Re: Relational "Space" - Ulanowicz works

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

John,

Not sure if this was meant for Tim or me, but I would reply
that even though Bob Ulanowicz' work seems conventional
in that it is highly quantitative and even algorithmic,
computational, the conclusions, inferences and suggestions
are all purely in line with Rosen complexity and the total
necessity of an organic, holistic science. Please don't give
up - if you read 5 or 10 paperrs and his book Ecology: The
Ascendent Perspective I think you'll agree that his form of
science is radically different from mechanistic/reductionist
science.

The graph of effective connectance per node versus number
of roles (akin to trophic levels) is the main thing from that
paper that I was suggesting as a good starting point for
mapping out what a space of relational dynamics might be
like, what the dimensions might be like. That x-y coordinate
system is not cartesian though - both of the axes involve
dimensions which are not decomposable in the sense of
particles, entities or even organisms, because both axes
involve relations between parts and wholes - the axis about
effective connectance per node involves a connectivity relation
between nodes (usually species or trophic functional types in
the ecosystem modeling Bob does) and ALL other nodes and
a normalization used to make this relative to the connectivity
of the system as a whole (effective connectance has to do
with total flux of material or energy); and the axis, dimension
about number of roles or trophic levels has integrated within
it the ecological reality that material, energy and causality
flow in a two-way continuum both bottom up (from plants to
top carnivores) as well as simultaneously from top down (from
top carnivores down via predation and also recycling of
nutrients via excretion and detritus).

The cool thing about Bob's work is that it can be a bridge
between mechanistic/reductionism because it is so quantitative
and computational, but it still is able to demonstrate (perhaps
indirectly but still I think convincingly) the essential wholeness
of an ecosystem, or more generally between life and life and
between life and its environment.

Dan

John M wrote:
> Tim, honestly pls.:
>
> do you think that the study in the attachment (Zorach...Pdf) is indeed in
> RR-
> -complexity and not just a conventional 'complex' situation
> science-analysis?
> I found it too much in churning model-based characteristics - then again I
> am
> thinking in 'my' wholeness terms (extreme as they may be).
> I did not read it in its entirety, it looked "too" redux-scientific to me
> (quanti analyses, quantities equalized and calculated, a bit towards
> an engineering study. I know you ARE in such, this is why I ask YOU.)
>
> Cheers