More of Mary's writings

CSGnet Archive CSG2005
1

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.24.1324 MST)]

Here's another piece that Mary wrote; it was actually presented at the 20th
Annual meeting of the American Society for Cybernetics in 1984, the same
meeting at which Dick Robertson noticed that no cyberneticists had come to
our presentation, and suggested that we didn't need to go to ASC meetings
to achieve that, and that we should start our our own group, which we did
the next year.

I like the New Yorker style of this paper -- the infinite detail with
little gems being sifted out at intervals. Mary definitely had a Big
Picture sort of mind.

Best,

Bill P.

DeweyCyber.doc (37 KB)

2

Thanks for sharing this Bill. I wish Mary were here to talk about this. I believe she would want this discussed, and the very reason she gave this talk was with that very idea in mind. I hope to encourage if not some discussion at least some thought on what she said and thought.

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.24.1324 MST)]

Here’s another piece that Mary wrote; it was actually presented at the 20th
Annual meeting of the American Society for Cybernetics in 1984, the same
meeting at which Dick Robertson noticed that no cyberneticists had come to
our presentation, and suggested that we didn’t need to go to ASC meetings
to achieve that, and that we should start our our own group, which we did
the next year.

I have often quoted George Richardson’s book Feedback Thought in the Social Sciences as a wonderful source for an historic understanding of how cybernetics and the servo-mechanism idea’s emerged and evolved.

Mary provides one view of an argument, and not a bad one in my view. I happen to agree with her. But I believe she loses sight of why the cybernetics folks don’t much care for the ‘servo-mechanism’ crowd and why the ‘servo-mechanism’ crowd doesn’t care much about the ‘cybernetic’ one.

PCT of course is a combination of the two, and I believe the similarities are just as important as the differences.

If ‘truth’ is the goal and purpose of any science, and I believe it is, then being ‘right’ comes in a very distant second place.

Was the sole purpose of attending the conference to attract adherents and being shown to be right? New ideas are always treated with skepticism in science and the reasons are obvious. If you have a ‘new’ idea that means you are deviating from the norm, or what has been commonly accepted as valid. CONTROL SYSTEMS do not like deviations or deviators. You can ask me all about this one. . You can also ask the gentle men voted out of office.

Change in a control system is NOT an easy thing to pull off, EVEN when you want to change it, it is sometimes next to impossible to do so.

Lots of folks go on diets, how many are able to actually maintain the weight loss over a long period of time? There is increasing scientific evidence that we have much less control over our weight then we might like to think. Like many other control systems, it seems our ‘hunger’ is also part of a complex control process and of course it is important what one eats, but our desire and metabolism are not always conscious decisions on our part. Many folks would like to quit smoking cigarettes as well. I quit over 15 years ago and there are still times where for a very few brief seconds I actually crave a smoke.

I like the New Yorker style of this paper – the infinite detail with
little gems being sifted out at intervals. Mary definitely had a Big
Picture sort of mind.

Yes she did, which was one reason she was willing to communicate with me. Oh, she gave me some hell at times, but she also encouraged my thinking and liked some of my ideas. I’d like to think that the reason she did was that as a fellow New Yorker, and more importantly a fellow human, I shared her passion for the ‘big picture’. I’m sorry she is not here today to see how far I have come. I would like to believe she would have been pleased.

Mary said;

“Shortly before he died, Derek de Solla Price wrote that it is a misapprehension that new technologies are merely a consequence of scientific discovery. He asserted an opposite causal connection: advances in technology inspire and enable sciences to move into new areas.”

