|
Tim,
I think there is a danger inherent in limiting what aspects of
complexity or applications of complexity you want to "allow" on your list in the
manner you've expressed. One of the most fun things about my father, from my
point of view, was the way he could see and make valid connections between
seemingly diverse, unrelated things. In doing so, I learned a great deal about a
wide range of subjects, and developed my own curiosities about many of the
subjects he covered, which I may not have ever been exposed to if not for this
tendency of his. It was how he looked at the world, which explains some of why
he was able to do what he did in science.
Secondly, if he had tried to stick to a "purely scientific"
milieu, he would have done things very differently. For example, he would
have turned down Robert Hutchins' offer to spend a year at the Center For
the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, which would have had a
major impact on the subsequent development of his work. Going to such a
different realm and participating in the problems they were trying to answer had
a profound effect on his scientific development, which he discusses at length in
his book, "Anticipatory Systems". In fact, he gives that year credit for
provoking his major epiphany about the unique integration of multiple
aspects of TIME into the organization of living
systems.
So it would be wise to err on the side of tolerance regarding
subject matter. Frankly, I see a great deal of relevancy in any topic where
decisions based on a reductionist paradigm are causing serious problems and side
effects, or not leading to any real understanding of the systems being
addressed. That means global climate, medicine, and even the economic, social,
philosophical, psychological, political realms are all going to have relevance
when it comes to Rosennean Complexity Theory as a whole. These things are all
connected.
Judith
|