Re: [Fis] "Ecological Economics and Information"

Dear FIS colleagues:

This email seeks to respond to several recent posts. In particular,
I start to address points raised by Loet, Henner, Pedro Rafeal and
Luis.

It appears to me that attempting to identify a common basis of
representation for communication among us requires a wide view. In
particular, it requires appreciation of the wide diversity of
concepts and relations. It requires an attempt to use language
consistency.

Loet:

I do not understand what you mean by "asymmetry" in this context.
Perhaps you mean an ecological system? I would not even guess
at what you are seeking to communicate with the term "triple Helix
Dynamics" unless this is a metaphor for a particular belief system.
Perhaps you are suggesting an intertwining of relations?

Is society a living being? I think you are spitting hairs on what
constitute beingness. A population of living beings assembles into a
society, does it not? Is it beingness or living that creates the
exclusion in your mind? The degrees of classification apriori
assumes that beingness can be categorized based on organization, does
it not?

It seems to me that you are pleading that social sciences should be
granted a special privileged usage of language. Could you offer
some reasons why you think that social sciences can be excluded from
a global paradigm? Or, is this merely a profession of your personal
values?

Rafael:

Based on your posts in May / June, I ask: How can one include and
exclude terms in communicating about information? If one is to
separate words into two classes, one related to information and one
not, then what is the boundary between the two classes? After our
discussion in Baden-Baden, I wonder how you view the treed structures
of statements (Satz) from the basic (Grund) structures.

Henner: I admire the works of several economists, including Herman
Daly. However, how is this philosophy of economics to be related to
natural principles? What in you mind distinguishes intelligent
opinions from scientific information? With effort, many posters to
this list serve can create plausible scenarios about our common
future. What allows us to distinguish between pessimistic and
optimistic scenarios?
What logical set of syllogisms will tie these threads of ideas into a
persuasive picture? The concept of Human Destiny? How do you relate
this concept to "information" or communication?

Pedro: You are correct in picturing a bifrucation between the
individual and the population. In purely mathematical terms, there
is a syllogistic separation. In another sense, if it takes a village
to raise a child, does it take a society to heal a patient? My point
is that the mathematical usage creates a complete separation between
the component and the assembly while the biological and social usage
sustains a relation between the component and the assembly.

Luis:
I continue to think about your questions but have not a clear vision
of what you are asking. Is a concealed component of your question a
desire to apply the MKS system of coherent measurements across all of
nature? What is your view of "units" such that the commonality of
mathematical operations is preserved? How can we be assured that
local relations are extensible to global relations?

Cheers

Jerry

>Dear fis colleagues,
>
>I think that Luis is quite right. Let us postpone the general social
>themes to the end of the discussion and let us try to enter into
>specifics. However, at the time being I cannot help but having my
>meager reflections focused on the bridge between both Jerry and Luis
>introductions yet. I will write down just a few 'pills':
>
>1- The general system classification of levels presented by Jerry
>(O�1 subatomic.... O�10 planet) would have a bifurcation at level
>O�7, individuals, starting a new branching that covers human
>socioeconomic organizations. Face to face with the branch of
>ecological systems. I am reminded Michael Conrad's consideration
>about the human 'economy' as an 'artificial ecology'...
>
>2- Economics, as a science devoted to that 'artificial ecology',
>should be taken basically as an INFORMATION SCIENCE (the same than
>for many contemporary biologists, biology itself has become an
>information science). Loet's message puts some interesting
>speculations about that (and Jerry's contains further intriguing
>points too).
>
>3- The information signals, contents, processes, and tools of
>economic systems have been evolving historically (as I referred in
>my last message): along with the social problems and the scientific-
>technical opportunities to tackle them. Modern forms respond mostly
>to the social complexity.
>
>4- At present, those 'forms' of economic information would be deeply
>distorted by the whole sociocultural dynamics. At least, there are
>monumental info absences (from Luis: exergy costs, ecological
>costs, degradation costs), and the financial dimensions looks quite
>hypertrofic.
>
>5- Market idealization, mechanistic stubbornness (in mainstream
>classical economics) dominate economic thinking. From these
>promises, the whole contemporary problems in the relationship
>between the 'natural' and the 'artificial ecosystems' are
>automatically left outside the panorama of scientific analysis,
>together with the need to rethink the info forms accompanying
>economic life.
>
>6- Then we are conduced to some of the comments within Heiner's
>message on Keith Caldwell and Herman Daly...
>
>best
>
>Pedro
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fis mailing list
>fis@listas.unizar.es
>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sun Nov 2 22:38:15 2003