At this point, I feel I need a ‘refresher’ on Loet Leydesdorff’s
important distinction, with reference to information, between recursion
and incursion. Loet?
When one thinks outside the box, as Bob U. will have us do, the air may
seem a little thin, for a while. However, one can soon get
acclimatized, with some good will.
I am not sure, but I guess that the recursive transductions assume a
forward arrow of time: the previous state (at t-1) is "transduced" into
a next one (at t = t).
An incursive system provides also a reference to its current state. For
example, a new technology is shaped with reference to the previous one,
but also with reference to a current market as the relevant selection
environment. A hyperincursive system develops with reference to its next
future state (t + 1) or even beyond that (t + n).
For example, meaning -- in interpersonal communications -- is provided
from the perspective of hindsight in the present, but with reference to
horizons of meaning. This reference to possible future states provides
the intentionality that is specific for interhuman communication. The
logic thus is different from a biological system developing with the
arrow of time (in history).
Another terminology would be that of trajectories and regimes.
Trajectories are shaped with time; for example, along life-cycles.
Regimes (e.g., life vs. death) are next-order selection mechanisms which
shape the conditions for trajectories. This is still at the level of
general systems theory. In interhuman communication specifically, the
order remains an order of expectations which feeds back onto the present
state from future (possible) states. This inversion of time leads to the
generation of redundancy as different from the (Shannon-type)
information. It provides new options.
Hopefully, I answered your question.
Fis mailing list