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.chwrote:
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
Meaninghttp://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