
theoretical legitimacy can always be questioned because they are not
rooted in more fundamental science. With Rosennean complexity system
design principles being discovered in management turn out to be also
principles of nature. This deeper understanding produces many useful
analogies that can be defended on a more general basis. Look, for
example, at "Iterative Design" (Garajedaghi in the ISSS 1999
proceedings), or perhaps his book "Systems Thinking: Managing Chao and
Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture (Jamshid
Garajedaghi, available from Amazon.com) and some of Russel Akoff's books
on corporation and management (one done with Garajedaghi).

John K.

John M wrote:

> 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
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^