Two that I have found problematic are the definitions of

Energy: especially the separation of living and non-living

and

Resonancy: Although there have been clarifications by John and others, the
definition still connotes linearity.

I believe the definitions of these and other postulates; principles can be
improved by adding greater clarity in a way that is true to Rogers original
intent. Yet, there has been much hesitation to even consider revising/improving
the definitions (as if they are carved in stone).

What did Nightingale say? . . . "No system can endure that does not march." or
something like that.

Howard


Howard Karl Butcher, RN; PhD, APRN, BC
Associate Professor
442NB
The University of Iowa College of Nursing
Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1121
319-335-7039
howard-butcher@...



-----Original Message-----
From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Jacqueline Fawcett
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 11:56 AM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver

Pam, Thank you for your very prompt reply. I agree re: evolution of the SUHB.
The question now is: What aspects of Rogerian science need to evolve? Best
regards, Jacqui


________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Reed, Pamela
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 12:37 PM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver



Jacqui,
This is a wonderful question! As a Rogerian, I'd like to see her conceptual
system live forever. It was and is my sine qua non for being in nursing and for
pursuing a doctoral degree in nursing as opposed to another helping discipline
for example. But alas, as the philosopher said, all theories are born to die.
Though I think it better to say that conceptual systems continue evolving and
can't remain static - both in their content and in the ways they inspire their
practitioners... And Martha would be the first to agree, given her 'open
systems' view of knowledge, science, and human beings. Good reason to continue
the dialogue.

Pam

Pamela Reed


________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
on behalf of Jacqueline Fawcett
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 9:09 AM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver

I would be disappointed if the listserv went away but I certainly understand
Bear's point about his efforts. Perhaps each of us who would like the listserv
to remain could pose a question for dialogue. I'll start:

How open are Rogerians to changes in the content of the Science of Unitary Human
Beings? Is what Martha wrote "set in stone" or should revisions be made in
content as needed?

Jacqui

Jacqueline Fawcett

________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf of bear
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 10:32 AM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver

Hi all

I have been looking over the activity level for the listserver and
wondering whether it is still performing any useful function.

Most of the posts to it are from spammers trying to market some sort
of goods or services and it has been a very long time since there have
been any extended dialogues. My hunch is that as people have become
more email savvy and their interests have broadened, the benefits of
the listserver in facilitating communication are being replaced by off
list communications or that people are congregating on other listservers.

It would seem to be an appropriate forum for communications from the
officers or board but I can't really remember when last there was such
communication.

So, the question: Is it worthwhile to maintain the listserver when
there is so little use being made of it? Most of my work on the
listserver at this point is dedicated to identifying and deleting
spammers - which is not quite the way I want to spend my time and very
little time is spent reading interesting posts from colleagues.

So, I suggest that we engage in a dialogue about the utility of
maintaining the listserver and if that dialogue fails to generate
appropriate interest and responses, we agree to let the listserver go
on in a relatively unmoderated manner - unfortunately that would
likely eventually result in a lot of spam. The upside would be that
the older messages would remain intact - as opposed to formally
shutting down the listserver which would mean that the 1200 messages
would be lost.

Another option would be that someone else step up to be moderator.

bear

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]