Re: Reductionist philosophy

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Arno,

First of all, I left Don's list not because of ideology, but because his
personal style was in my opinion...well...very "gruff"...to put it nicely. I
have no ill will toward Don. I learned alot from him, and if he and I have
honest differences over some interpretations of bits of Rosen's work, I have
no problem with that. I respect his sincerity in his study of Rosen's work.
I continue to maintain links to his website and his discussion group.

I feel that Howard did seriously mischaracterize Rosen, not once, but
repeatedly. Now, you may call it ideology, but when Rosen's own daughter -
who actually knew the man and his work far better that any of us - sees it
also as mischaracterization, then this is a matter not of ideology, but of
truth vs.falsity. So falleth the axe. As for Howard's contributions, our
opinions may differ. I found most of his questions about Rosen's work to be
repetitive attempts to question the basics of the paradigm, with the nature
of many of the questions inconsistent with someone who had such an apparent
lengthy exposure to Rosen and his work. Responding repeatedly to those basic
questions does not advance the work, nor did it seem to convince Howard. So
be it. This list is not here to convince anyone.

This list is about discussing and furthering Rosen's work. The premise in
that is that listmembers have already concluded on their own that they see
merit, logical coherence and consistency in this paradigm and wish to
understand it better and move it forward. If that makes it an ideology in
some peoples eyes, so be it. I make no excuses for that.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Arno
> Goudsmit
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 5:00 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Reductionist philosophy
>
>
> Tim, I remember your step to start with this list, after you
> apparently did not feel too well treated in another list. Now you
> have become your own listowner, and someone seems to violate the
> concept of your list. I wonder why ideology is always winning the
> game in these matters. I really found Pattee's contributions very
> bright and stimulating. Kicking him out seems to me as burning
> one's own library, for the sake of straightforwardness (getting
> rid of all those nasty and mindshaking books).
>
> I don't need a Rosen cultus in order to admire his work; I do
> need a critical appraisal, not in order to condemn him, but in
> order to relate his work to those who partially disagree with
> him, or even to those opposite to his ideas.
>
> To those interested I include below a part from our exchange on
> this list on april 29, 2004. Indeed, there we found a small
> dividing line between a critical understanding of the writings
> and of the ideas presented by Rosen on the one hand, and on the
> other hand a critical study of the topics and subject matters
> themselves, as hinted at by those writings and ideas.
>
> This line is strict, indeed. We can study Pythagoras' cosmology
> in order to clarify what he had in mind, without a need to
> disagree with it. Personally I like to do both: to see what a
> person, dead or alive, has in mind, and to see whether or not I
> can agree. If I want to understand someone, I want to keep my own
> thoughts, and see where and why they may *commute* with his.
>
> Arno Goudsmit