+>>>From the PCP Dictionary:
+>
+>HETERARCHY - a form of organization resembling a network or fishnet.
+>Authority is determined by knowledge and function
+
+Dictionary definitions by their nature must simplify that which is defined.
+The definition of heterarchy is obviously correct but doesn't let one do
+much with it. Some time ago (in PCP I think) someone mentioned how Warren
+McCulloch illustrated the notion of heterarchy in terms of how the US fleet
+essentially won the battle of Midway even though their flagship was sunk in
+the firsy Japonese attack -- i.e. the naval hierarchy was beheaded. However,
+as the battle went on "command" within the US fleet was continually
+transferred to the ship which at a given moment was in the best position
+(usually nearest) to percieve and evaluate the current disposition of the
+Japonese fleet. This ship was allocated the authority, in terms of its
+knowledge, to function as a tempory flagship and direct the operations as it
+best saw fit. As the battle configuration changed this authority was assumed
+by other ships. So the overall control system did exhibit a network-fishnet
+organisation.
This example makes a lot of sense to me.
+
+This kind of situation is characteristic of clusters of small social units
+(which may be formally organised within some hierarchical scheme) when faced
Well, the Midway example does give us a situation where the cooperating
ships all have a common background. They all came from the same training,
they use compatible equipment, they speak the same language, they share the
same basic interest (defeat the Japanese) and so on. It seems like
heterarchy almost requires one dimension to be identical for all members -
though there can be many other dimensions that vary.
+with unanticipated bursts of internal or external generated high
+uncertainty: excessive floods; droughts; an attempt by any particular unit
+to *impose* itself over the others outside of the consensually accepted
+limits of the authority and function as recognised by the others, i.e., of
+the activity domain considered appropriate to it by the others (within the
+limits of the *estblished* hierarchy in which these groups are organised).
+Given that such bursts of high uncertainty in time will become recurrent,
+and that hierarchy genesis and elaboration seems to be intrinsic to all
+evolutionary process (cosmological, biological, and sociocultural), the
+heterarchical process provides the means to continually try and test out new
+forms of organisation which can lead to greater stability and will take the
+form of a new emergent hierarchy.
So heterarchy can also "fill in the gaps" in a hierarchy...a class of
"things" sharing the same label under a certain regime may (essentially)
self-organize based on relative advantages, and perhaps over time this
differentiation may become formalized on the meta- level.
+This is only a general trend since
+heterarchical organization in social systems can persist for thousands of
+years without any modification to the exixtant hierarchy
Sure, differentiation is not inevitable, or it may progress only slightly
and not be "worth" formalizing, or it may be fluid with much too much
shifting to draw any conclusions about a better way to organize aside from
leaving it alone.
+, as with such New
+Guinea groups as the Maring (of which the Tsembaga a just one of the
+subgroups), or the Australian Aborigines. It strikes me that terrestial
+social organisation now and into the next centuries is essentially
+heterarchical since the institutional hierarchies (incl. the UNO, but not
+limited to it) are incapable of dealing with the current and persistent
+non-computably high uncertainty that characterises the world.=20
+
+>HIERARCHY (l) A form of organization resembling a pyramid. Each level is
+>subordinate to the
+>one above it. See HETERARCHY. (Umpleby) (2) An organization whose
+>components are arranged in levels from a top level down to a bottom level.
+>(Arbib) (3) A partially-ordered structure of entities in which every entity
+>but one>is successor to at least one other entity; and every entity except=
+ the
+>basic entities is a predecessor to at least one other entity. (Rogers) (4)
+Narrowly, a group
+>arranged in order of rank or class; we interpret it to denote a rank
+>arrangement in which the nature of function at each higher level becomes
+more broadly
+>embracing than at the lower level. (Iberall) <<
+>
+>So, heterarchies emerge based on function and then form the basis of a
+>hierarchy, for social control purposes, which relies on sanctification?
+
+Broadly speaking, yes. That has been the pattern of social evolution in
+human society (it would really be pushing it to seek analogies to
+sanctification in biological sustems).
Since I like to push things ;), how about saying that the genetic code
"sanctifies" traits? Genes may vary for a time before settling into stable
permutations, like a giraffe's long neck (a good example for a comment
that's really "reaching" :) ?
+>
+>Are "boss" hierarchies more or less primitive than more generalized
+>hierarchies? Are they closer to the underlying heterarchy, ie X bosses Y
+>because X has knowledge that Y needs?
+>How are general hierarchies *more* interesting? Because roles get confused
+>and intermediaries come into the picture? Does the sanctification process
+>move the system away from a mostly functional structure, and if so, to what
+>end? Is this the way that more "words" are written into the system's
+>"vocabulary"?
+
+I would say that viewed from a general evolutionary perspective "boss"
+hierarchies are "more primitive" since they emerge when existing control
+hierarchies lack the variety (the necessary options) to attenuate the
+uncertainty in which the system, or some group of subsystems, find
Interesting...sanctity reduces uncertainty by labelling it "heresy" and
punishing it...
+themselves subjected to. This sort of authority (the right to boss) gets
+delegated from one group to another in heterarchies, and if sanctified is
+only transiently so (here in the Andes it usually involves brief offerings
+to the Mountain Spirits (the Apu) for their help during the extension of the
+crisis only). In the Battle of Midway probably at most the Captain and crew
+of the current boss ship may have said a brief prayer or saluted the flag,
+who knows? But what ever they did wouldn't have been known to the rest of
+the fleet.
