Re: ecological complexity

Norman K. McPhail (norm@SOCAL.WANET.COM)
Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:48:31 -0700


Norm McPhail tries to correct a mistake. So far this year, this is the
sixth one he has had to publically admit to:
>
> Don:
>
> I want to make a simple suggestion. For me, it is too complicated to
> figure out the differences between complex, complexity theory and
> complications etc. So my first suggestion is that we abandon any
> attempt to use the words "complex system." This would let complexity
> theory collapse of its own weight.
>
> Next, I think we ought to use another term for the notion that it takes
> at least two formal self referencing systems to generate a self
> organizing system.

After rereading the above sentence this morning, I noticed that it
suffers from some common mistakes. So to make it more in sync with
Don's and Rosen's ideas I have rewritten it as follows:

'Next, I think we ought to use another term for the notion that it takes
at least two formal self referencing system models to help us understand
a natural self organizing system.'

Don, please feel free to rewrite this again if there are still some
errors in it.

The Santa Fe boys thought that critical mass was a
> good metaphor, but that one led to the edge of chaos and mass
> confusion.
>
> Perhaps we ought to have an informal naming contest. If I were a judge
> of this contest, I would be looking for a simple one or two syllable
> word that captures the synergy of self organizing processes.
>
> "Synergic system" would be my nomination for this naming contest.
>
> Norm