Re: Getting to know you, contradictions

[jamikes <***>]

Dan,
thanks for your kind and always welcome words.

My version of the "Thoreauized" Walt Whitman Song:
I am interested in RR's work because I like it. Such 1st person disclosure
is not prone to 3rd pers. acceptance.
Also: to clarify (to my own limitations) Judith's misread
quote: RR came from reductionist 'math-biology' and performed a real 'hard
job' to arrive at thinking  in the wholistic complexity of the world. From
model-order into generalities.He also went through big pain to explain his
position(s) to the still reductionistic fellow scientists (using terms they
could understand). I made a clean close at retirement and stopped my
thinking in the reductionistic terms I used so efficiently for ½ century. I
started with the (meaningless?) generalities and went through big pain to
devise some order in them - the opposite of RR expanding the order into
generalities. And I did not care much about opposing opinions.
*
As to your personalized question: (1st part separated):
" ...is your worldview or interest in total universal interconnectedness and
wholeness a model?  If so, is
it a single largest model? And also, does it have anything not inside the
model or any incompleteness a la Godel?"
*
You bet it is, I am not omniscient, I have a limited mind,
can think only in models, as the rest of us. I may postulate that there is
"more to it" but cannot really fathom the 'unlimited' or the impredicative.
I can only predicate it still within the boundaries of my limitations.
To call it a 'single largest model' would be a joke, just negating the
starting conditions. I think I have more incompleteness than Godel, who
restricted himself to math while my incompletenesses are unlimited. I just
cannot express them. However: anything "not inside the (hypothetical) model
would negate the wholeness.
*
(2nd part of your question):
"Does your view or model of wholeness have any contradictions inside it?
Does your view/model have an opposite or counterpart or competitor or
complement or "other"? Is that "other" reductionism?"
*
The 'unlimited' is not limited to freedom from  the contradictions. It also
'includes' by definition its opposites and counterparts, I have never
considered any role of its 'competitors' or complements (what is it?)
*
Maybe in some weeks I can give you a better answer (as David suggested).

Cheers

John M



----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Fiscus" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Getting to know you, contradictions


> David and John,
>
> Interjecting here...uninvited...feel free to take it or leave it...
>
> David Macy wrote:
> > 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."
>
> That was Walt Whitman in Song of Myself. The rest of the quote goes:
>
> "Do I contradict myself?  Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large,
> I contain multitudes."
>
> We could almost take this as related to Rosen as well as impredicativity.
> Rosen said no largest model, or an infinite number of models needed
> to fully model any complex entity/system. Whitman essentially identifies
> himself as the great big all, totality, wholeness, everything, but in so
> doing admits that this then requires contradiction and thus would not
> be logical or scientific to talk about, represent, explain, model, etc.
with
> predicative logic (clear split between true and false, no circular logic
> allowed).
>
> > 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
>
> John Mikes wrote:
>
> >     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.
>
> So I take John's interest to be in Rosen's wholistic ideas and approach,
> and I think John has said this many times in many ways on this list.
>
> One question I would like to ask John is - is your worldview or interest
> in total universal interconnectedness and wholeness a model? If so, is
> it a single largest model? And also, does it have anything not inside the
> model or any incompleteness a la Godel? Does your view or model of
> wholeness have any contradictions inside it? Does your view/model
> have an opposite or counterpart or competitor or complement or
> "other"? Is that "other" reductionism?
>
> Happy day to all,
>
> Dan
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 06/23/05
>
>