Re: Dynamical Hierarchies

[James N Rose <***>]

Judith 

:-)  well, the marvelous thing about 'simple questions' is that
any responce always justifies RR's view of existence .. answers
always include notions not originally imagined [causally expected]
by the asker.  I.e. there is always more involved than a given 
model includes. {you did it to me with your reply, my thoughts
were in one direction and you came back with an equally valid
alternative adjunct}  :-)

That relation is important in and of itself, but I'd better leave it
for another time ; along with my intuitive notion to remember to include
it in my equation-building project ... an overarching factor Q .. that
imposes prioritizing and valueweighting .. that redirects or drives
outcomes.    This is the big chasm that divides science from reality
as a matter of fact.  Scientific inquiry and conclusions look at narrow
windows of activity, and while accurate within such bounds, often fall
victim to 'other factors / other agendas'.  And societies that try to
use science and only science as their foundational rationale, will 
always be vulnerable when confronted by myths and passions.  "Truth" 
finds subjective alternatives.    anyway, I digress ....

I suppose I was in a way asking the quesion as you phrased it: "how he
viewed the nature of relations-- which relations are more impactful 
than others and why", but not as much that, as whether he might have
seen then in a potentially collective way (though likely, not) as
the factor-Q that I conjectured above.  

General Systems has long identified templates of performance that show
up in all sorts of diverse fields. And general (math framed) inquiry 
over the past hundred or so years has generally done the same thing -
identified action equations that show up everywhere ; the inverse 
frequency rule for example, or, statistical formulae.

What I've been working on is an inter-tier equation - what RR might
have labeled as a formal equation that encapsulates a first-order
activity of entailment (not all of entailment, mind you, simply
its first structure).   I was simply curious if he played around
with this kind of notion .. mathematicly. A transform that the universe
uses to build the performance heirarchy ... tiered orders of activity.

I would imagine not ... but ... I was hoping to be surprised.

Jamie

 

Judith Rosen wrote:
> 
>>  James Rose wrote: Did RR generate any specific
>>  equations that identified specific performace
>>  relations - among entailed heirarchies?
> 
> Well, Jamie...
> 
> He generated a hell of a lot of equations! As for specific 
> equations for identifying specific performance relations among 
> entailed hierarchies; I'm not entirely sure what you mean. 
> For him, "hierarchies" simply were another way to say "relations"
> and the word relations was his preference-- in part because 
> it's NOT specific. The word "hierarchy" was not one he used 
> routinely because it carries certain connotations that aren't
> really conducive to the way he viewed complexity. The root-based
> definition of hierarchy, according to my dictionary, is "sacred rule"
> and while that may not be the way most people mean it when using
> that word, there is a certain rigidity involved in hierarchical
> associations; what a certain place in the hierarchy means in 
> terms of causality or causal effect. It's kind of slippery, really.
> I can see a few similarities but somehow I think caution is advised.
> 
> In a human hierarchy, for example, like a royal family; birth order
> matters. So does gender. It is purely an issue of "luck" and has 
> nothing to do with local contexts of time, country, need, optimality...
> the relation between the "fitness" of the next-in-line for the throne
> to the functional requirements of the role of government. So, in this
> case, "hierarchy" is completely formalized and the labels matter more
> than the actual relational contexts do. That's an imposition of human
> mind on the natural scheme of things, which appears to be one of the
> hallmarks of our species-- for better and for worse (and we do a whole
> bunch of both, it seems to me!).
> 
> Ultimately, I suspect you are asking about how he viewed the nature
> of relations-- which relations are more impactful than others and why.
> Am I getting it?
> 
> Judith