Q1-6 comments

From: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
Date: Tue 09 Jul 2002 - 15:52:22 CEST

This is a brief addendum to some of the concerns posted by Ted
Goranson, which revolve around the 'conflict' between a systemic
structure (ie, enabling reasonably stable, normative interactions) and
the reality of the individual unit (reasonably unstable and mobile).
How do these seemingly contrary processes both exist and interact? Is
only one entity real - ie- the individual unit, and the other merely a
statistical aggregate? Or is the structure real and the individual
merely a perceived phenomenon? Or - as many are now saying - are both
necessary : a long term process of 'normative habits' and the
short-term informed results of these normative habits, ie, individual
units of 'informed matter'.

But you can't have a dyadic process: structure (the long term habits)
and the individual units. Why not? Because the dyad sets up a
power-problem, ie, the location of the source of dynamics. Is it in
the habits, which become privileged and authoritative? Or in the
individual units, which become either individual deviant 'rogues' or,
statistical norms, ie, the tyranny of the majority.

Instead - you must have a triadic process; made up of: a nodal site
for incoming energy in a highly excited and mobile plastic state;
then, a mediate process of normative habits that will transform and
reorganize this energy within the logistics of those normative codes;
and...a resultant organized unit-of-information that is organized in a
coherent manner. This 'final unit' will then enter into relations
with other systems...but, its relations will operate in the same
triadic manner. Its interaction is not Shannon-dyad crisp, but
triadic. Its first interaction with another system is as a vague
highly excited energy-sensate data. NOT as Itself, full and complete.
And, that energy goes through the same triadic interaction, as it is
'interpreted' by this second system. This also implies that all the
various normative habits must have some more cohesive collegiality;
they can't operate as separate unique 'normative habits' for
otherwise, no 'bits' , formed by these habits, would be able to
interact. That is, the grass species would be unable to interact with
the insect species.
There have to be multiple levels of information processing..

So, I don't agree that category theory is the 'way to go'. I consider
that category theory operates within a dyadic rather than triadic
framework. It classifies aggregates but it can't deal with the
deconstruction of discrete units into energy-stimuli, the
re-organization of that energy-content via a system's normative
habits', (which system itself is an evolving set of habits)...into an
'interpreted' discrete unit of energy (the information)....and...the
repetition of this triadic cycle.
Category theory, to me, is a strictly externalist descriptive process
and it can't deal with a dynamic process that deals with processes
that are both external AND internal.

May I suggest our web site: SEE - semiosis/evolution/entropy, for a
view of some of the explorations that are going on in this
area...ie...a focus on multileveled hierarchies, a focus on complex
adaptive systems as triadic processes, and a focus on that vital
interface zone where 'decisions' must be made between gradients of
energy - ie - between stable habits and local interpretations.

 Take a look at SEED, our online journal. And I'm attaching a list of
the papers that are going up next month.

http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see

Edwina Taborsky
39 Jarvis St. #318
Toronto, Ontario M5E 1Z5
(416) 361.0898

Received on Tue Jul 9 15:53:26 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Mar 2005 - 10:24:46 CET