To me this is just an extension of the; “I’m right, and you’re wrong” kind of argument where everyone walks away a loser. If we are all interested in moving toward some approximation of some common ‘truths’ and both ‘science’ and ‘technology’ are means to those ‘truths’ and cybernetics and servo-mechanisms are each useful methods in helping us ascertain the ‘truth’ with those means then what the great scientific philosopher Karl Popper once said makes perfect sense. Here I bow, not to authority but to wisdom gained;

“Among the many methods which he may use–always depending of course, on the problem in hand–one method seems to me worth mentioning. It is a variant of the (at present unfashionable) historical method. It consists, simply, in trying to find out what other people have thought and said about the problem (emphasis mine) in hand: why they had to face it: how they formulated it: how they tried to solve it. This seems to me important because it is part of the general method of rational discussion. If we ignore what other people are thinking, or have thought in the past, than rational discussion must come to an end, though each of us may go on happily talking to himself.” (Karl Popper_The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, pg xx Preface, 1959)

I think Mary would have agreed with this assessment of Popper’s. I think one of the main functions of CSGnet should be for this very important purpose, but currently is not. It does not have to stay this way.

I also think Mary understood, as she explained in her talk, that ‘discovery’ always necessitates change. Whether it be a new category of books that the DD system need to ‘adapt’ to, a new Presidential term, or a new scientific or technological find. ‘Discovery’ is not always a welcome thing, nor is it always enthusiastically wanted.

An idle thought here; I wonder how many people do you think really want to know if any religion is the ‘right’ one to follow, and how many would accept it if we somehow ever found out? Remember, the ‘Flat Earth Society’ still exists.

It is my contention that there are many ways of approaching the PROBLEM of the Perceptual Control of Behavior. Should I be ostracized because I have a different way of thinking about it?

It seems to me that when you become incapable of dealing with the IDEAS’s of others and intolerant of them YOU are the losers because it is just one less person you have to help solve a problem.

Of course if you believe you already solved the problem at hand then it becomes a matter of etching it in stone as fact. I never got the impression from reading B:CP that Bill thought he had the problem licked and was any where ready to be etched in stone.

So I ask rhetorically, why have you spent 35 years trying to etch this idea of yours in stone rather than trying to ascertain the truthfulness of your ideas?

Marc

“Nothing is so firmly believed as that which least is known”
Montaigne

“Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better.”
Richard Hooker (1554? - 1600)
English theologian.

“It’s not what people don’t know that is the problem. It’s what people know that ain’t so, that creates all the fuss.”

Will Rogers

“Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite”
Karl Popper
3

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.25.1051 MST)]

Marc Abrams (2005.03.24.1735 EST) –

Mary provides one view of an
argument, and not a bad one in my view. I happen to agree with her. But I
believe she loses sight of why the cybernetics folks don’t much care
for the ‘servo-mechanism’ crowd and why the ‘servo-mechanism’ crowd
doesn’t care much about the ‘cybernetic’ one.

I believe the difference between the two camps is strongly related to how
much is known about mathematics and control theory. The less a person
knows about such subjects, the stronger the person’s arguments tend to be
that we don’t need mathematics or control theory to understand human
organization. This is understandable as a way of defending one’s
knowledge about human organization. The only alternative would be to
conclude that what one knows is superficial or wrong. Of course that
could be the truth, but how many people are happy to admit that?

Characterizing the difference as being between “cybernetics”
and “servo-mechanisms” (as many cyberneticists do) shows how
superficial the understanding is on the cybernetics side. The same idea,
negative feedback control, encompasses both sides.

Was the sole purpose of attending the
conference to attract adherents and being shown to be
right?

Is that a question or just your way of asserting something insulting and
then putting a question mark at the end? The purpose of attending that
cybernetics meeting, as in attending and giving papers (including invited
papers) at several previous (and subsequent) ASC conferences, was to find
colleagues in a field where the founder called his subject matter
“Control and communication in the animal and the machine.” We
who attended thought they would be interested in “control.”
They weren’t. We attended their sessions; they ignored ours.

New ideas are always treated
with skepticism in science and the reasons are obvious. If you have a
‘new’ idea that means you are deviating from the norm, or what has been
commonly accepted as valid. CONTROL SYSTEMS do not like deviations or
deviators. You can ask me all about this one. . You
can also ask the gentle men voted out of office. <big

There is a difference between those who deviate as a result of learning
something new, and those who deviate through ignorance. The PCT people
were very familiar with the cybernetic ideas put forth at ASC
conferences. The ASC people, with a few notable exceptions, were ignorant
of control theory; the most vocal objectors thought it was about how to
control other people, and they did not want to hear about it. Heinz von
Foerster thought that “hierarchy” was about social hierarchies,
and since he hated social hierarchies he sneered at the idea.

