Talk:James Grier Miller

message: The "University of the World" was a concept. Not an institution. Its a linking of university no longer needed due to today's technology. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 04:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A theory "University of the World" necessarily not true. Have you not ever had a theory? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stated early "that I could find nothing on it". I was looking in the wrong places I thought University of the World existed, and it does in theory. Reisman claims on his own webpage to have written papers, essays, worked with James Grier Miller. This is laughable considering its existance never left paper. There is aclaim there was an office, this may have been a office in Miller's house in La Jolla. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 04:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The address given on the reference I cited is either an office block or an apartment building (Google Earth).  But I agree: Reisman is trying to make himself look good.  He is being liberal with the truth, considering that no work by him & Miller was ever published.  Unpublished work is possible, I suppose. Michaelbusch 05:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I doubt he has ever worked with Jonas Salk. This is a situation were truth and citation collide. There is available information to support the claim. Yet no evidence exists to prove the claim.  Offer the reader/ future editor as much info as possible, and the truth will come through. Some editor may know Reisman intimately and offer more facts. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  University of the World does seem to have been an unincorporated educational entity, because it merged with Future Generations Graduate School at the end of 2016. https://www.future.edu/page/welcome/about-us.html Perhaps we should scrap the re-direct, since there is now no place to put pointers to that entity. cshirky (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "University of the World" is a concept 

message: Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed the worksection of this article for now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worksection removed 

message: Miller stood out in the 1980s and 1990s as having completed the most substantial and well-illustrated account of Living Systems Theory.  I first discovered him in late 1980s (much to my chagrin, I confess, because I had thought my 1981-82 draft of my Theory of Radially Evolving Energy (TREE) in the Int'l J Gen Sys was more completely original).  I was living in La Jolla at the time, pursuing research at Scripps Oceanographic and UCSD, and I met Miller in La Jolla at one of his LST group meeting, also meeting John Reisman with whom I communicated sporadically during those years. Anyone working in self-organization theory had to know of Miller's 19 general subsystems that he claimed are applicable to all living systems.  His "shred outs" are a classic contribution to the field and his book has been matched by no person since in terms of illustrative power.  My criticism of LST in the 1980s was that Miller did not take the step to extend a general energetic theory across the physics-chem-biology boundary; but, from cell through super-social system, he had a fairly comprehensive and complete exposition.  Many today would disgree with the demarcation of his 19 subsystems and the particular usefulness of this exact set; however, the approach, and the fact that he built this theory into something that was recognized internationally, was bold and prominent in the field.
Thus, I would hope that someone more expert than I in LST details and history would fill in here by describing the significant contributions this scientist and natural philosopher provided.  ~~ Justin Lancaster, 11/28/09  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.132.70 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Justin, thanks for sharing your experiences. Wikipedia does have a Living systems theory, and even a Living systems article. This article didn't link to those because I recently removed part of the article (see the last talk item). For now I restored the link to the LST article. I also admire Millers work on LST: I think he wrote rather a monumental synthesis after all the work he allready done. But I would like to know more about the influences of this work. I am not much of an expert, but I do know Miller deserves some more explanation. I you want to contribute to the article yourself please be our guest. -- Mdd (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important to mention Living System Theory (LST)