Re: [Fis] Brier, Part 1

>Please tell us how you hierarchy is same or differs from mine, and what
>you think is the most fruitful way of proceeding with this problem. I
>have a paper on this forthcoming in Axiomathes that are interested in
>this kind of work.
>I do not understand your remarks on scalar and specification hierarchies
>and the inconsistency you see in the paper. You have to state this
>clearer for everyone to follow you remarks, please.

OK. You said:
>> 1. A non-manifestlevel with hypercomplex or chaotic interactions. The
>> concept of vacuum in Quantum field theory is one attempt by science to
>> describe this state, albeit without a synechistic frame.
>> 2. An energy level with energy-based causal interaction by natural forces.
>> 3. An informational level with signal and/or code causality.
>> 4. Semiotic level with sign-game-causality within and between living
>>systems.
>> 5.A linguistic level with language-game-causality based on meaning between
>> conscious social systems.So, 1. is a transcendental level, 2. the physical,
>> 3. the chemical, 4. the organic and psychological and 5 the social
>> objective knowledge to relate to Hartmann’s hierarchy.
>> SS: For the record, this is a specification hierarchy, not a scalar
>> one (which is used later in the paper without distinguishing it. [See
>> General Systems Bulletin 31: 13-17 (2002)]
     SS again: The specification hierarchy is, in general: {more general
<-- {{{increasingly more particular}}}, or {more vague --> {{{ increasingly
more definite}}}. ( the brackets, {}, represent classes, arrows indicate
drection of construction). What you have here is:
{physical level {material level {biological level {sociocultural level}}}}.

>> >Critique of current approaches
>> Descriptions of these levels did exist in different areas of modern
>> science, but they have never been brought together into one theoretical or
>> paradigmatic framework.
>> SS: Sorry! -- see my 1993 book Development and Evolution: Complexity
>> and Change in Biology, MIT Press, where I discuss this, as well as the
>> scale hierarchy, and contrast them.
     SS: For the record here, the scale hierarchy is, in general [whole
[[[parts]]], which can have either spatial or temporal interpretation.
     Again, see my short paper in General System Bulletin 31: 13-17. 2002.
As well, Figure 16 in my 1985 Evolving Hierarchical Systems shows in
capsule form the relationsip between these hierarchies, which several
people have told me gave them the AHA! experience.

STAN

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Jan 27 22:21:11 2004