>
> I thought this kind of distortion was the property of the press, but it
> appears not.What I have been writing about here and elsewhere is the life work
> of Robert Rosen. I resent a brilliant scholar's work being thrown into a
> hopper as a wild assed guess.
>
Don: I tried to suggest that you give us an outline, as you seem to have
done below, and then facilitate the discussion along the lines that
might be the most interesting and constructive. Unfortunately, because
of your knee problems, you were apparently not able respond. But we had
no idea what had happened to you. All I knew was that you did not
respond to my suggestion that you "take it from here."
So I did my best to set up a framework that I thought might yield some
collaborative insights and fresh understandings of the areas we all seem
to be focusing on. I'm sure we all welcome your participation on what
ever level you feel comfortable with. I, for one, think it is important
to respect and honor the ideas of each participant. Still, I'm not at
all certain that we ought to place the views of one person (Rosen), no
matter how brilliant, above all the rest simply on one person's say so.
> Rosen saw in the 1950's that traditional science had put on blinders when it
> came to the issue of the complexity of real systems. He then established the
> following:
> 1.There is a clear, unambiguous distinction between our perception of systems
> as simple mechanisms or as complex systems.
I am very skeptical of how useful complexity theory is in helping us to
better understand our selves, each other and the universe we live in.
> 2.Dealing with complex systems NECESSARILY means dealing with more than the
> physical constituents since complex systems are irreducible.
I am not convinced that we don't need to deal more than the physical
constutuents regardless of the complexity of a system.
> 3.Relationships between functional components are far more important than how
> the pieces fit together and these two aspects do not map into each other in
> any 1:1 manner.
The relational aspects of the functional components of a system are, in
my opinion, just one of many perspectives we need to assimilate in order
to better understand the whole systemic process.
> 4.Complex systems have more than one way with which they can be interacted.
Simple systems can also interact in several ways too.
> These are distinct(not derivable from each other).
> This is just a glimpse of what is at stake here. It's substance requires hard
> work and study to master. I don't think you will get very far by making fun
> of it or by ignoring it.
So far as I know, no one is ignoring your suggestions and no one is
making fun of them. So, unless you want to keep complaining about being
ignored and made fun of, lets move on.
Norm