Mary said;

“Shortly before he died, Derek
de Solla Price wrote that it is a misapprehension that new technologies
are merely a consequence of scientific discovery. He asserted an opposite
causal connection: advances in technology inspire and enable sciences to
move into new areas.”

To me this is just an extension of
the; “I’m right, and you’re wrong” kind of argument where
everyone walks away a loser.

Did you miss the words “merely” (a consequence) and
“an” (opposite causal connection) ? Price was saying that it
works both ways: science may lead to technology, but new technology
also inspires science. How does that come out “I’m right and you’re
wrong?”

Of course if you believe you
already solved the problem at hand then it becomes a matter of etching
it in stone as fact. I never got the impression from reading B:CP that
Bill thought he had the problem licked and was any where ready to be
etched in stone.

Nor from anything else I have said since, except perhaps what you have
imagined me to say.

So I ask rhetorically, why have
you spent 35 years trying to etch this idea of yours in stone rather than
trying to ascertain the truthfulness of your ideas?

That is a truly awesome distortion of what I have been doing. I can cite
about two dozen major tests of PCT ideas that I have implemented as
experiments and offered for public scrutiny over the last 35 years. Every
time someone tries one of the demos, they are testing the theory, and if
it is wrong the tests could easily fail.

What you take for “etching this idea of yours in stone” has
been merely to insist that if someone wants to criticize my ideas, they
should know what those ideas are and not distort them into something
else. I’ll listen to any criticism of what I have actually proposed and
demonstrated, but when people put words in my mouth and object to things
I have never said, I don’t have much patience. For example, you
said

It is my contention that there
are many ways of approaching the PROBLEM of the Perceptual Control of
Behavior. Should I be ostracized because I have a different way of
thinking about it?

To which I reply, I don’t support the idea of Perceptual Control of
Behavior and never said that I did, so if you want to have a different
idea about that I’m all for it. I say that people produce behavior in
order to control perceptions; if you have objections to that idea you
should state them, but please don’t spread the word that I claim that
perceptions control behavior. If I “ostracize” you it will be
for getting the very basis of PCT wrong and criticizing me for ideas I
don’t believe.

I expect that I will regret having departed from my policy of ignoring
you.

Bill P.
4

Hello Bill,

I have been trying to find you. I am
Ely Dorsey and we met at an ASC Conference in 1988 where you presented with
Humberto Maturana, and Ernst von Glasersfeld. I still have your notes
from that talk. I have been working with Lou Kaufmann from UIC on a cyberneticians
view of quantum theory and when I reread your 1988 ASC text, it struck me that
your description of Control Theory and what goes for quantum theory (I am
speaking of the explanations of the quantum polarization effects and the like)
sounded similar. In particular the quantum measurement problem and your
second order iteration explanations of ultra stability seemed to jibe
well. Would you be interested corresponding about this? My email is
edorsey@starpower.net.

···

From: Control Systems
Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:53
PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: More of Mary’s
writings

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.25.1051 MST)]

Marc Abrams (2005.03.24.1735 EST) –

Mary provides one view of an argument, and not a bad one in my view. I
happen to agree with her. But I believe she loses sight of why the
cybernetics folks don’t much care for the ‘servo-mechanism’ crowd and why the
‘servo-mechanism’ crowd doesn’t care much about the ‘cybernetic’ one.

I believe the difference between the two camps is strongly related to how much
is known about mathematics and control theory. The less a person knows about
such subjects, the stronger the person’s arguments tend to be that we don’t
need mathematics or control theory to understand human organization. This is
understandable as a way of defending one’s knowledge about human organization.
The only alternative would be to conclude that what one knows is superficial or
wrong. Of course that could be the truth, but how many people are happy to
admit that?

