Re: BioTheory launch

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Hi John,

I'm in Niagara-On-The-Lake (in Ontario, Canada) right now, and will be home tomorrow 
night, but I managed to get internet access and found this message. Sorry for any delay 
in replying.

I understand your concerns, and I will reflect on them further when I get home. However, 
I think there are a few considerations that should become part of the discussion. I have 
certain freedoms that scientists (including my father!) didn't/don't have: I'm not a 
scientist. I'm also not "selling" anything (in monetary terms) where the journal is 
concerned. I'm making a point with the title. It's a point that desperately needs to be 
made-- and made in an emphatic manner-- because it's the one point that has not gotten 
through to most people in science and in fields using "complexity theory": My father's 
work concludes that there is no way to proceed further in the Newtonian/Cartesian 
(mechanist/reductionist) paradigm in science and arrive at further truth. There is no way 
to add modifications to the old paradigm to make it more accurate. It is the very 
foundations of that paradigm which his work revokes. The only uses of the old paradigm 
are in simple systems, but the old paradigm itself asserts that IT is the paradigm of 
general systems in the universe. Do you see what I'm getting at here?

Yes, the full title I chose for BioTheory is provocative; that is deliberate. People need 
to be provoked out of the complacency that threatens to swallow us whole, as a species. 
If science is being used for every aspect of human endeavor and industry (and I believe 
it is) then that science MUST be organized around an accurate reflection of the Laws of 
Nature, as my father called them. The Newtonian/Cartesian paradim is too flawed in its 
accuracy to be the basis for such an important platform or foundation. 

I'll discuss this with you further after tomorrow, but I wanted to get back to you, and 
also to open up the discussion to the Rosen list folks, because the initial concerns 
about the title (when it was going to be simply "BioTheory") arose from that forum. There 
is also a chance that the journal may be picked up by Virginia Commonwealth University as 
part of their family of journals, in which case it will have a firmer setting than I am 
able to provide. Discussions are underway with one of my father's PhD students who is a 
professor at VCU. I'd like to know what opinions you guys all have, if any, on that 
prospect-- would it be a positive or a negative? I would retain control and veto power, 
but would not necessarily be running it. This could be a good thing-- given how 
overloaded I am and how weak my organizational skills are in general!

Regards,
Judith 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Kineman <***>
Sent: Aug 31, 2004 8:27 PM
To: Judith Rosen <***>
Subject: Re: BioTheory launch

Judith,

I'm a little concerned about your journal title. I saw it too late to 
comment.

In general it isn't a good idea to establish a science agenda around one 
person's work by name. I did a quick search on the words "Einstein" and 
"Journal" and didn't find one devoted to Einstein's theories as such.  
There is an "Albert Einstein Society" mostly composed of information 
about the man and no research agenda as such. There are medical centers 
and other buildings named after him, Institutes, etc. This is in the 
memory and spirit of Einstein, but the scientific journals are titled 
according to the subject they intend to explore, maybe subjects he 
invented, but they always get a generic name, not his. We don't think so 
much about Einstein physics, as a recognized subject worthy of its own 
journal and different from other physics. If you do that, then you 
actually separate the field of physics generally from Einstein, whereas 
he advanced the field, he didn't bifurcate it. It is why I preferred to 
find a name that described the new entity.
 
Von Bertalanfy, for example, invented "General Systems Theory." It will 
always be associated with him as a founder. But the scientific field, 
names of journals, etc. will refer to GST, not Von Bertalanffyism.

I also searched on "Darwin" and "Journal" and did not find any journals 
dedicated to Darwin's ideas. Many invoke his legacy, but they name their 
subject by the name of the subject, not the person. Unless it is a 
biographical mission, or the name has become part of the English 
language, like Darwin has. "Darwin Magazine" for example, is about 
business. It is using the word "Darwin" as a trade concept because it 
has permeated the culture so much and is synnonymous with "survival of 
the fittest"  - an outmoded and incorrect business idea, but that's 
another story. But even this is not about researching Darwin's theories 
- its applying them as a Gospel.

There's a Journal of evolution, a Journal of Molecular Evolution  - none 
dare limit the field to Darwin's original concepts.

There is no "Journal of Von Neumann Complexity" (ha ha).

There are Societies named after people, and foundations. There is a 
"Mendelian Society of Lund" and there's an "Albert Einstein Society" but 
these are clubs, not scientific journals for continuing research.

I think you have to identify the field that Robert Rosen launched.

You didn't like "functional complexity" and I admit it might be too 
segregating.  "Relational Complexity" might be a good option, or back to 
Rashevsky's "Relational Biology" which RR says he was following..

Also, I wouldn't say "general science" -- its too general. General 
systems would at least be somewhat more paradigmatic.

