Joseph said: >Of course it is persons, and not "systems", in their complexity, that are communicating and not communicating and wondering whether to continue to communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated. Any attempt at a more complete understanding of communication should be able to take such complexification of the notion of system into account, in my opinion.
S: Here, in my thinking, you are broaching the internalist / externalist dichotomy. Hierarchy, as I have just outlined it in a recent posting, is a global systems model -- an externalist construction such as is used in the natural sciences. When you refer to a human person, you are referring to an entirely different order of entity. Persons peer out at the universe from their local positions -- from inside themselves. They have no place -- as unique persons -- in systems diagrams or models like the hierarchy models. Bruno said: >This thread reminds me George Bush when he said that that corporations are persons. S: It was the Supreme Court -- many appointed by Butch -- that said that. In any case, you can see from my comments above that this statement is sheer nonsense. Corporations are subsystems of a Corporative State (phrase coined by Mussolini). They are unable to vote, as such, but they can deploy costly messages aimed at defeating politicians who are not striving to increase their corporate power. STAN On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>wrote: > Dear Gordana and Loet, > > I think that you here and Loet, with his idea of local inversion of the > hierarchy, have an intuition of something I consider potentially very > important. In reality, it is the processes in the "hierarchy" that > have been moving and continue to move partly in a non-univocal manner, > countercurrently if you like. My logic gives a framework for such > movement in a spiral, not circular manner by alternating actualization and > potentialization. > > Of course it is persons, and not "systems", in their complexity, that are > communicating and not communicating and wondering whether to continue to > communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated. Any attempt at a more > complete understanding of communication should be able to take such > complexification of the notion of system into account, in my opinion. > > Best, > > Joseph > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se> > *To:* Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net> ; 'Stanley N > Salthe'<ssal...@binghamton.edu>; > 'fis' <fis@listas.unizar.es> > *Cc:* Инга <inga....@mail.ru> > *Sent:* Saturday, November 02, 2013 9:51 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] reply to Loet > > > Could it possibly be imagined as a circular motion (bottom-up--top-down— > and-back-again)? > > Just a thought. > > > All the best, > > Gordana > > > http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/ > > > From: Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net> > Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:21 AM > To: 'Stanley N Salthe' <ssal...@binghamton.edu>, 'fis' < > fis@listas.unizar.es> > Cc: Инга <inga....@mail.ru> > > Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet > > S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.) A nice example for you > might be communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse > code. The actual local operations here may not be the best framework to > view this (including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this > example into my above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is > communicating, not individual persons. It takes two positions for this > communication to occur, and this makes the system a large scale one, and so > its speed of communication is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy > principles. > > I don’t follow the argument completely: the larger social system would > then be subsumed under the individual system (because of its larger size > and speed), but it is a social construction on top of the individuals, > isn’t it? Is there room for a local inversion of the hierarchy (and thus of > the second law?) such as the generation of redundancy? > > Best, > > Loet > > <!--[if !supportLists]-->・ <!--[endif]-->Inga Ivanova and Loet > Leydesdorff, Redundancy Generation in University-Industry-Government > Relations: The Triple Helix Modeled, Measured, and > Simulated.<http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3836> > > <!--[if !supportLists]-->・ <!--[endif]-->Loet Leydesdorff and > Inga Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems: > Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing > Meaning<http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849>, > *Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology *(in > press). > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