Characterizing the difference as being between “cybernetics” and
“servo-mechanisms” (as many cyberneticists do) shows how superficial
the understanding is on the cybernetics side. The same idea, negative feedback
control, encompasses both sides.

Was the sole purpose of attending the conference to attract adherents
and being shown to be right?

Is that a question or just your way of asserting something insulting and then
putting a question mark at the end? The purpose of attending that cybernetics
meeting, as in attending and giving papers (including invited papers) at
several previous (and subsequent) ASC conferences, was to find colleagues in a
field where the founder called his subject matter “Control and
communication in the animal and the machine.” We who attended thought they
would be interested in “control.” They weren’t. We attended their
sessions; they ignored ours.

New ideas are always treated with skepticism in science and the
reasons are obvious. If you have a ‘new’ idea that means you are deviating
from the norm, or what has been commonly accepted as valid. CONTROL SYSTEMS
do not like deviations or deviators. You can ask me all about this one.
. You can also ask the gentle men voted out of office. <big

There is a difference between those who deviate as a result of learning
something new, and those who deviate through ignorance. The PCT people were
very familiar with the cybernetic ideas put forth at ASC conferences. The ASC
people, with a few notable exceptions, were ignorant of control theory; the
most vocal objectors thought it was about how to control other people, and they
did not want to hear about it. Heinz von Foerster thought that
“hierarchy” was about social hierarchies, and since he hated social
hierarchies he sneered at the idea.

Mary said;

“Shortly before he died, Derek de Solla Price wrote that it is a
misapprehension that new technologies are merely a consequence of scientific
discovery. He asserted an opposite causal connection: advances in technology
inspire and enable sciences to move into new areas.”

To me this is just an extension of the; “I’m right, and you’re wrong”
kind of argument where everyone walks away a loser.

Did you miss the words “merely” (a consequence) and “an”
(opposite causal connection) ? Price was saying that it works both ways:
science may lead to technology, but new technology also inspires science.
How does that come out “I’m right and you’re wrong?”

Of course if you believe you already solved the problem at hand then
it becomes a matter of etching it in stone as fact. I never got the impression
from reading B:CP that Bill thought he had the problem licked and was any where
ready to be etched in stone.

Nor from anything else I have said since, except perhaps what you have imagined
me to say.

So I ask rhetorically, why have you spent 35 years trying to etch this
idea of yours in stone rather than trying to ascertain the truthfulness of your
ideas?

That is a truly awesome distortion of what I have been doing. I can cite about
two dozen major tests of PCT ideas that I have implemented as experiments and
offered for public scrutiny over the last 35 years. Every time someone tries
one of the demos, they are testing the theory, and if it is wrong the tests
could easily fail.

What you take for “etching this idea of yours in stone” has been
merely to insist that if someone wants to criticize my ideas, they should know
what those ideas are and not distort them into something else. I’ll listen to
any criticism of what I have actually proposed and demonstrated, but when
people put words in my mouth and object to things I have never said, I don’t
have much patience. For example, you said

It is my contention that there are many ways of approaching the
PROBLEM of the Perceptual Control of Behavior. Should I be ostracized
because I have a different way of thinking about it?

To which I reply, I don’t support the idea of Perceptual Control of Behavior
and never said that I did, so if you want to have a different idea about that
I’m all for it. I say that people produce behavior in order to control
perceptions; if you have objections to that idea you should state them, but
please don’t spread the word that I claim that perceptions control behavior. If
I “ostracize” you it will be for getting the very basis of PCT wrong
and criticizing me for ideas I don’t believe.

I expect that I will regret having departed from my policy of ignoring you.

Bill P.

5

Hello, Ely --

I'm somewhat mystified by your references to quantum measurement problems, but curious as to what similarities you see. I know nothing about quantum mechanics, so perhaps you are crediting me with more knowledge than I have. It should be easy to find out.

Best regards,

Bill Powers

PS -- I'm sorry you had to come across those sordid posts from CSGnet. Not the sort of interchange I hope for.

