First, some time ago I reacted rather strongly to what seemed to me to be
sloppy scholarship in our discussion of complexity. Now, after zilllions of
words, and a lot of study on my part as well as others, I find myself even
more fearful that we are even more guilty of bad scholarship than before.
For what it may be worth, let me try to explain. Robert Rosen has, since
1958, been developing a rigorous categorization of scientific exploration of
systems based on a clear definition of "complexity". To do this, he uses a
modeling relation, aimed at making us conscious of our actions as we pursue
truth. My original attitude, which is stronger now than before, was that
before dismissing Rosen, a great deal of study of his position was required.
This includes a number of books and papers. The reason should be obvious,
but clearly isn't. The reason is that he is dealing with the very basis of
what we call "science" and has developed a revolutionary view of how science
needs to be done IF WE WISH TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS WE PROFESS TO BE SEEKING.
The idea that the essence of this matter can be dealt with in ANYTHING but
a superficial manner in this forum is really not very sound.
However, Jeff and I have tried to provide a summary of Rosen's ideas,
hoping they will be taken in the intended spirit, namely as an invitation to
further study of this vast body of work, a lifetime of superb intellectual
effort. I am dismayed at the response of some very vocal members who use this
as an opportunity to try to promote their own ideas by capitalizing on our
handicaps as we try to encapsulate this large, interconnected body of ideas.If
for some reason, books will be burned and Jeff and I become the repository of
Rosen's scholarship, then I fear all is lost. Especially if this medium is our
only forum for exposition. Fortunately, this is not the case, and there is
ample opportunity for anyone who is SERIOUS about understanding these ideas to
study the original works and see the whole emerge from the parts.
Jeff and I are still in the process of studying Rosen and Kampis and
the others folks out there have recommended. WE find this the real meat of PCP,
and are not really interested in having a sterile digest simply prove the
futility of reductionism and fragmentation. The history of these exchanges
since summer is a laboratory for seeing Rosen's cautions about these practices
manifest.
I hope this is taken in the right spirit. I can only really speak for
myself, and hope my using Jeff's name here will not be misconstrued.
I am simply trying to alert the "audience" to what they may already know,
namely that if you really want to understand these ideas, PCP is not a
shortcut, but a spring board. The journey of a thousand miles begins with
one small step!
Best regards,
Don Mikulecky
P.S. I will follow with some quotes from Rosen's work as an attempt at some
sort of damage control, since I sense the real thrust of Rosen's approach has
become somewhat distorted in all the manipulation here.