[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Models and ecosystem balance/change...



John M.

Thanks for the interesting posts.

OK, distinguishing the "organization" from the "system" is useful. I just wonder how different these concepts really are when "system" can already include formal structures, in my view with infinite nesting, which is consistent with your "far and beyond."

JK

John M wrote:

Sorry, John K, this is the 3rd of my replies to you within 2 hours.
(It menas not only that I post too much...)
I adjust the 'organization' as "vs" system, (Maybe unorthodox according to
the nonexistent RR-glossary) - System is the model, cut to function AND/or
structure, within the boundaries of its usefulness (purpose). I consider
organization something similar, but NOT squeezed within boundaries, allowing
effects from far and beyond, like a natural system, or a maximum model. It
is my personal usage, the only support for it was the silence of this list
when I asked concerning questions many times.
I don't think it is contradictory to your position (cf: rabbit, as org or
syst).
*
(The below erased 'genom' discussion gave me the idea that we know much more
about it than I ever imagined. I think we don't, so whatever we write about
genom-intrinsics is consistent with our own sci-fi about life.)
Cheerz
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Models and ecosystem balance/change...




Everyone,
I'm wondering if "organizationi" isn't too vague a concept to allow a
discussion of its entailments. What do we mean by organization? The way
something is put together, or the purpose for which it is put together?
Also, there are many ways to describe how and why something is
organized. It seems to me that any concept of organization is dependent
on some other system for which or in which it serves a function or
purpose. Then the function or purpose in that larger system defines the
"organization" for that relationship, and there may be multiple
super-systems in which there are various functions and thus various ways
of understanding the organization. So, I'm thinking that organization
should not be thought of in terms of our mechanical notions of, say "how
something is put together" but in purely relational terms, in which case
the relationship must be specified before imagining the organization.

For example, the organization of a rabbit is certainly related to its
property of  life. But that organization is actually a relationship to
many larger systems. The system of rabbit evolution and phylogeny
through time. Its present-day ecology. Perhaps to a much broader "rabbit
consciousness" if there is such a thing, and all of life on Earth. The
rabbit is "organized" within all these contexts and I think they are
necessary to any description of the organization of the rabbit, given
that we are not just talking about the placement of parts. So I'm
thinking that organization really has a lot to do with the notion of
function. Does this make sense?

John