Two _different_ CHAOS theories? OK, NOW I see some of my confusion over Ilya Prigogine’s notion of Chaos – it’s DISTINCT FROM James Gleick’s notion of Chaos: I just read this: “The Line of Influence. Though Prigogine won the Nobel Prize in 1977, his own work wasn’t published in English in any popular form until the translation of Order Out of Chaos from the French in 1987. James Gleick published his best-selling popularization of a parallel strain of chaos, Chaos: The Making of a New Science, in 1986. Although Prigogine’s work is never mentioned in the text of this book, the territory explored by Gleick is virtually the same as that explored by Prigogine, so much so that one could safely say that the same “facts” are being explained by the two books. They are reconstituted, however, from the perspective of different versions of science’s role, so that the two explanations come to strikingly different conclusions and portray very different applications.” So now, I have to read this: (from 1990 when Chaos(es) was(were) really new to the scene. I’d first heard about them in the late 80s and in 1990 in Hampshire College a professor that wasn’t mine was obsessed with it and fractals and such and I would talk to him and ask questions a lot https://www.jstor.org/stable/40242184

Two _different_ CHAOS theories?
 
OK, NOW I see some of my confusion over Ilya Prigogine’s notion of Chaos – it’s DISTINCT FROM James Gleick’s notion of Chaos:
 
I just read this:
“The Line of Influence. Though Prigogine won the Nobel Prize in 1977, his own work wasn’t published in English in any popular form until the translation of Order Out of Chaos from the French in 1987. James Gleick published his best-selling popularization of a parallel strain of chaos, Chaos: The Making of a New Science, in 1986. Although Prigogine’s work is never mentioned in the text of this book, the territory explored by Gleick is virtually the same as that explored by Prigogine, so much so that one could safely say that the same “facts” are being explained by the two books. They are reconstituted, however, from the perspective of different versions of science’s role, so that the two explanations come to strikingly different conclusions and portray very different applications.”
 
So now, I have to read this: (from 1990 when Chaos(es) was(were) really new to the scene. I’d first heard about them in the late 80s and in 1990 in Hampshire College a professor that wasn’t mine was obsessed with it and fractals and such and I would talk to him and ask questions a lot
 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40242184

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


one + = 3

Leave a Reply