That said, by now Don is a beloved thorn in the side to the PCP group.
I think we all (and he himself) recognize that his style can be quite
abrasive. That's the price you have to pay to get his ideas. Sometimes
it's too high for me.
I also very much welcome the continuing discussion on Rosen. My
feeling is that the fact that discussion about Rosen dominates
PRNCYB-L is as much the fault of myself and Francis, for not directing
discourse towards other PCP areas, as of Don and Jeff.
I think we all in PCP recognize Rosen as one of the greatest systems
theorists. I myself have wrestled with his ideas for a while, although
not as long as Don. I find Rosen's ideas crucial, and his definitons
of complexity and life compelling. I have tried to incorporate his
views and those of his colleagues (many of whom I consider close
friends and colleauges), in particular on observables and modeling,
into my own work to the extent I can.
Even so, although I consider myself a wide-read and scholarly systems
scientist, I find his approach challenging, even daunting. One problem
is that he uses both non-traditional and sometimes confusing
mathematics. This subject---what does category theory bring to bear to
systems science that traditional function theory cannot---is something
which Jeff and I started discussing seriously a while back, and need to
renew (line up the usual suspects: I'm So Busy!).
So, Don, we are listening. And we know. But understand, communication
is not simple. Building a consensus of meaning in a difficult,
heterogenous field, in this medium or any other, takes time, patience,
and good will. Sometimes both you and Rosen hurt your own cause,
"just" because of "style".
I also have a comment about definitions, which echo Bruce to an
extent. Semantic arguments are both wonderful and terrible. We should
aspire to arguing more than "mere" semantics; we should not "claim"
words: "no, complexity means THIS, YOU'RE talking about something
else!" But the POWER of semantic argument is that it forces us to draw
clear distinctions, and REALLY explain what we mean, to ourselves and
each other.
There's many more concepts than words. So, for Bruce complexity is X
(and Z and W and. . .), for Don Y. The key is to see how they're
related within the semantic space, not to see who's "right". Bruce
and Don are probably describing different things, and fighting over
who has the right to call it "complexity". At that level, Bruce is
right, it is political, or better RHETORICAL. Rhetoric is important;
it's how we win arguments and make succesful memes. But let's not
confuse it with the REAL project of trying to UNDERSTAND each other.
O----------------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, NRC Research Associate, Cybernetician at Large
| Mail Code 522.3, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt MD 20771 USA
| joslyn@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov http://groucho.gsfc.nasa.gov/joslyn (301) 286-7816
V All the world is biscuit-shaped. . .