----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: about Robert Rosen's
work
Draer Judith,
I am afraid I was not clear enough, since
you wrote:
"I share in your frustration over the lack of accessibility to
the original work..."
when you refer to the availability of the RR
books. My friends - mgmnt consultants, psych profs, advanced (post Q-)
physicists, etc. would not run to read "Biotech" or some math-based biology
thinking - even philosophers would ask for hints before getting interested.
People are lazy and there are so many 'new ways' bombarding a gullible mind...
I am thinking of his 'philosophy' (no matter
how he denied the use this word) underlying his published books, indeed
philippica-s against the reductionist (classical) science-religion. Fighting
general belief systems using new ideas is always an uphill battle and one
has to be cautious how much to disclose of the foundational ideas one wants to
arrive at.
I want to read Robert Rosen's Concepts on
(his) complexity and the enogenous impredicativity. Without any defense
against reductionistic clasical opinions.
I did not address you, because I suppose there
were occasions when you 'heard' him explain 'upcoming' ideas as they developed
over the decades in your childhood and I am not sure that what you got was always the
final version; so your verbal information may occasionally confuse
the innocent bystander (how nice _expression_ for ignorant audience).
This is why I greeted so warmly your decision to 'unearth' RR's findable notes
and make them available.
"... to articulate (for
themselves and for me, if not for the list) which aspects of Robert
Rosen's ideas they feel they are weak in their understanding on."
Here is my reply: "The ones I don't know
about". Hard to specify them.
On another 2 lists there was (is?) a long
debate about a 1st person and a 3rd person
information. Maybe closest to be an accepted version says that 'there is
only a 1st person information' possible, even the 3rd pers. info is absorbed
as interpreted by one's mind and stored (=knlowledge) as the person's 1st
person mindset - mostly different from the accepted info coming from that 3rd
person.
Maybe just a bit different. Maybe
misunderstood. Colored.
Then again who would deem his
own "understanding" as "weak"?
So I am not seeking a bible-school - I am
seeking compositions of "what did Rosen think about - maybe untold" by
scientifically well educated minds who absorbed his ideas and are on the level
of thinking 'one step further'. I definitely do not seek a "better
understanding of his struggles agains reductionist science" in his publications.
Regards
John
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:19
AM
Subject: Re: about Robert Rosen's
work
Hi John M. and list,
I share in your frustration over the lack of accessibility to
the original work. I agree, wholeheartedly, that the original work is
always the best source for those interested in learning more about
these ideas. I promise that I am trying to do what I can from my
end (with limited resources, energy, and time-- all of which are in
demand also for three children (one in college, one in Jr. High School, and
one going into Kindergarten who is physically handicapped), husband, home,
garden, and, finally, my own professional interests and ambitions-- which
come dead last).
Regarding "Life, Itself" and "Essays"... I wish I could
withdraw the publishing contracts from Columbia University Press, because in
my opinion and experience they are absolutely incompetent as a
publishing company, and yet they will not release my father's books from
their roster (I have asked them, more than once). I would love to sue them
to retrieve the publishing rights, but I cannot afford to hire an attorney
to even look into whether it would be feasible. Does anyone know an attorney
who would be willing to do it, pro bono? Failing that, I would be willing to
make photocopies of the book for those who cannot find a copy through
various university library loan channels, and will send it in exchange for
reimbursement of copying and postage, only (no other fee).
Thirdly, you folks still have time to write me papers for the
next edition of BioTheory. Consider this an official request for
submissions. As you all may have noticed, BioTheory is not a traditional
"science journal" and I don't run it in a traditional manner. That is a
strength, not a weakness-- as will become apparent, over time. I hereby
suggest/request that John M. write up his post as a paper, and I would be
happy to print it in the journal. It may be of enormous value to others,
down the line.
In fact, it would be quite useful, I think, for people in
general (and all of those on the list, in particular!!!) to
articulate (for themselves and for me, if not for the list) which
aspects of Robert Rosen's ideas they feel they are weak in their
understanding on. Where are the holes in your various mental tapestries on
Rosennean Complexity? What doesn't make sense to you? This is the kind of
thing I actually can help people with, but I rarely have people come to me
with something that concrete. It's usually a vague: "I think he's on
the right track but..." or "On page somethingorother, the math seems to be
incorrect...".
As I've mentioned before on this list... it isn't
necessary to "do" the math: That's not where the ideas are. It has always
turned out that the math is correct, but the math isn't what he was talking
about. The math didn't generate the ideas. My father used
mathematics as a second language to illustrate and further describe the
ideas, to bullet-proof the ideas, and to show that the ideas do,
indeed, transfer to other applications besides
biology. You might be surprised how many people think they
need to learn category theory in order to read Robert Rosen's books and
it just ain't so.
Regarding the notion of a study companion/compendium of terms,
etc: I'm working on that, as time and energy allow. It's in progress,
already. I will put some of it into BioTheory's next issue, and hope to get
some feedback from people about what else needs to be included. This is also
along the same lines as my question; "What doesn't make sense to
you, so far, in reading Robert Rosen's work?" I confess that I would
love to spend a lot more time on this kind of project, but my working
time is always under assault by the myriad practicalities of life!
I have come to the conclusion that the only reason my father
was able to concentrate on his work and still have a family at all was due
entirely to the fact that he had a practical wife. (I think I need one,
too... but it's not going to happen!) I believe my father's health began to
fail much more quickly once he and my mother separated, and she was no
longer attending to all the details. He was no good at practical details. He
ignored them whenever possible and when one is a diabetic, one really can't
do that without terrible consequences. One also cannot ignore all
practical details when one is a wife and mother, which is my situation, and
I'm only good at managing the details in comparison to my father. But
details really eat up far too much of my time and I resent it. If
anyone has any useful suggestions for how to manage the practical details of
life and still get good work done, I'm all ears.
So, the bottom line is that there are many working projects
underway, but speed isn't really a main priority. Accuracy is. The only
thing that could speed up the process/es would be better funding. Again; if
anyone wants to contribute, I'm happy to discuss the situation in greater
depth. I'd dearly love to hire someone to take some of these
practicalities/details of daily life off my hands so I could spend more of
my time working on these projects. I could also use some serious help in
sorting/cataloguing my father's mountainous reference
library.
Judith Rosen
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:38
PM
Subject: [ROSEN] about Robert Rosen's
work
Skip