My vote: "BioTheory: A journal of research in (a) relational biology"    
or (b)  "relational complexity." or (c) "biological complexity"

The first option, relational biology, would encourage papers about 
biology, whereas the second would encourage papers about theory of 
complexity. The third could attract both.

The legacy can and should be explained in the prefacing materials, tying 
it to Rosen.

John K.

Ayten Aydin wrote:

>Dear Judith,
>
>My views on your three points:
>
>1. New deadlines are realistic; a short call for papers with some highlights
>is needed;
>
>2. Your papers will be very helpful to launch the idea in an orderly manner
>and thus the journal you have in mind; for this matter early distribution of
>your abstracts gives an insightful direction to the rest.
>
>3. How about "Bio-theory according to Robert Rosen"?
>
>Good luck,
>Ayten
>
>P.S. Conference went very well with usefull give and take. I presented four
>papers of which two are very close to our new topic in the horizon
>(interdisciplinarity/complexity/time/entropy&syntropy/ operating within
>realms above physicality/ art in action). Some of the ideas therein may be
>included in my paper as they relate ( copy rights of papers per se are
>surrendered).
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
>To: <***>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:37 PM
>Subject: Re: BioTheory launch
>
>
>  
>
>>Hi Ayten,
>>
>>You raise several important issues.
>>
>>The first:
>>    
>>
>>>that one month is too short also because many may be on leave these
>>>      
>>>
>days.
>  
>
>>>Perhaps an abstract or an annotated outline could be done within the
>>>deadline you suggest.
>>>      
>>>
>>Hmmm, I guess you have a point there. How does Sept 30th for an abstract,
>>sound, with December 30th as a final deadline? That way, I can launch the
>>page, with something besides my own stuff... And January first is a good
>>official "birthday" for the inaugural issue to be published.
>>
>>Which brings me to the second important thought you raised:
>>    
>>
>>>I am wondering if you could right your own paper in the form of a story
>>>      
>>>
>or
>  
>
>>>the like within your artistic abilities, inspired by the bio-theory
>>>      
>>>
>and/or
>  
>
>>>complexity theory perceived by your father.
>>>      
>>>
>>Yes, I intend to. I have two papers in mind: One based entirely on my
>>father's work, which just serves to bring all his conclusions about TIME
>>into one coherent written narrative; The other will be mine.
>>
>>The next important issue you raised was this one:
>>    
>>
>>>I am, however, wondering if bio-theory or bio-science may be grouped
>>>together under the conventional science as one of its sub-sector,
>>>      
>>>
>whereas
>  
>
>>it
>>    
>>
>>>must be beyond it by content and definition to my mind.
>>>      
>>>
>>Oh, I agree totally. I think the reason my father chose that name,
>>"BioTheory", was because of his strong opinion that the kind of systems
>>biology deals with (intense complexity) are a vast resource from which we
>>can learn a great deal about perhaps everything else. The lessons living
>>systems can teach us inform our investigations into every other aspect of
>>reality, and his entire life's work (Rosennean Complexity Theory) is the
>>reason he believed that. "Biology CAN inform Physics," he said.
>>
>>It may be true that the name will limit, in future, what people think it
>>    
>>
>is
>  
>
>>about. If I were creating a scientific journal, purely as my own idea, and
>>    
>>
>I
>  
>
>>wanted it to be a general scientific journal (as I want this to be), then,
>>truthfully, I would come up with a different name. The situation here is
>>that the name BioTheory was my father's name for his own subscription
>>service/journal and the only reason I would launch a scientific journal at
>>all is because of him. So I have an emotional attachment to this name that
>>is not logical. (I guess it's that whole "you are becoming a mother to
>>    
>>
>your
>  
>
>>father's ideas" thing.... some wise lady said that to me a while back...)
>>
>>Possible solutions to the problem would be to lengthen the name. Just off
>>the top of my head, I suggest something like "BioTheory: A Journal of
>>Science based on Rosennean Complexity Theory" or something that actually
>>    
>>
>has
>  
>
>>Robert Rosen in the name: "Rosennean Science: A Journal based on Robert
>>Rosen's BioTheory"... I'll give it some more thought. But BioTheory has to
>>be part of the name in order for it to be worth my time. (Human beings and
>>their motivations, eh? Totally not related to the subject at hand, but
>>    
>>
>she's
>  
>
>>attached to that name...)
>>
>>Judith
>>PS: Welcome back from the Conference! I hope it went well.
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Ayten Aydin" <***>
>>To: <***>
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:36 AM
>>Subject: Re: [ROSEN] syntropy, Fantappie, taboo, futures
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Judith,
>>>I also support your idea on the bio-theory and studying it within the
>>>concept of TIME, which is becoming important aspect of the complexity
>>>      
>>>
>>theory
>>    
>>
>>>as a whole.
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>



Web address: www.rosen-enterprises.com