6

In a message dated 3/25/2005 3:42:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

Mary provides one view of an argument, and not a bad one in my view. I happen to agree with her. But I believe she loses sight of _why_ the cybernetics folks don't much care for the 'servo-mechanism' crowd and why the 'servo-mechanism' crowd doesn't care much about the 'cybernetic' one.

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.25.1051 MST)]

Marc Abrams (2005.03.24.1735 EST) –

I believe the difference between the two camps is strongly related to how much is known about mathematics and control theory.
Richardson had a slightly different take on it. Although he spoke about those differences, even among the various types of engineers involved (industrial vs. communications) he suggested the major differences boiled down to different world views between them. I quote from pg 165 in FeedBack Thought in the Social Sciences;

"Thus we have the distinct possibility that our two feedback threads in
the social sciences mirror something of a split in the use of feedback in
engineering. The cybernetics thread emphasizes aspects more connected
to communications theory, particularly in its concern for randomly varying system inputs. The servomechanisms thread is more associated with control theory as, for example, in its emphases on behavior generated by the regulatory system itself and on the significance of nonlinearities.

But more importantly, something of the difference in worldview that
discernible between our two threads shows up in differences between
the communication theory and control theory points of view in engineering as well. The significant behavior of variables in a communication traces most directly to the behavior or shape of the incoming “wave form,” the input signal. Social scientists in the cybernetics thread tend to look outside the system for the causes of system behavior and for the regulatory structures in social systems designed to maintain control, homeostasis, and adaptability. In contrast, the significant behaviors in a servomechanism are the transients that are triggered by an input to the system but whose pattern over time traces not to the input but to the internal structure of the control system. Similarly, the social scientist in the servomechanisms thread tends to see dynamic behavior as a consequence of a system’s internal feedback structure. The fundamental points of view that help to characterize the feedback threads in the social sciences may well have origins in engineering itself.

These are very suggestive ideas, but they must remain at the level of
speculations in this investigation. We shall have to be content with three
quite reasonable hypotheses for the origins of the differences in
: use of the feedback concept in the social sciences:

  1. the background of the social scientists first drawn to the feedback
    concept, 2) the nature of the problems they preferred to address, and 3) a split in the use of feedback concept within engineering itself.

Whatever the reason, by 1960 a fundamental difference in point of view seperates the two threads."

The less a person knows about such subjects, the stronger the person’s arguments tend to be that we don’t need mathematics or control theory to understand human organization. This is understandable as a way of defending one’s knowledge about human organization. The only alternative would be to conclude that what one knows is superficial or wrong. Of course that could be the truth, but how many people are happy to admit that?

In lieu if what Richardson said above I think this is a strawman.

Characterizing the difference as being between “cybernetics” and “servo-mechanisms” (as many cyberneticists do) shows how superficial the understanding is on the cybernetics side. The same idea, negative feedback control, encompasses both sides.

You seem not to have read Richardson’s book, nor understand why he made the split as he did. I won’t bore you with the details because you obviously are not interested.

Was the sole purpose of attending the conference to attract adherents and being shown to be right?

Is that a question or just your way of asserting something insulting and then putting a question mark at the end?
No. I’m not quite sure why you perceive every question I have as some kind of sneer or insult. I ask because I want to know things that I currently don’t know or understand. Of course this is something you never have a problem with.

The purpose of attending that cybernetics meeting, as in attending and giving papers (including invited papers) at several previous (and subsequent) ASC conferences, was to find colleagues in a field where the founder called his subject matter “Control and communication in the animal and the machine.” We who attended thought they would be interested in “control.” They weren’t. We attended their sessions; they ignored ours.
Why did they not attend yours? Do you really know? Did you ever ask anyone what the problem was? Judging from your response at the top of the post you have no real clue.

I know for a fact that Cliff Joslyn was on CSGnet a time and he was and is a big cog in the cybernetics movement. Why did Cliff leave CSGnet? Because of his lack of a mathematics background? You wish you had his math background.

