I agree that hierarchy is important, and very widely used in
different ways. To be a scientist means to unrevel the differences,
so that we can understand it better.
I can maybe help with some examples from biology, etc.
> 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.
My example of [controle] hierarchy is the body of animals, a less
clear example that of plants, where a hierarchy is less clear to
point out. Controling is done by electricity [nerves, etc, and
ion-concentrations], but also by hormones [molecules that have a very
low concentration, with a signalling function to other parts of a
body that where the hormones are made most of the time].
Other examples are eco-systems, but they are fundamentally different
in their organization because they are not controlled in their
evolution by fairly discrete points of re-development as a whole in
events we call births in the case of organism-bodies. However, there
are -control hierarchies definable in them too.
One book I know about hierarchy in ecosystems considers hierarchies
of scale of time and place, so not really of control directly.
Another wellknown hierachy comes around in evolutionary biology with
the hierarchy of genes-cells- organs-organisms. However this is
mainly an example of a ill-hierarchy, since the relations of the
levels are not of control [some are, like gene-cell, where control
can be both ways] but of inclusion.
.. 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 agree
> 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?
>
yes. I agree, lets do it!
Theories come and go, the frog stays [F. Jacob]
-------------------------------------------------------
|Hans-Cees Speel School of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and management
|Technical University Delft, Jaffalaan 5 2600 GA Delft PO Box 5015 The
Netherlands
|telephone +3115785776 telefax +3115783422 E-mail hanss@sepa.tudelft.nl
HTTP://www.sepa.tudelft.nl/~afd_ba/hanss.html featuring evolution and memetics!