See Synergeo #43202 (typo fixes, hyperlinks added):
Re: Whitney review
> Not condoning laziness but Synergetics is tough going-
> I've been re-reading it and it comes off as more of a
> compilation of ideas- you can see Applewhite's indexing
> and the massive effort it took to organize.
Synergetics is "round" and so may be started anywhere, one of Applewhite's points when talking about the many scenarios it goes into, i.e. the passages aren't disjoint but hook together into long trains of thought -- not unlike Wittgenstein's Philosophical Inventions in that way, also with numbered entries (a comparison he liked).
> I noticed some inconsistencies that might scare off less
> adventurous readers like the contradiction over Universe
> as largest system and Universe not a system-gives readers
> like Rybo too much flexibility in interpretation
I see that more as a matter of nuance i.e. he harps on Universe as aconceptual mostly, but when push comes to shove, we're bound to systematize and so "largest system" gets some airplay -- but isn't that what it's like experimentally? Can you flash on some image and say that's the universe? But don't you pretend you can think of it as a whole, galaxies floating around, someone feeding their pet canary?
My recommendation is don't waste a lot of time on Rybo. As more people realize that Synergetics is both subtle and fun, we'll get some more interesting interpretive literature. Likely some of the greatest contributors to this growing body of work haven't been born yet.
> Wish we had more books like Amy's to bring folks gently into
> the fold (sic)
The Pound Era was also quite good. Don't forget my Synergetics on the Web, getting thousands of hits monthly last I checked, lots of people getting Synergetics out there.