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 To: Loet Leydesdorff ; 'Stanley N Salthe' ; 'fis' Cc: Инга 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. <!--[if !supportLists]-->・ <!--[endif]-->Loet Leydesdorff and Inga Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems: Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing Meaning, 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
