Re: The Einstein issue of Discover Magazine, syntropy

[John M <***>]

Sorry, I have to leave in long precedents.

Dear Judith, you once wrote that you have troubles understanding the lnguage I use. I see it now, how.

> I thought I WAS being nice.<

Of course you WERE, I was referring to your probable contact to Antonella, if you devcide to do so. Nice: meaning not using RR-quotes to begin with, making friends with her first (you are pretty good at that), finding out her positions in the questionable points etc. - I have no intention to teach negotiation here.

 

>I don't see Antonella Vannini as being a member of any
"oppositional camp"; ...<

Nor do I - just pointed to a delicate possibility if she may fear of reducing the appreciation of her compatriot scientist. Maybe I am exaggerating my diplomatic precautions.

 

I don't see your hurtful retort warranted. I had no such thing in mind - or as far as I know - in my words either - to get a teaching.

I agree totally with your last paragraph.

 

(BTW I had no idea that you already HAVE contacted her I had the impression that you plan to).

 

John M

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Judith Rosen" <***>

To: <***>

Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 4:30 PM

Subject: Re: The Einstein issue of Discover Magazine, syntropy

> 
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------
> >
>