Dear colleagues,
Let me produce a lateral comment after these intense preliminary rounds.
I would say that numeorous aspects of the current discussion have taken a
dubious turn around the entropy-cul-de-sac (but given that at least half
dozen "sinners" have been indulging in pressing towards that corner I have
no hope!). Rather than being "wrong" the emphasis on entropy makes the
discussion be "irrelevant"; and the mixing of metaphoric uses with literal
ones adds further rations of arbitrarity in the discourse.
Economy is not a domain of energies and entropies but of information and
knowledge --entirely within the symbolic realm. Only one species among 10
millions on Earth (over 40 or 50 millions?) has developed such
sumperimposed world of "economy". Why? Just for the same entropy/energy
"reasons" applying to any happenstance? One needs a robust language,
artificial ecosystems, a counting system, a socialization network,
elementary institutions, etc., in order than one can progressively assist
to the emergence of universal equivalents, currencies, values, markets,
"economic networks", cultures, etc., and realize the growth of social
complexity interspersed with periods of crisis, conflicts, potential
collapse, etc. It is a whole matter which essentially derives from "social
processing" activities performed by intelligent, conscious individuals. The
economic world advances at the same historical pace with the social
accumulation of knowledge, and the great inventions that have changed the
economic world are all "cognizing": writing, codices, printing press, sci.
method, engines, computers... (yes, even engines themselves may be seen as
information & knolwedge "crystallizations" ---se Stonier). Not only today's
economies are "knolwdege based" ---all of them have always been; and all
historical human societies have been "information societies".
Unfortunately, social information is misunderstood yet (and pragmatically
mistreated by social disciplines). How could one run a discussion on
computing &software in entropy grounds?, not much practically indeed. The
same are we trying here, treating the "soft" with merely the concepts of
the "hard", with an arbitrary concoction. Today, the physicalist cult is
in-built in most ways of thinking yet--and it leads to a ping-pong game
that obliterates the emergence of more multimensional, multidisciplinary
reflections, badly needed for the extraordinary problems ahead: The new
"invisible hand" needed previously demands a conceptual revolution.
Apologies for all this info-fundamentalist preaching. And thanks to both
chairs for their recent responses--with a lot of good stuff to ponder. I
will return to the mainstream, but always rebellious against the cornering
by entropy enthusiasts!
all the best
Pedro
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu May 19 13:50:42 2005
