|
Good question, David.
I will try to compose a prima vista reply
- just as it looks to me without really considering it. I am
the 'oppositional' guy: I came the other way 'round. Started from the
bottoms-up origination from 'nothingness' how that could turn into
'somethingness', and while arguing against physicalistic narratives (Big Bang
etc.) it landed me in an implication of total
(universal) interconnectedness (see in Gestallt, system's theory, complexity of
Bogdanov, the Bohm-style implicate and his philosophy) and then, after all that
I learned about RR who showed similar wholistic ideas - developed top-down from
his mathematical biology into a better wholistic understanding. He performed a
systematic, much more comprehensive ordering than I ever could imagine, by
starting from the unknown - the unfathomable.
On the flipside: I kept my thinking - vague as
it may be - detouched from reductionism, while RR had a hard job to remove
his ideas away
from it.
I regret that I missed at least 5-6 years when I
still could have discussed things with him but I heard his name first in 1997 in
Nashua from Don M. (I started to
"think" after 1987 after ½c. of successful reductionistic polymer
research).
My background and interest did not attract me to
mathematical(ly based) sciences and I never studied the biological family of
topics. It was exciting to find someone at the level of "thinker RR" to arrive
from math-biol at "unlimited cmplx natural systems" and total interconnectedness
of endogenous impredicatives. He came from 'order' and made the unlimited, I
came from the unlimited and try to detect some (nat'l) order.
I think there is much more to it, thank you for
making me speculate on this question.
I learned a lot from the RR talks eventhough I
cannot read his texts and hope to discover untold Rosenite elements
(I am not seeking personal glory: no Mikesite ideas in this 3rd career of mine).
I don't 'learn' RR, I (re)search his work. Is
this an answer to your question?
John M
|