[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: BioTheory launch

Judith,

OK, we can talk later or on the list. I felt these concerns needed to be stated. I certainly like the idea of the journal and the layout looks great. My own point of view, as the "Fred Astaire of opposing views" is to not be so revolutionary in the sense that to embrace Rosennean theory you have to reject the classical paradigm. Part of his discovery is that description of nature requires many modes of description, so it is inherently inclusive. Nothing should hint at it being exclusive, except of "nothing butism," as I saw it called some time ago. In other words it should be exclusive of exclusiveness. In the end, if there is a unified view, it will be a synthesis, I am quite sure. Sensory organisms, such as we are, cannot fully reject the language that derives from sensory perspective, which is what classical measurement is all about. People will still want to talk about "a car" and "a house", even if we know those objects are really abstractions from a larger complex system. I think the great revelation from Rosen is that this necessary and persistent view turns out to be superimposed onto complex nature and not the ontology it was thought to be, or to eventually lead to. This is a very important discovery (R. Rosen didn't discover this, of course, but he did perhaps the best job so far of explaining and describing it, and providing a path to another view). This is a necessary shift for answering new kinds of questions and some of the old ones that were poorly answered. But many old ones are handled adequately in the mechanistic view, so it is an enlargement of science, not a replacement, much as the revolutions before it.

Beyond that my recommendation is to name the study after the invention not the inventor. I think this is the expactation among scientists, but more than that, I'm thinking it will be a factor in attracting papers to the journal. I am afraid people will avoid it if it is explicitly named after one person's work. Nevertheless, I fully agree that the journal should accept only papers about the new paradigm - that is what it is about. I think this is usually done in the bylaws and implemented by the Editor or editorial board.

With all support and humility,
John K

Judith Rosen wrote:

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