Paulo Garrido writes:
"When a meta-system transition occurs, which properties of the elements
pj(Ai) are preserved in the properties of the meta-system pk(A'), which
properties are not preserved, and which new properties emerge?"
I would suggest the following:
1.The most probable or recurrent characteristics of constituent systems are
assimilated into the meta-system state.
2. The meta-system is NOT an entity which is separate from its constituent
systems. It is the name for a more integrated state of those systems. Ie. it
is NOT A THING, but a relation between things.
3. The meta-system is an historical event or transformation in the relation
between a group of constituent systems.
4. The meta-systemic state is the cumulative result of communication and
(therefore) exchange of characteristics (forms of behavior) between a group
of systems in stable environment.
5. The meta-system can be viewed as a single behavioural set abstracted from
the diversity of behavioural sets of its constituent systems. Through
communication and exchange between systems, their 'various different ways of
doing the same thing' are subject to selection and combination. In this
COLLECTIVE, communicational and impartial process the sets are classified
into similarities and differences. The most representative and TYPICAL
routines which underlie the circumstantial differences between sets become
the single behavioural set which we can call the Meta-system.
6. There is a natural economy involved in this process - a reduction of
number (of ways of doing things (routines)) but an increase in
representative power. That is the limited number of routines in the
meta-system set can handle the diversity of experiences that will be met at
system level. (More fundamentally, you don't have to invent a new routine
for every different experience). There is one meta-routine (assimilated over
time out of many different experiences) which will (more or less) suffice
for all probable events. Thus the meta-system is in the semiotic sense, a
sign. That is, the ONE which stands for the MANY. (Eg. political
organization /representation/constituencies/law/social codes/artistic styles
and movements/scientific paradigms, etc. All of these involve the production
of a single behavioural 'template' or CODE from which individuals may select
and combine the limited number of elements into a large number of possible
messages.
7. The meta-system does not exist 'somewhere'. IT IS INFORMATION. It is
immanent to a group of systems in close and continuous communication with
one another. If we want to 'see' the meta-system, we look at the
SIMILARITIES between the constituent systems.
8. AS Francis Heylighen suggests in his response to Paulo, the emergence of
a meta-system increases the degree of freedom available to the individual by
limiting the number of choices/decisions that have to be made to meet
particular circumstances. There are adequate, ready-made answers for most
circumstances. The cumulative product of past human experience. (For
instance: do we really want to invent our own language? A waste of time of
course).
9. There are certainly systemically-produced circumstances where the
meta-system (which is, itself evolving) enters a bureaucratic and
restrictive phase where it ceases to be a positive social framework and
become a self-reflexive (and thus insane) instrument of oppression. Another
story.
regards from Singapore
Alex Brown