> From Alex Brown:browna@tp.ac.s
g
> Date 2nd October 1996
>
> Don Mikulecky (http://views.vcu.edu) writes:
>
> "It seems clear that the meta-system only relates to its constituent
> subsystems as a substrate for its own existence. If it were a machine,
> for example, this would be very different. The metasystems would arise
> from its parts in a clear, specified way. In the case of other
> entities which differ from machines, the relation to parts is quickly
> lost in favor of an expression of "function". These functions are
> expressible
> as mapping between the constituent entities mot as individual parts but
> as collections. Thus the Meta-system quickly takes on its own character
> and looses most of the detailed structure of the substrate.
> The functions are best ennumerated by asking questions like
> "why is there a meta-system at all?"....."why do the recocognizable
> attributes
> of the meta system exist....why did they arise?" "
>
> I am suggesting that there is in social/cultural systems an equally 'clear
> and specified way' in which the meta-system arises. One in which the
> relation (of the meta-system) to the parts (constituent systems) is quite
> specific and which equally precisely defines the 'character' of the
> meta-system.
Yes, that's what I was afraid of....another reduction ala the mechanist/reductio
nist
scheme. Well, you have lots of company! I think the systems mentioned
are not machines and do not fit your scheme at all.
The key to this which I mentioned in my previous posting lies
> in the nature of the communicational processes which exist between (lets
> call them sub-systems) and that these are essentially alogarithmic and
> rule-based. That is the recursive application of a selection-combination
> alog to the diversity of forms which exist and which define the character of
> the sub-systems. This kind of DYNAMIC CLASSIFICATION will (in my view
> automatically or spontaneously (?)) group those forms into similarities
> (probabilities) and differences (circumstantial variations and from the
> point of view of the emergent meta-system: random characteristics). The
> whole issue for me revolves around the INTEGRATION which takes place as an
> effect of communication between systems at the same organizational level.
>
> Don says: "Thus the Meta-system quickly takes on its own character and
> looses most of the detailed structure of the substrate". Yes, this is true,
> but I am suggesting that one can be more specific in this sense we can say
> that the 'loss of detail' is in fact a LOSS OF DIVERSITY of form. (The
> random / circumstantial characteristics mentioned above. The different ways
> of doing the same thing). What is left is the most recurrent + probable and
> specialized forms and it is this which precisely defines the character of
> the emergent meta-system.
I'd suggest that, in fact there are not many mappings between the communication
network and the kind of function that emerges. This is the nature of
emergent phenomenon, is it not? The character of the emergent
metasystem is more a reflection of entirely NEW interactions which were
not possible before it came into being. These are of a different nature
from what the subsystems are like. Otherwise, we are merely talking
about another, albeit sophistocated, communication network and therefore
nothing interesting.
>
> As to: "why is there a meta-system at all?". The answer must be from my
> point of view: the effects of communication between groups in a relatively
> stable environment which will allow continuity of exchange between systems.
And I would say because new PROCESSES are made possible which have no
way of being traced back to the parts!
>
> And as to: ."why do the recocognizable attributes of the meta system
> exist....why did they arise?" Because of the nature of the communicational
> processes which classify the characteristics of the constituent systems.
> They will automatically produce a definite set of highly probable (relative
> to the original group) set of forms. As I said in my previous posting. If
> you want to see the meta-system, look for the (increasing) similarities
> between the constituent systems.
And I would say that probably an infinite number of alternative
communication processes or constituent systems might have produced
the same or similar results.
The nature of the emergent metasystem is shaped by new processes....FUNCTIONS...
which it brought into being!
>
> regards from Singapore
>
> Alex Brown
Regards from Richmond on the James....
Don Mikulecky