Wise Nick -
As usual, I got my ears boxed on the substance, but everybody gave me
a pass on the use of the metaphor, "attractor and basin". It's been
quite a while since I read any complexity literature and nearly as
long since a complexity topic has graced these pages.
So, I am wondering, if any of you would care to advise me on how to
use that metaphor properly. If we were dedicated to "filling that
basin", what would that look like? What does this "systems talk"
contribute to a discussion, other than a whiff of modernity? Would I
have said less or more if I had suggested that we "alter the
incentives surrounding childcare for men and women", or the like.
By all means, let's return to considering the phenomena in question
(Openness vs Inequality) using the tools of complexity theory. In
particular, of the socio-economic status of individuals within our
system when engaged in one or more of the obvious "Open Systems" that
are popularly included in western (and especially US culture) and
specifically the global communication/information network comprised
mainly of the Internet but also Cell Networks, Publishing and other
Media Networks, and perhaps even outliers like HAM or CB radio and
real-world public events such as meetings, conferences, public protests
(e.g. Occupy), Democratic Processes, and the Marketplace.
If we consider each individual over time as occupying a point in this
space (a given gender, age, salary, net worth, educational-level,
employment status, group-affiliations, etc.), and their being an
Evolution function (F(t,_v)) which describes how that individual "moves"
in phase space, then perhaps we can recognize and describe various
point, line(Orbit), area(basin) and volume (in N-dimensions) attractors.
Following Glen's criticism of the "Landscape Metaphor", I will add that
terms such as "orbit" (celestial navigation?) and "basin" are useful for
their familiarity, but are very limited. In particular (no ear-boxing
intended) I don't think the idea of "Filling a Basin" is apt... but
ignoring that misleading aspect of the landscape metaphor, I think your
point can be used to talk about exploring the adjacent possibles to
F(t,_v) (name them Fn(t,_v) which might be alternative rule-sets
(social, regulatory, religious, ???) whose attractors are more "equal"
across the identified qualites of Gender, Race, and Sexual_Orientation
(GRS).
This opens the question of "what means more equal?". I suppose first
we need to identify what we are measuring... perhaps salary is key,
maybe accumulated wealth/assets is another measure many follow, maybe
social status (within what group? how broad?), maybe access to *other*
resources besides $$? Some would include other features such as
(likelyhood of being sexually harrassed, murdered, or raped). Once we
identify that, then I suppose that we are interested in Fn(t,_v) whose
attractors, when projected into the dimensions being valued, show no
correlation with GRS? G, R and S, for our purposes are characterized
by small integer sets (G cardinality of 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 if we
differentiate between trans in each direction and hermaphrodite and
maybe Neuter?) and (R cardinality of 2, 3, or 18,973 depending on how
distinctive we want to be at which point it seems like R has smeared
into Ethnicity and even Tribal/Clan/Family distinctions?) and S (roughly
the cardinality of GxG?).
I can't tell if modeling these things more formally will help
understanding, but perhaps?
I suspect that *equality* is not precisely what we seek.. but maybe
there are other properties of the phase space and the attractors which
we would like to find? The term "Class" in popular discussion seems apt.
As is often the case with *any* system, thoughtful, informed, motivated
modeling of the domain often helps us understand things which were a
puzzle before, and sometimes even solve the implied "problems" that were
represented in our puzzlement. In this case, what resources or
experiences do SWMs have access to which non-SWMs do not (as easily?)
and/or how can we change F(t,_v), or more to the point, choose from an
infinite set of Fn(t,_v) which match the criteria we seek... and EVEN
more to the point what does the space of Fn(t,_v) look like, what are
the "adjacent possibles" to our current F(t,_v) and can we imagine or
prescribe an evolution from Fo(t,_v) TO a desired Fn(t,_v)?
Just to be difficult or oblique, let me close with a highly figurative
allusion to a familiar children's allegorical tale: If Jack and Jill go
up the hill (Landscape metaphor) to fetch a pail of water (seeking a
more equitable Fn(t,_v) for all) then must Jack fall down,and break his
crown? And if so, what does that mean? A fall from grace of the SWM?
And must Jill also therefore come "tumbling after"? If figurative
speech using metaphor is risky, I suppose turning a simple children's
fairytale into an allegory for modern socioeconomic equality is even
riskier?
- Wonky Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
