|
Judith,
In support of your points on the
above I would like to quote the Philoshopher Colleague's words included
in our joint paper presented to one of the recent conferences we
jointly presented a paper:
" so we must
transform our idea of consciousness in keeping with our transformed perception
of ourselves as Relational Individuals. Our consciousness is not
'self-sufficient' but, rather 'relational' or 'collaborative' ( in its root
sense of laboring together). Collaborative consciousness is mutual,
inter-relational recognition. It affirms differences, dialogue, meditation. its
ethical, social, political, economic consequences -if taken seriously- are
enormous. It is only through Collaborative Consciousness that we begin to build
a new living system inside the present system which is collapsing from
within."
Thus, the potential is great for the wide-range application
of RR's systems' thinking and his theory.
Ayten
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 5:27
PM
Subject: Re: Topic Reminder
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
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 8:51
AM
Subject: [ROSEN] Topic Reminder
To
all,
There are many
other forums and arenas for discussion and debates of politics, policies,
and so on. On this list our concern is the continued
development and applications of Rosen's concepts in science.
Clearly, such applications can often be related
to policies (in the most general sense), and so specific examples
are occasionally helpful as empirical evidence. By and large though,
our list focus is on the science, distinct from any particular policy,
either existing or proposed. Where they intersect, proposed
policies demand as much, if not more, rigor and scrutiny and
skepticism as do existing policies. On this list we endeavor to
utilize and develop the Rosennean paradigm, with its concepts of
epistemology and complexity and modes of analysis, to enhance the
capabilities of science, and thereby hopefully provide reliable and
compelling underpinnings for both scientific knowledge and its
applications.
Regards,
Tim
|