Re: The Einstein issue of Discover Magazine, syntropy

[Judith Rosen <***>]

John M.

I thought I WAS being nice.

The question is, what is a "discussion"? I could have simply told Dan how
much I appreciated his post, and left it at that. What would have been
learned or gained or achieved in terms of a comparison to Robert Rosen's
work? This is a "discussion list" and it's about "Rosen". So, I continued
the discussion by making observations and comparisons, and while it's true
that I was honest, I was also "nice". Why wouldn't I be? Antonella Vannini
seems to be doing important work and I respect her.

I'm not interested in converting people, as if this were a religion. I was
talking about logic! I don't see Antonella Vannini as being a member of any
"oppositional camp"; she's clearly interested in studying how anticipation
works in natural systems. I expressed the opinion that reading Anticipatory
Systems would help her and I discussed my reasons why.

Respect and consideration for another human being's feelings are essential
and I generally apply that principle to everything that I do and everything
that I write, unless I'm given really pressing reasons to go to my alternate
rules... However, nothing is gained in science when truth is sacrificed for
political expediency. So, while the truth ought to be expressed with that
very same respect and consideration I mentioned, it ought to still be
recognizable as the truth. You may argue that "truth" is in the eye and mind
of the beholder, and I agree. I did not make my statements anonymously,
therefore the "truth" I'm referring to is clearly labeled.

When it comes to my father's work, if I ever have to choose between "nice"
or "honest", I choose honest. Under most circumstances, I don't think it's
necessary to choose one or the other; it is possible to be BOTH.

Judith Rosen


> Judith, just be nice and careful. Antonella seemingly made no connection
to
> RR (if she ever heard about him) and "Italians" (as all of us) are
> chauvinistic about their national heroes, especially if they published so
> early. A 'strongly informing' statement could push her in denial and we
> don't need strengthening of the oppositional camp.
> *
> The topic is 'out' for me: I am opposed to the artefact "entropy" so the
> inverse of it is no joy for me either.
> *
> The 2nd law is the product of 'sweat' to explain premature observations
> during an age of flimsy information about the world (eg. it preceded the
> RR-ideas <G>) and the subsequent epistemic enrichment resulted in
amendments
> of the sacrosanct "law" with its
> prodigy:called 'entropy' 2+ centuries ago. Everything was 'fitted' into
this
> view (and matched to its applied math).
> No subsequent sci. establishment allowed a fresh (basic) look.
>
> This (*) is my opinion and I don't defend it. Like it or leave it.
>
> Cheers
>
> John M
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 9:25 AM
> Subject: Re: The Einstein issue of Discover Magazine, syntropy
>
>
> > Luigi Fantappie's "syntropy" definitely does sound like a way to descibe
> > what happens in Anticipatory systems....
> ----Truncated to protect the Archive------
>