Talk:James Grier Miller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Article consisted of approx. 95% verbatum un-cited repeat of obituary [[1]]. Per. Wikipedia:Copyvio, I have reverted to last un-offending version. Michaelbusch 06:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement concerning the 'University of the World' was copyvio from [[2]]. I am also unable to find anything in Google that refers to this institution that does not refer directly to Miller. I am uncertain about notability. Michaelbusch 03:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I found exactly one reference to the 'University of the World' giving contact information: [[3]]. However, the email address there is that of Miller (who is obviously not taking messages) and the telephone number given has been disconnected. I conclude that the 'University of the World' is no longer active, and never had much influence. I am even more uncertain about notability. It may be that the group merely has no Internet presence, which seems very odd. Michaelbusch 04:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I found exactly 12,000 references to the 'University of the World' [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knowpedia (talkcontribs) 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
~12200 for the phrase, but the vast majority do not refer to Miller's project. Specifying La Jolla cuts it down to 38 and eliminates false references, but only one of those 38 gives contact information. Michaelbusch 04:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, however this is an article that is connected to an article that may or may not be true, shed light on the article (Centrist Party), poke holes in it, dont sweep it under the rug. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
James Grier Miller is 100% real. The Centrist Party, may at best be 40% fact (not provable).

The "University of the World" is a concept[edit]

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)

A theory "University of the World" necessarily not true. Have you not ever had a theory? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. 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)

Worksection removed[edit]

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) P.S. I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.

Important to mention Living System Theory (LST)[edit]

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 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

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)