Re: Reductionist philosophy

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Just to elaborate a bit on my earlier comments with a thought I had in mind
but didn't include:

> 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.

There are, as an example, several forums for discussing topics such as
Einstein's relativity. Some of these forums admit or even encourage the
discussion of alternate  theories to explain the same phenomena, possible
problems with Einstein's specific formulations, or even arguments why the
phenomena needs no such theory as relativity. Other forums are interested in
taking relativity as established by Einstein, understanding it better, and
moving forward with it to see what kinds of phenomena and consequences can
be accounted for or predicted using that theory. Sometimes these kinds of
forums will explicitly warn potential subscribers that it is not a forum for
promoting alternate relativity theories or the like. I would not consider
the latter type of forums to thereby be ideologically closed or the
subscribers to be 'disciples' of Einstein in any sense - there is simply a
different list focus with a different set of presuppositions as the basis
for the discussions. Likewise, this list falls more toward the latter kind
of list focus and the accompanying similarity in presuppositions; because
here also, the goal is to take Rosen's work and move it forward. But since
there is such a limited number of forums for discussing Rosen, I think this
list, as a practical matter, has to provide a little accomodation for
alternate views re Rosen; but by and large if this is to be a forum about
Rosen - rather than some generic complexity or theoretical biology list -
and move ahead on that premise, then it must generally assume the
presuppositions of that work in order to make progress.

Regards,
Tim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Tim
> Gwinn
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 5:55 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Reductionist philosophy
>
>
> 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