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

Re: Thinking about the Rosennean challenge

Thanks Dan.

On the page
http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/anetwork.htm
which is rich in PDF files to read, there is this line:

How can graph theory be used to quantitatively represent and analyze economic interaction networks?

I am reminded of Rashevsky's "Topology and Life" paper, in which he set off to show that graph theory could be used to build a canonical organism (model), an idea which, much later, turned out to have a candidate solution in the M-R diagrams, expressed not in graph theory, but rather in category theory. I sense that the networking folks are about where Rashevsky was in 1954. Lots of room, I think, to put the Rosennean modeling relation to useful work. Perhaps that entails coming to grips with the topologies which are represented as scale-free networks, and more. Much room to explore and articulate the complex interplay between "traditional" and Rosennean analytics, using each to its maximal advantage.

Judith's intuitions about BioTheory are, I think, spot on. I think that one aspect of the challenge would be to combine those intuitions with some papers which explore the relational aspects of communities using a Rosennean ontology intermingled with that which is already familiar to practicioners, particularly in the domains I just suggested.

Don't need to focus entirely on BioTheory. I build software tools for community building. I'd very much love to apply some of what's available in BioTheory to my own projects, and to articulate the theory behind the action as part of the community process itself.

Jack

Dan Fiscus wrote:

Jack,

These links/docs are great. The PDF is so perfect for
what I need right now - also working in Appalachia,
also seeking ways to use networks for sustainability,
etc. Thanks a ton!

I think I agree with you when I say that rather than
argue with physics (or with anyone for that matter),
as if to seek some external validation for Rosennean
complexity and relational systems theory, why not go
on ahead and self-validate, assert that we know and
believe this stuff to have value and validity (both have
some word root meaning, re: strength and power)
and get on with starting to embody/realize/instantiate
these values and models as we build something new
and real and of benefit to ourselves and maybe others.

Maybe BioTheory is that sort of action, but I wonder
if there are other direct actions we could do?

Dan


Jack Park wrote:

My friend, Tom Munnecke, gave two links in another forum on the web. They are:

http://www.orgnet.com/BuildingNetworks.pdf
and
http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/netgroup.htm

I see some connections between these two URLs and the challenge Judith poses to this community. The connections are based, I think, on the notion that we, here, are busy taking on the physics community, when, at the same time, others are already doing things that are intrinsically, and intensely relational in nature, and without benefit of any ideas about what is the core subject of this forum. I strikes me that the road ahead lies more in the ground-breaking science, or lack of it, that is now the web, the communities (read: organisms) forming on that web, and in the learning opportunities that arise within and between those communities.

I think that I am suggesting that the time has past to attempt to enlighten physists (if, indeed, that is necessary, sufficient, or even a logical goal one might place on a challenge). Rather, I think, the time has come for the arguments and the technology, which one imagines Rosennean Complexity to embrace, to be taken, in a down and (not too) dirty, hands-on fashion, to an environment in which the nature of entrenched sensibilities has yet to mature. In the spirit of emergence, I think the rest will take care of itself.

Jack