Return-path: <HANSS@staff.sepa.TUDELFT.NL>
Delivery-receipt-to: hanss@sepa.TUDELFT.NL
Received: from HEARNVAX.nic.SURFnet.nl (SMTPUSER@HEARNVAX)
by Gems.VCU.EDU (PMDF V4.3-13 #8240) id <01HSRXED0HTC8X4U79@Gems.VCU.EDU>;
Wed, 12 Jul 1995 07:58:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from TUDRNV by HEARNVAX.nic.SURFnet.nl (PMDF V4.2-12 #3330)
id <01HSS9XM8O8000HDPY@HEARNVAX.nic.SURFnet.nl>; Wed,
12 Jul 1995 13:57:10 +0200 (MET-DST)
Received: from zon.sepa.tudelft.nl by TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL (PMDF V4.2-12 #4426)
id <01HSS9XPL7J400DGOX@TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL>; Wed, 12 Jul 1995 13:57:13 +0200
Received: from tbmail.sepa.tudelft.nl by zon.sepa.tudelft.nl with SMTP
(1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA20934; Wed, 12 Jul 1995 13:49:41 +0200
Received: From ZONDISK/MAIL-WORKQUEUE by tbmail.sepa.tudelft.nl via
Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.950712141602.352; 12 Jul 95 14:17:02 +0500
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 14:15:20 +0100 (MET)
From: Hans-Cees Speel <HANSS@sepa.TUDELFT.NL>
Subject: Re: Further comments on complexity
To:
Cc: "From: DON MIKULECKY" <MIKULECKY@Gems.VCU.EDU>, B.Edmonds@mmu.ac.UK
Reply-to: hanss@sepa.TUDELFT.NL
Message-id: <MAIL-QUEUE-101.950712141520.256@staff.sepa.tudelft.nl>
X-Mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2)
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
I would like to say that I do like the discussion so far with regard to the
content. But I would like to say that I feel a great deal of accusation-like
language is going on, and I do not appreciate that.
With the risk that you find my comment 'not appropriate' I would like to
say that a lot of people are listening along with you on the list, and that
a more 'nice; tone of discussion would be better.
I think that your discussion has come down to the point that you should
have started with namely where you ask each other: what do you
mean by this, or let me read your work so I can comment.
Saying that you haven't used some references is not good enough
since references can be irrelevant etc.
You simply cannot expect from everyone to have red everything that
you have in an interdisciplinary context. In my opinion you should ask
why you think your references are appropriate to the thought of the
other.
I also disagree that we are through with the discussion about
complexity. Rosen might have something to say on it, but that is not
always relevant, and can be wrong too.
I would say that it is rosen [as far as I understand what he is saying]
that is using another language than the people from for instance the
Santafe-I. Because that language shows us things the Santafe institute
people do not look at, he sees thing as more complicated that the
SF-people.
This is precisely what Bruce is talking about, saying that the language
of description is one of the clues as to why we find things complex.
I see no other problem here than that one person says: 'you haven't
used my stuff in your story'. Unless you show why the other should do
that, you are not communicating, but arguing, and that doesn't help
anyone.
In my view Bruce's point is new to this list and should be elaborated on
a great deal.
Hopefully this is of any help, I do not mean to say your discussion is
unusefull, but would like to say that it can be better.
greetings
Hans-Cees
Theories come and go, the frog stays [F. Jacob]
-------------------------------------------------------
|Hans-Cees Speel School of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and management
|Technical University Delft, Jaffalaan 5 2600 GA Delft PO Box 5015 The Netherlan
ds
|telephone +3115785776 telefax +3115783422 E-mail hanss@sepa.tudelft.nl
HTTP://www.sepa.tudelft.nl/~afd_ba/hanss.html featuring evolution and memetics!