[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Reductionist model



Tim,
thanx for the note. I take it from the ubiquitous silence (as experienced to many of my notes to this list about model- and redux-related topics) about the details I wrote that they are not objected to. Which gives me a big relief. I use common sense and my own understanding. I want to better understand RR, but that does not mean any planned conversion of mind, only a consider-able maybe.
*
BTW your other post (explanatory to the list):
Consider accepting some (not hostile, but scientifically well crafted) disagreements to RR-ideas as well. Here, the listers, well versed in Rosenism would know how to address those, better than let them just harangue in places where many did not even hear the RR name.
*
Third (to reduce your cost<G>):
I agree with Arno, I did not find 'that kind' hostility in Pattee's writings either. But, I didn't have the background and the sensitivity for such either (like eg. Judith).
 
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Gwinn
To: ***
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Reductionist model

JohnM,
 
Thanks for the clarification. I had a feeling you had your own particular meaning that you intended by it which was not as Howard made it sound.
 
Regards,
Tim
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***On Behalf Of John M
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 12:13 PM
To: ***
Subject: Reductionist model

SNIP