Re: Getting to know you

Hey John,

I don't want you to feel that I'm dodging you. I'm not sure there is a constuctuve way to respond. I don't understand. I still don't know why you are attracted to Robert Rosen's work. What I'm saying is, no, that did not answer my question. It strikes me as almost self-contradictory. Thoreau said, "Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself."

If someone were to ask me why I was attracted to Robert Rosen's work. I would probably go slowly and carefully with the telling. Trying to making sure I got it right for myself. I don't think I would do it, prima vista.

David

----- Original Message -----

From: jamikes

To: ***

Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 9:58 PM

Subject: Re: Getting to know you

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

----- Original Message -----

From: David Macy

To: ***

Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:52 PM

Subject: Getting to know you

Hey John,

Why are you attracted to Robert Rosen's work?

David