 New ideas are _always_ treated with skepticism in science and the reasons are obvious. If you have a 'new' idea that means you are _deviating_ from the norm, or what has been commonly accepted as valid. _CONTROL SYSTEMS_ do not like deviations _or_ deviators. You can ask me _all_ about this one. <big smile>. You can also ask the gentle men voted out of office. <big smile>

There is a difference between those who deviate as a result of learning something new, and those who deviate through ignorance.
Who decides which is which, and exactly what is the difference?

The PCT people were very familiar with the cybernetic ideas put forth at ASC conferences. The ASC people, with a few notable exceptions, were ignorant of control theory; the most vocal objectors thought it was about how to control other people, and they did not want to hear about it. Heinz von Foerster thought that “hierarchy” was about social hierarchies, and since he hated social hierarchies he sneered at the idea.
So? Big deal, a few folks had problems with what you did. I guess you really are that thin skinned. Sure doesn’t sound like a reason to circle the wagons and call in the calvary.

Nor from anything else I have said since, except perhaps what you have imagined me to say.
Wrong. It is what you don’t say and it is what you don’t encourage others to do that says you have etched PCT in stone.

It seems every time you try to collaborate with someone the relationship falls apart. From your initial 2 partners, through Bourbon and others. The only one to hang on is Marken and that is because he worships you.

You have a real big ego problem my friend. I’m not sure when you fell in love with your own ideas but I have a feeling it was very early on and your two initial partners wanted no part of it.

You cannot compromise, and you are unwilling to listen to ideas that might actually challenge a position you have taken. Your obsessive need to be right fits right in with Marken and you two deserve each other and the mud hole you currently occupy

So I ask rhetorically, why have you spent 35 years trying to etch this idea of yours in stone rather than trying to ascertain the truthfulness of your ideas?

That is a truly awesome distortion of what I have been doing. I can cite about two dozen major tests of PCT ideas that I have implemented as experiments and offered for public scrutiny over the last 35 years.
No Bill, in 35 years you have yet to show the existence of any hierarchy, or any levels as you perceive them to be. In fact, you have yet to show that your ideas about ‘perceptions’ are valid as well.

What you have shown, at least to my satisfaction, is that the control of perception is a valid idea. You have yet to show that your blueprint (PCT) is in fact a (not even the) just a viable physiological idea.

Every time someone tries one of the demos, they are testing the theory, and if it is wrong the tests could easily fail.
No Bill, they are NOT testing the ‘theory’. They are possibly validating the existence of control. PCT on the other hand is a good deal more involved then that, because every time they do one of your demo’s they are ALSO validating the TOTE model from Pribram as well, and Forrester’s, and …

What you take for “etching this idea of yours in stone” has been merely to insist that if someone wants to criticize my ideas, they should know what those ideas are and not distort them into something else.

I know 'em, and I DON’T distort them. But I’m sure they provide a VERY loud bang in your head every time you see them.

I’ll listen to any criticism of what I have actually proposed and demonstrated,
Listening is NOT the issue here. DISCUSSON is. You refuse to discuss the idea’s others may have that differ from yours. _EVERY damn question is viewed as some kind of challenge to your manhood.

It is my contention that there are _many_ ways of approaching the _PROBLEM_ of the Perceptual Control of Behavior. Should I be ostracized  because I have a different way of thinking about it?

but when people put words in my mouth and object to things I have never said, I don’t have much patience. For example, you said

To which I reply, I don’t support the idea of Perceptual Control of Behavior and never said that I did, so if you want to have a different idea about that I’m all for it.
S_T_R_A_W_M_A_N.

This is your favorite type of response. When you can’t answer a question you come back and distort it out of proportion.

I say that people produce behavior in order to control perceptions;

Yawn, Yawn, big deal. You and about 3 dozen other folks, some long before you. Karl Pribram for instance. R.W. Ashby is another who talked about the control of inputs long before you. In fact ALL servo-mechanism folks control their ‘inputs’.

Your mathematics is ABSOLUTELY identical to Jay Forrester’s negative feedback loop in SD and every other servo-mechanism model.

