Guy wrote: I agree with Loet and Pedro that it seems important to
distinguish between
> environmental constraints (including material constraints emanating from
> the
> qualities of components of a system) and self-imposed limitations
> associated
> with the particular path taken as a dynamical system unfolds through
time.
This distinction is recognized in ecological economics with natural
environment as an ultimate material (sorurce and sink) constraint and
institutions as socially "self-imposed limitations" that send a sociatey
along only one of the available pathways of evolution.
Best
Igor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy A Hoelzer" <hoelzer@unr.edu>
To: "Pedro Marijuan" <marijuan@unizar.es>; <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
> Greetings,
>
> I agree with Loet and Pedro that it seems important to distinguish
between
> environmental constraints (including material constraints emanating from
> the
> qualities of components of a system) and self-imposed limitations
> associated
> with the particular path taken as a dynamical system unfolds through
time.
> In other words, I see some information being generated by the dynamics of
> a
> system, much of which can emerge from the interaction between a system
and
> the constraints of it's environment. I have come to this view largely by
> considering the process of biological development. For example, I have
> come
> to the conclusion that the genome is far from a blueprint of a phenotype,
> although it is more than a static list of building parts. I see the
> genome
> as containing a small fraction of the information ultimately represented
> by
> an adult organism, and I think that most of that information is generated
> internally to the system as a consequence of the interaction between the
> genome and its environment.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy
>
>
> on 2/27/07 6:24 AM, Pedro Marijuan at marijuan@unizar.es wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> As for the first track (planning vs. markets) I would try to plainly
put
>> the informational problem in terms of "distinction on the
adjacent" (Guy
>> has also argued in a similar vein). Social structures either in
markets
>> or
>> in central plans become facultative instances of networking within
the
>> whole social set. Then the market grants the fulfillment of any
>> weak-functional bonding potentiality, in terms of say energy, speed,
>> materials or organization of process; while the planning instances
>> restrict
>> those multiple possibilities of self-organization to just a few rigid
>> instances of hierarchical networking. This is very rough, but if we
>> relate
>> the nodes (individuals living their lives, with the
adjacency-networking
>> structure, there appears some overall congruence on info terms...
maybe.
>>
>> On the second track, about hierarchies and boundary conditions,
shouldn't
>> we distinguish more clearly between the latter (bound. cond.) and
>> "constraints"? If I am not wrong, boundary conditions
"talk" with our
>> system and mutually establish which laws have to be called into
action,
>> which equations.. But somehow constraints reside within the laws,
>> polishing
>> their "parameter space" and fine-tuning which version will
talk, dressing
>> it more or less. These aspects contribute to make the general
analysis
>> of
>> the dynamics of open systems a pain on the neck--don't they? I will
>> really
>> appreciate input from theoretical scientist about this rough comment.
>>
>>
>> best regards
>>
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Mar 1 14:29:10 2007
