I am not happy with the way in which I/we left our ongoing dialogue(?)
concerning hierarchies and hierarchical structures several months ago.
or entertainment value: it is of fundamental importance. I would like to
make a fresh, new beginning and try to explore and communicate rather than
debate. I am not here to "win" points; I am here to learn.
You define hierarchy as "anything that has levels." Well, everything in this
universe seems to have levels so, according to that definition, everything
in the universe is a hierarchy -- so where is there room for
non-hierarchical structures or dialogue/discussion about them?
Indeed, if everything has levels, there is no such "thing" as
non-hierarchical structures, because the definition of hierarchy subsumes them.
I am more interested in exploring the nature of the relationship between
levels (or parts) than the mere fact that there are levels. In my
terminology, "hierarchy" refers to a structure wherein the levels are
related in a command/obedience or superior/inferior modality and the "lower"
levels are controlled by the "higher" levels. This implies some specific
ideas about the nature of the communication or information exchange
processes between those levels.
I am interested in exploring what other possibilities for relationship
exist, if any. For me, cybernetics continues, at heart, to be a study of the
relationship between the component parts of a system with particular
reference to the character and quality of the communication and control
mechanisms between them. If there are different kinds of
communication/control relationships possible -- and I assert that there is
-- then a consideration of their information exchange processes is extremely
valuable.
The recursive architecture I was referring to, also "has levels." If your
definition of hierarchy includes everything, then there is no room for other
types of relationship or for dialogue about them or exploration of their
significance.
In terms of PCP's mission, my observation is that most (all?) social systems
have, historically, been structured as hierarchies and that is the
fundamental cause for the chaos that now exists in the social fabric. If we
are about the business of creating new systems -- or, at least, better
understanding the ones we have -- this could be a most fruitful adventure.
I know I am touching on basics. The question is, can we agree on basics so
that we can get on with learning rather than wasting our time and energy on
debating irrelevant semantics.
Where do you stand? Do you wish to share dialogue? Does anyone else?
Best regards,
Boris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Boris G Freesman, Q.C.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Collaborating in the task of reshaping the future of humanity."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Caminante, no hay camino; se hace camino al andar." (Antonio Machado)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Toronto, Canada
Phone, (905) 886 5005; Fax, (905) 886 5006
e mail, freesman@inforamp.net
snail mail, 8 Quail Valley Drive, Thornhill, Canada, L3T 4R2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~