Your claim to fame was your BLUEPRINT of the human nervous system called the hierarchy. It hasn’t quite panned out has it big boy? Am I still ‘distorting’ the facts? Which ‘levels’ have been substantiated and where can I find the data to support the claim?

if you have objections to that idea you should state them,

I just did. What is your reply? I can’t wait to hear about it.

but please don’t spread the word that I claim that perceptions control behavior.

Believe me, I may hang around CSGnet for my own amusement, but I wouldn’t let anyone within ten feet of your work, let alone tell anyone about you.

If I “ostracize” you it will be for getting the very basis of PCT wrong and criticizing me for ideas I don’t believe.

I mispoke, and YOU KNOW IT. It seems the only time you respond to me is to take a VERY cheap shot at me. This time it won’t work. Why not try answering just a few of the questions instead of trying to hide under a rock? In fact how about answering just ONE of 'em. I doubt you have the stomach for the exchange.

···

I expect that I will regret having departed from my policy of ignoring you.

Gee, I wonder why you might ever think that. I guess it’s time to start ‘ignoring’ my posts again.

7

[From Dick Robertson, 2005.03.25.1920CST]

Bill, I tried to open this attachment and got a message, "You have
elected to open with Dewey Cyber Doc" but then it didn't open.

I have appreciated your previous offerings of Mary's writings and
probably haven't said so yet. I have been occupied with going to doctors
and stuff like that. I expect to get a pacemaker april 6. Hope I'll be
more lively after that.

Best,

Dick R

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:28 pm
Subject: More of Mary's writings

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.24.1324 MST)]

Here's another piece that Mary wrote; it was actually presented at
the 20th
Annual meeting of the American Society for Cybernetics in 1984, the
same
meeting at which Dick Robertson noticed that no cyberneticists had
come to
our presentation, and suggested that we didn't need to go to ASC
meetings
to achieve that, and that we should start our our own group, which
we did
the next year.

I like the New Yorker style of this paper -- the infinite detail
with
little gems being sifted out at intervals. Mary definitely had a
Big
Picture sort of mind.

Best,

Bill P.

8

[from Jason Gosnell 2005.03.25.1925CST]

Dick...may you be well ASAP!

Jason Gosnell

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Robertson Richard [mailto:R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:20 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: More of Mary's writings

[From Dick Robertson, 2005.03.25.1920CST]

Bill, I tried to open this attachment and got a message, "You have
elected to open with Dewey Cyber Doc" but then it didn't open.

I have appreciated your previous offerings of Mary's writings and
probably haven't said so yet. I have been occupied with going to doctors
and stuff like that. I expect to get a pacemaker april 6. Hope I'll be
more lively after that.

Best,

Dick R
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:28 pm
Subject: More of Mary's writings

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.24.1324 MST)]

Here's another piece that Mary wrote; it was actually presented at
the 20th
Annual meeting of the American Society for Cybernetics in 1984, the
same
meeting at which Dick Robertson noticed that no cyberneticists had
come to
our presentation, and suggested that we didn't need to go to ASC
meetings
to achieve that, and that we should start our our own group, which
we did
the next year.

I like the New Yorker style of this paper -- the infinite detail
with
little gems being sifted out at intervals. Mary definitely had a
Big
Picture sort of mind.

Best,

Bill P.

All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message,
in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer
at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.

9

[from Jason Gosnell 2005.03.25.1925CST]

Dick...may you be well ASAP!

Jason Gosnell

Thanks, Jayce. Keep sending good thoughts.

Best,

Dick

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Gosnell <JGosnell@BRIDGEWAY.ORG>
Date: Friday, March 25, 2005 7:23 pm
Subject: Re: More of Mary's writings

-----Original Message-----
From: Robertson Richard [mailto:R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:20 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: More of Mary's writings

[From Dick Robertson, 2005.03.25.1920CST]

Bill, I tried to open this attachment and got a message, "You have
elected to open with Dewey Cyber Doc" but then it didn't open.

I have appreciated your previous offerings of Mary's writings and
probably haven't said so yet. I have been occupied with going to
doctorsand stuff like that. I expect to get a pacemaker april 6.
Hope I'll be
more lively after that.

