|
Hi Arno,
I both understand and empathize with your position. In fact, I
share your approach to learning. I will do my best to help in any way possible
with regards to what I know about my father's work and with access to material
whenever possible, as well. I have no problem with honest criticism of the work,
or with different/differing ideas. My problem is only with someone
impugning my father's character as a mode for discrediting the work. In my
opinion, that is what Howard Pattee has been doing.
I have to say that I don't think it is fair to compare what Tim has
done with the reasons he left Don Mikulecky's list. In fact, the two situations
are almost total opposites: Don M. as list owner was abusive to people who
disagreed with him. Here, a subscriber was being abusive towards the man the
list is about, and it was particularly scurrilous because my father considered
that man a friend in life, never realizing that he had so alienated Howard with
the direction that his work was taking him that Howard would harbor such
hostility.
It may not be apparent to those on the list just how subtle and
subversive the misinformation was, but it was clear to me for some
time now. On occasion, Howard's hostility was actually useful to me
because it required me to delve into areas of my father's work that I hadn't
spent as much time in, however, the need to constantly go back over old
arguments was beginning to wear me down.
Plus, it's just so petty and unnecessary. Why do people spend any
time out of their lives in such unhappy pursuits? It's a waste of spirit. I do
not believe that Howard was subscribing to this list in order to "understand" as
he said, nor do I think he was here to help anyone else
understand Robert Rosen's work. He had perfect access, all those years in
between the collapse of the center in Buffalo and my father's death (1976-1998).
Dad was living in Rochester for two years before he died, Howard was in
Binghamton. He never called, he never visited; it's barely a four hour drive. If
he wanted to understand, why didn't he ask Robert Rosen, himself, when he had
the chance?
Instead, he subscribes to a discussion list about Robert Rosen's
work, after the man has died... and constantly posts barbed criticisms, accusing
my father of all kinds of things like allowing his scientific focus to be
skewed by what? Irritation? Howard called his criticisms "academic
disputation"... I'm not an academic. Dad is not here. You have no idea how much
my father helped that guy. The Pattees lived in our house in Buffalo while Dad
was at Hutchins' Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. When the UB
center collapsed, Dad arranged for a tenured position he'd been
offered at Binghamton to be offered to Howard instead. Dad had already
accepted a job in Halifax because he wanted to get out of the SUNY system and he
felt responsible for Howard because he had brought him to Buffalo. My Mom still
sends Mary Ellen and Howard Pattee a Christmas letter every
year.
So this constant harping, dressed in the guise of a
friend "who enjoyed Robert Rosen's mind, over a brandy..." just
really upsets me. The fact that Tim, who doesn't know me, and didn't know my
father, also saw this behavior tends to lend credence to my claim that
this is not just my imagination. Again, if Howard wanted to know what Robert
Rosen thought and why, how come he didn't get in touch all those years?
My father told me that he rarely was attacked directly anymore, by
the mid-1980's. He said it was much worse when he was younger. But he had
become too good at defending himself and his work. Those who wanted to
damage him did so from behind the scenes; as reviewers for manuscripts or so
forth. Word always seemed to get back to us about it, and it rarely surprised my
father. I think Howard's behavior on this list would have both surprised and
saddened my father a great deal. Speaking for myself, I'm glad Tim unsubscribed
Howard Pattee.
Judith Rosen
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 5:00
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] 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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: ***
Subject:
Re: Reductionist
philosophy
Date: Fri, 4 Feb
2005 07:52:28 -0500
>
> Howard,
>
> Again you
are skewing the point. The point is not the topic of his
>
opinions, but mischaracterizations. I have had enough.
>
> - Subscription revoked -
>
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of
Howard
> > Pattee
> > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 12:54
AM
> > To: ***
>
> Subject: Re: Anticipatory Systems
> >
> >
> >
Tim,
> >
> > I will cease discussing Rosen's opinions of
other scientist's motives and
> > models, fair or not. I can see that
it is not an acceptable topic
> > for your
> > list.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum
[mailto:*** Behalf Of Tim
Gwinn
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 4:59
PM
> To: ***
>
Subject: Re: Reductionist philosophy
>
>
> Howard,
>
> HP:As I
said in my post beginning, I was expressing irritation at Rosen's
>
labeling entire fields of science, whole classes of scientists as well
as
> individual scientists as "reductionists" and criticizing their
research
> strategies. My only point was to suggest that such labeling
should not be
> propagated on Tim's list.
>
> TG: As listowner, I am far more concerned with your
continued attempts to
> propagate mischaracterizations of Rosen on this
list. Again and again, you
> have seeked to paint him as something he is
not, pulling quotes and partial
> quotes out of context and attempting
to draw caricatures about his
> character.
