pbeck@ARDEC.ARPA (Peter Beck, LCWSL) (01/30/88)
COMPLEXITY OF SYSTEMS VS THEIR COMPONENTS RECENTLY I ASKED SOMEBODY IF PEOPLE ORGANIZATIONS (EG, AN EMPLOYEE UNION) COULD BE CONSIDERED A "SELF-ORGANIZING" SYSTEM THAT IS "SYMBIOTIC" WITH ITS HOST. I RECIEVED, WHAT I THINK IS A RATHER DISTURBING AND TYPICAL ANSWER TO BE EXPECTED FROM HUMANS: > It is hard to call any human organization a "self organizing system" > since its parts (humans) are so much more - % complex %- than the > system itself. Is this a generally accepted proposition, ie, that complex constituent elements can "NOT" form self organizing systems?? the future is puzzling, but CUBING is forever !! pete beck <pbeck@ardec>
gilbert@hci.hw.ac.UK (Gilbert Cockton) (02/16/88)
In article <8801291421.aa28769@ARDEC-AC4.ARDEC.ARPA> pbeck@ARDEC.ARPA (Peter Beck, LCWSL) writes: > >Is this a generally accepted proposition, ie, that complex constituent >elements can "NOT" form self organizing systems?? Broadly speaking, social theories are often opposed across a co-operation vs. conflict continuum. Theories in the Marxian tradition stress conflict as a fundamental dynamic of society. Theories in the functionalist tradition stress adaptation towards universal ends (e.g. Talcott-Parsons). Look to Marxian theories (e.g post/neo/vanilla -structuralism) for evidence of non-self-organisation. Look to functionalist ones for evidence of dormitory consensus. NB Rednecks! - 'Marxian' is a scholarly term, 'Marxist' is both a scholarly and a political term. Marx claimed he wasn't a Marxist! It is thus safe to follow up these ideas without the risk of brainwashing yourself into running off to Cuba/Nicaragua :-) -- Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Heriot-Watt University, Chambers St., Edinburgh, EH1 1HX. JANET: gilbert@uk.ac.hw.hci ARPA: gilbert%hci.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ..{backbone}!mcvax!ukc!hci!gilbert