Best,

Dick R
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:28 pm
Subject: More of Mary's writings

> [From Bill Powers (2005.03.24.1324 MST)]
>
> Here's another piece that Mary wrote; it was actually presented
at
> the 20th
> Annual meeting of the American Society for Cybernetics in 1984,
the
> same
> meeting at which Dick Robertson noticed that no cyberneticists
had
> come to
> our presentation, and suggested that we didn't need to go to ASC
> meetings
> to achieve that, and that we should start our our own group,
which
> we did
> the next year.
>
> I like the New Yorker style of this paper -- the infinite detail
> with
> little gems being sifted out at intervals. Mary definitely had a
> Big
> Picture sort of mind.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill P.
>
>
All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If
thereader of this message is not the intended recipient, please
take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this
message,in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy
Officerat (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to
hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.

10

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.26.0234 MST)]

Dick Robertson, 2005.03.25.1920CST --

Bill, I tried to open this attachment and got a message, "You have
elected to open with Dewey Cyber Doc" but then it didn't open.

If the file is still there in your attachments folder you can try to
double-click on it and see if Word will open it. Otherwise, let me know and
I'll send it again. Heck, I'll attach it again now.

Very sorry to hear that you need a pacemaker -- on the other hand, it may
lead to feeling a lot better. Keep us informed.

Best,

Bill P.

DeweyCyber1.doc (28.5 KB)

11

[From Dick Robertson, 2005.03.26.1820CST]

Well, this is very interesting. I was using my Moz-Firefox browser, and
once again it wouldn't open the Dewey Cyber-whatever. So then I switched
to my Netscape browser, and it brought up a whole list labeled download
manager, last of which was Dewey-cyber. I clicked on it and got the
message, "failed," and then it downloaded the file which I pasted and
saved in Word.

I feel like a primitive being taken on my first airplane ride, but, hey,
whatever works.

And thanks for the good wishes. I'm assured that after the pacemaker I
can play tennis like I haven't for the last year. We'll. see.

Best,

Dick

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
Date: Saturday, March 26, 2005 3:37 am
Subject: Re: More of Mary's writings

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.26.0234 MST)]

Dick Robertson, 2005.03.25.1920CST --

>Bill, I tried to open this attachment and got a message, "You have
>elected to open with Dewey Cyber Doc" but then it didn't open.

If the file is still there in your attachments folder you can try
to
double-click on it and see if Word will open it. Otherwise, let me
know and
I'll send it again. Heck, I'll attach it again now.

Very sorry to hear that you need a pacemaker -- on the other hand,
it may
lead to feeling a lot better. Keep us informed.

Best,

Bill P.

12

[From Kenny Kitzke, 2005.03.27.1540EST]

<Dick Robertson, 2005.03.26.1820CST>

<And thanks for the good wishes. I’m assured that after the pacemaker I
can play tennis like I haven’t for the last year. We’ll. see.>

Dick, I saw your post, but with company did not have time to write much mail. Barely enough time to read/scan the input and save the ones for later response.

Now, you have raised a conflict for me. Should I pray for this guy and his operation or not? What if that darn pacemaker makes you so good in tennis, I won’t even be able to have a reference for beating a nice older PCT buddy again?

Seriously, I hope to see and play with you in Toronto this summer. Even more so next year in China. Won’t that be a blast, regardless who wins our little match!

Since my wife has a faulty wrist that would take surgery to correct, she has opted to quit playing tennis, even doubles. So, last summer I got a new mixed doubles partner who is much better than my wife. Lo and behold, we won the division! And, this summer I will play at the highest level in the league. This is a first in my 35 years of playing in this league. I sort of think its my curtain call. We will probably not be competitive as the men in Level A are way better players than I. But, my spirit is strong and is telling me I need to practice getting to the net and putting balls away. I can still volley and hit overheads that even those young, strong bucks won’t be able to return. Biggest problem is my weight and strength which makes it quite difficult to get from the baseline to the net. My eyesight is also now uncorrectible to 20/20. Just gettin old, I guess. Still have a competitve spirit though.

Be well my friend.

Kenny