>
> In your previous post, to seriously ask "why not?"
as you did, in regard
> to the positions of Rutherford and Hutchins that
you referenced, I can only
> conclude that either you have not actually
read "Life Itself" or that you
> have little or no understanding of the
book, since that was such a
> fundamental point. As Judith said, your
portrayal entirely missed the point
> of his comparison. In either
case, with that apparent lack of understanding
> of the very beginning
of the book, you are in no position to characterize on
> this list the
man who wrote the book.
>
> My patience is
about at an end, and there is too else much worth
> discussing on this
list to waste time on these tiresome
> mischaracterizations. Subscriber
status is granted or revoked on this list
> at my whim, and I am feeling
mighty whimsical right about now.
>
>
Tim
================================
From: "Arno Goudsmit"
<***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 8:56
AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] The Goal of this List
> Tim, Howard and
others,
> I feel very much ashamed by the mere idea that this might be
the way in
which this list deals with dissident ideas and their owners. Is
this a sect?
> Arno Goudsmit, PhD
>
> ----- Original Message
-----
> From: Tim Gwinn <***>
>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004
09:34:19 -0400
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: The Goal of this
List
>
> > Howard,
> >
> > If you have issues
with Rosen's paradigm and writings, I suggest you
> > unsubscribe
from the list. The premise of the list is based on the
paradigm
>
> he presents therein. Since he continued to promote these views in
spite
of
> > your contact with him as a colleague, then I do not
see that it is
fruitful
> > to try to raise such criticisms now -
at least within this list.
> >
> > Tim
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ROSEN Forum
[mailto:*** Behalf Of
Howard
> > > Pattee
> > >
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 7:20 AM
> > > To: ***
> >
> Subject: Re: The Goal of this List
> > >
> >
>
> > > Tim,
> > > You define the goal of your list
as: the discussion and
> > > advancement of the concepts and work
of theoretical biologist
> > > Robert Rosen.
> >
>
> > > HP: That is worthy goal to which I would like to
contribute, and
> > > I have suggested some current research areas
where Bob?s ideas
> > > might be advanced as well as offered
criticism. The subject is
> > > profound and requires many
approaches. To me advancing Bob?s
> > > ideas does not mean just
interpreting everything Bob has written
> > > as the final word.
History makes clear that advancement of
> > > profound concepts
requires more than hermeneutics. In science at
> > > least, ideas
are highly competitive and without actively engaging
> > > in
dialog with critics and without comparison with alternative
> > >
approaches, any concept will become extinct simply by default.
> >
>
> > > Can anyone think of any accepted scientific concept or
theory
> > > that was born perfect or expressed ideally? Does
anyone know a
> > > theory that did not go through years of severe
critical disputes?
> > > Either the theory died or, in the end,
come out the better for
> > > these disputes.
> >
>
> > > Keep in mind that Bob has himself engaged in severe
(some would
> > > say inflammatory) criticism of the entire fields
of physics and
> > > biology and specific areas of research as
well as ideas of
> > > individuals. This is all very well and part
of the game, but one
> > > would be delusional if one expected Bob
to get a free pass exempt
> > > from response from the scientific
community. Failure to engage in
> > > such critical response by
excluding it from this list would not
> > > in my view contribute
to the advancement of Bob?s ideas.
> > >
> > > Of
course if you disagree, it is your list and your choice. Would
> >
> you prefer that I limit my posts to the points of agreement I
>
> > have with Bob?
> > >
> > > Howard
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
>
> > > From: Tim Gwinn <***>
> > > > Date:
2004/04/21 Wed PM 05:52:27 EDT
> > > > To: ***
> >
> > Subject: The Goal of this List
> > > >
> >
> > JJK wrote:
> > > > > We have to ask first and
foremost why we converse at all, I
> > > mean what is
> >
> > > the goal? The desired outcome?
> > > >
>
> > > The goal on this list is: the discussion and advancement of
the
> > > concepts and
> > > > work of theoretical
biologist Robert Rosen.
> > > >
> > > > I remind
everyone that this forum is not intended as a general
> > >
complexity or
> > > > systems discussion list. Hence it will
have a significant prima
facie
> > > > philosophical bias
toward Rosen's views of science,
> > > epistemology, life
and
> > > > biology. If anyone considers that focus and bias to
be
> > > unacceptable, then
> > > > their time is
not well-spent on this list.
> > > >
> > > > I
think some of this recent discussion has shown that perhaps
> > >
there is the
> > > > need for a more broadly-based
complexity-and-biology discussion
> > > list on the
> >
> > internet. It is not my intention nor my interest to host such
a
list. If
> > > > some wants to start one, I'll offer them
what help I can.
> > > >
> > > >
Regards,
> > > > Tim
> > >
>
|