Are you sure? Wouldn't it be more a case of the lead ship having the
command code label, ie Ship X is now called "Blue Leader" or something like
that - a common referent for the rest of the ships? Wouldn't that be
essential to coordinating action, especially if the leadership role was
shifting quickly because of the demands of the situation? In other words,
isn't the very *process* of transferring leadership the sanctification
itself?
+On the other hand, boss hierarchies which try to establish and
+perpetuate themselves by coercion (sorry, I misspelled this as "cohersion"
+which surely added to the confusion) emerge when one component subgroup
+identifies it's interests with those of the whole group. Rappaport cites
+"what's good for General Moters is good for America" as a typical example of
+this. It is transient bossing and is now probably adapted as the motto of
+Microsoft for the world. While there are lip service appeals to sanctity
+("America", "Civilisation", etc.) it is certainly nothing to do with the
+genaralised sanctity which is necessary for the adaptive viability of the
+system at large.
Which presumably is a sort of holistic good, accomplished by many
differentiated paths for attempts to reduce uncertaintly and a tolerance
for some degree of ambiguity. The "heresy" strategy is short-term
thinking, and may not be advantageous in the long run because it is
eliminating a source of feedback. On the other hand, the heresy strategy
MAY be adaptive to avoid *overdifferentiation*, ie a certain phenomenon
occurs so rarely or at such a low level that it is not cost-effective to
implement a way to resolve it. Only when it crosses a threshold does it
become worthwhile to readjust.
But then this starts raising heterarchy again. I guess a good example of
both would be "black markets" - officially condemned, structurally informal
and fluid. And here's another: the "numbers game" was illegal gambling
fifty years ago, and now all US states have "lotteries".
+The transient imperialist hierarchies that emerge on the
+breakup of long established control hierarchies (Alexander's Empire,
+Mayapan, Napoleon and his "successors" in Europe, etc.) are other examples.
+They are all (for the better or the worse) heterarchical systems that are
+part of the process of social evolution. That is why I say that a boss
+hierarchy is not a genuine social control hierarchy, though it *may*
+participate in establishing the path dependence of new emergent metasystems,
+but I don't wish to enter this here.
+
+ The issue then becomes: what is sanctification and how did it arise?.=20
+
+>~>>> Is this sanctification an emergent property of hierarchies? Is it
+>~>>> essential?=20
+
+Yes, I think that sanctification is an emergent and necessary property of
+viable social control hierarchies. However, it is necessary to broaden the
+idea of sanctification to see how it can be relevant to the current world
+process. Sanctification (following Rappaport) refers to personal experience
+that is felt as a "response to the enunciation of a sacred proposition or
+occurs in a place or in a ritual associated with such a proposition, that
+proposition partakes in the same sense of truth". The idea is that sacred
+propositions are unquestionable, unfalsifiable, non-discursive propositions
+that are *felt* -- "God exists", "I am possessed by the ancestor spirits",
+"Gaia acts throughout all Earth" (this latter as an emergent proposition). I
+can write these statements here because to me they are not unquestionable
+truths, but to the believer they are non-discursive self evident statements.
"You've got to play to win!"
+The point is that this sort of proposition is given as an affirmation in a
+ritual context (in which the participants feel their participation in these
+truths), it becomes discoursive to others ("I or we affirm the sacred
+propositions"), and other messages transmitted in the same context ("we
+commit ourselves to accorded actions") the unquestionability is also
+transmitted; the truth of the commitment is "certified". People tend not to
+lie in such circumstances, and even if they do it will be taken as true and
+so still cohese social action. The sacred propositions are of a higher
+logical type, they are meta-propositions and so cannot be argued about at
+lower levels -- the level of the social actions of concern to that level.
+This all acts as a powerful attenuator of false information, at least at the
+level of socially coordinated activity, circulating through the society and
+between it's subgroups. As to how it arose: it arose in language cum social
+organisation and the adaptive need to control the near infinite variety that
+language can give rise to..
+
+ If so, in what important ways do the trappings of
+>~>>> "heterarchies" differ? that is, what tells an actor that an incoming
+>~>>> "message" is from either (1) a "superior" or (2) a "colleague". How=
+ is an
+>~>>> order distinguished from a cooperative effort?
+>~>>>
+>~>>> And how do these play together?
+
+These "natural" social hierarchies break down in many ways, but perhaps
+basically because the world in which the societies are embedded is in
+constant change -- order from entropy. Heterarchies are always working along
+*within* the different levels because new things are always happening, and
+reinterpretations of the sacred propositions happen though usually slowly.
+DEsanctification tends to be associated with increased pace of change and
+the appropriation of the ritual sanctifying process by new subsystems that
+emerge below the limits of closure of the system.
Or, the uncertainty rises to the level where the heresy strategy discredits
the system rather than the uncooperative elements. Which makes sense
because each now are significant threats to survival, and the FAILURE of
the heresy strategy (to reduce uncertainty) is EVIDENCE that it is the
system that is a bigger threat to survival.
+The levels get jumbled so
+that logical hierarchy of the distinctions between "superiors" and
+"colleagues" get lost, and these get replaced by boss type relations which
+attempt to substitute for those distinctions, and that is where coercion
+takes hold and cohesion lost.
+This process has about reached its limit today
+and that is why we are looking to a new and adaptive emergent metasystem.
Are you talking about social unrest, or the field of cybernetics here? Or
something else?
+
+I hope I haven't added more confusion, the whole thing is very complex
+precisely because these questions are so basic.
No, your response was very helpful!
+
+John
+
+John Earls
+jearls@pucp.edu.pe
+Pontificia Universidad Cat=F3lica del Per=FA
Paul
---------------------------------
"Information is entropy."
- Jean Baudrillard