Hi
Tom,

I read the communication below and your own description at the site

http://www.newciv.org/ISSS_Primer/asem26tm.html. I would like to point

out that I completely agree with your approach. As far as I can see by

now, it is in congruence with what I have written. (I will send that to

you as soon as possible.) The only difference is that I make my

statements with lots of examples, which is more attractive to readers

from the social sciences and the humanities, who are very often lay

people concerning formalization.

There is a similar notational apprach that was published in 1965 by the

renowned Polish mathematician and economist Oskar Lange ("Wholes and

Parts - A General Theory of System Behaviour", Pergamon Press, Oxford,

England, 74 pages; original Polish edition of 1962). That book was one

of my gateways to systems thinking.

My question as to such notational approaches is: Should they REPLACE the

disciplinary scientific conceptual systems OR merely COMPLEMENT them ?

I advocate the latter, but some colleagues argued for the former.

The two ways of presenting basics of systemics could very well be

integrated parallel, for different readerships, in a revised Primer.

With best wishes

Eberhard

Eberhard Umbach

apl.Prof., Dr.phil., Dipl.-Volkswirt

Institute of Environmental Systems Research

University of Osnabrueck

D-49069 Osnabrueck, Germany

Tel. ++49/541/969-2511 Fax: -2770

E-mail: umbach@uos.de

Internet homepage: http://www.usf.uos.de/~eberhard

============================================

Thommandel@aol.com wrote:

> http://www.newciv.org/ISSS_Primer/asem26tm.html

>

> *Nothing is impossible; there are ways that lead to

> everything, and if we had sufficient will we should

> always have sufficient means. It is often merely for

> an excuse that we say things are impossible.

>

> La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680)*

> **

> **

>

> In a message dated 6/29/2004 9:53:35 PM Central Daylight Time,

> kauffman@uic.edu writes:

>

> June 29, 2004

> Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer
Science

> University of Illinois at Chicago

> Chicago, Illinois 60607-7045

> <kauffman@uic.edu>

>

> To Whom It May Concern:

> I am writing this letter in behalf of Tom Mandel and
his work

> on an insight of startling simplicity, and the
notational model

> that he

> developed from this insight. I shall describe in my own
terms the

> structure of this insight, but the reader of this
letter is

> encouraged to

> look directly at Tom Mandel's constructions and to
encourage him to

> communicate concerning them.

>

> The question is the nature of a system, or a
description in the widest

> possible sense. We find "things" in the world
and are most

> concerned with

> how those "things" are related to one
another. Tom's favorite

> example is

> the two sides of a coin, separate and yet related (and
brought into

> existence) by the body of the coin itself. Any two
apparently separate

> things are related, but the story can become quite
complex.

> Contemplate

> the relationship between the pen and one's ability to
write, or the

> relationship between the electron and the operations of
the internet.

> A fundamental notation would be one that leaves room,
given two

> entities, for the relationship that goes between them.
This

> relationship

> can seem to arise from the individuals (as a
conversation arises

> among its

> discussants), or it can appear that the individuals
arise from the

> relationship itself (as electron and positron arise
from

> space/energy/photon, or as world and observer arise
from awareness).

>

> One should make one's own notations. Each such notation
is itself

> an instance of the ideal of relationship in one its
many

> manifestations.

> Tom uses

>

> A____

> |

> R |----------C

> B____|

>

>

> or algebraically

> (A,B)R=C.

>

> where C stands for the (whole) dividing/ arising from A
and B, and

> R the connection/relation of A and B.

>

> Such notation is simple, yet

> insistent, calling for the articulation of unity
C, the relation

> R and the

> "parts" A and B.

>

> Why is this important? The answer is: Because
such notation and the

> attitude behind it continually call the question of
relationship

> and the

> nature of relationship. All descriptions, all systems,
are built

> this way.

> But we keep forgetting the glue and putting it into the

> background. Here

> all three fundamentals in any distinction are brought
into the

> foreground,

> and we want to know them and their dialogue. (Powerful
Guru, Da

> Free John,

> lead his students again and again with the question
"Avoiding

> Relationship?". There is no place to hide.)

>

> There is an important symmetery here. If we bring forth
the

> relationship, then we can ask both how the parts create
the whole,

> and how the whole comes to be divided into parts.

>

> We are all too familiar with

> myriad ways of building from parts, but it is all too
easy to lose

> sight

> of the whole. To turn around into the whole, to ask how
does this

> unity

> become a multiplicity, is the essential question of
science. It is the

> question that leads to theory, understanding,
unification,

> clarification

> and practical understanding. Without the question of
the whole, we

> have

> only recipes for the building of structures from known
parts.

>

> The essential insight that we all have and lose, again
and again,

> is that

> sense of the whole and an intuition of how the
multiplicity arises.

> There is no multiplictity!

> In relationship, all parts cohere into the whole.

> There is a multiplicity!!

> It is obtained by ignoring the relationships the

> return to the whole.

>

> To the degree that systems are seen as evocations of

> a whole or larger structure, there is an opening for
plasticity,

> creativity and new knowledge.

>

> Having found this insight and his notation, where will
Mandel go from

> here? Really, the question is, where will we go
in our

> relationship to

> him and to each other in this quest for unity in
multiplicity?

>

> Yours truly,

>

> Lou Kauffman

>

> P.S. There are many existing and possible mathematical,
scientific and

> philosophical continuations of this discussion.
Prominent among

> them, for

> me, is "Laws of Form" by G. Spencer-Brown, a
book with a notation and

> insight very close to the above remarks and to Tom's
essential

> notions.

> Ludwig Wittgenstein said "The limits of my
language are the limits

> of my

> world."

>

>

>

> We have the opportunity to expand our language, to
expand

> beyond imagination our world. Mathematics is all about

> relationship, and the formal images of its patterns.
Graph theory in

> particular is concerned about the diagramming of
entities in such

> a way

> that significant relationships are indicated. Topology
is the

> attempt to

> formulate the notion of a continuous whole (a
topological space)

> and to

> find the appropriate ways of dividing the space into
parts that

> reveal its

> global strucuture. The themes are always there:
mathematics,

> logic, music,

> biology, physics, astronomy/cosmology, linguistics,
philosophy, ...

>

> All reflections of

> the possibility

> of saying anything at all

> to anyone,

> about the

> Universe.

>

>