Dear colleagues,
On the complexity limits of human societies, my impression is that in the
social application of our brain capabilities (evolved to confront a very
big "natural group" --it is interesting to check psychologist Robin Dunbar,
or neurobiologist Robert Allman, on how brain size escalates in hominids
with the increase in size of social groups, thus making possible language
but also laughter and crying, blushing, etc.) we have somehow substituted
"weak bonds" for "strong bonds". Quite many roles with little personal
acquaintances versus those charged with a lot of emotional and
interpersonal information... Interestingly, some tightly-knitted societies
of today are very reluctant to incur into abstract generic relationships
with scant interpersonal ties, the "organizational revolution" described by
Kenneth Boulding in the Western world during early 20th century.
Thus those ecological limits on ecological networking, succinctly described
by Bob, may have an intricate counterpart in social complexity. Given that
our own social networking implies far more "info flow" (communication) than
the material flows of ecosystems, the connectivity limits do not exert an
"iron grip" related to physical optimization like in ecosystems or in our
won circulatory system (but subtle limits are also at play).
On the hierarchies debate, I would like to enter the role of "boundary
conditions" ... when we make "reverse engineering", trying to go from
scratch stuff to the prototype , (stuffs(parts(wholes))) a la Stan, the
big problem where the crucial info resides is in the
forms-designs-assemblies, so that boundary conditions for every functional
set are properly established. The inner "constraints" also count, of
course, but somehow are given for free (usually are part of the "nature" of
the stuff). This fact of not being able to introduce the boundary
conditions in the construct makes those hierarchical categorizations as
empty, useless conceptualizations ---britle, rhetorical ones like those
pompous Expert Systems of Artificial Intelligence (we all remind that
fanfare during early 80's).
Also, the tremendously changing nature of the boundary conditions around
us, makes the severe dichotomies like nature-culture as artifacts. What a
meal is? Depending on the context of the event, it is chemical,
biophysical, mechanical, psychological, neurological, social,
administrative, legal, cultural, fashionable... what aspect becomes more
relevant depends on the generativity of the occasion.
And that's all for today.
greetings
Pedro
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
