Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> > John J. Kineman wrote:
>
> These examples seem to imply an either/or
> > > situation, not different levels of complex interaction (Norm's "and"), but
> > > the potential for gradients (and "and") seems evident. "Small talk" would
> > > be less complex (or complicated) than a more considered conversation, a
> > > highly bureaucratic and rule-oriented society would be less complex than
an
> > > innovative one, etc. I don't think any of this would contradict Rosen's
> > > view, because it recognizes different levels of interactional complexity
> > > AND ultimate complexity.
>
> This "either/or" aspect of the modeling relation is something I've been
> wondering about too as I've been sanding and varnishing and otherwise
> catching up with my boat maintenance chores. This is what led me to
> think in terms of self organizing systems rather than complex systems as
> the focus of getting our formal models to commute. So I'm beginning to
> think that Rosen's modeling relation notions are really useful in
> discerning and gaining a deeper understanding of all kinds of self
> organizing processes and systems.
>
> That's one of the main reasons why I suggested that perhaps we ought to
> think about abandoning the term "complex systems." By the way, we now
> have three suggested replacement names: John suggested "participatory
> systems," Dan suggested "Chaordic systems" and I suggested "synergic
> systems."
>
> By focusing on the modeling relations of self organizing systems we
> automatically then need to think about what we mean by "self"
> organizing. From my personal subjective point of view, anything is self
> organizing if I personally don't need to participate in its organizing.
> From another perspective, some might say that all systems that doesn't
> need human beings may be self organizing. Or some may say that self
> organizing means that God did not directly participate in its organizing
> processes. Thus creationists might argue that self organizing is just
> an illusion we create to help our selves ignore the existence of God.
>
> My own thoughts are that if we take John's four examples and consider
> the extent of their self organizing qualities rather than their
> complexity, we gain a better understanding of just how effective the
> modeling relation is in helping us to understand a variety of systems.
> I think this also allows us to easily incorporate many qualitative
> differences as well as gradients and heirarchies without getting caught
> up in the subjective/objective confusions. I would like to hear what
> others think about all this because in some ways this is a meaniful
> change in some aspects of Rosen's ideas.
>
> Norm