|
|
Re: the mind of culture: tops-down or bottoms-up?
Stephen Barnard (steve@megafauna.com)
Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:06:11 -0800
Sisial@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Gerold Firl wrote:
>
> > I will use this post to examine some of the interesting
> > questions which appear when we try to view a culture as a complex
> > adaptive system which interacts with similar systems; it processes
> > information, acts, reacts, and seems to operate as if it were a
> > semi-conscious (?) entity with something like a mind of its own.
>
> This is one area where chaotic theories a certainly applicable. In fact,
> you seem to intuitively describe it as such: complex (non-linear) and
> adaptive (implies a dynamic system, changing over time). Chaos theory is
> also being applied to spatial systems which I think might apply. But
> this aspect of the theory is still under development.
>
> You state that it 'interacts with similar systems.' Actually, I can
> think of few systems which act completely independent of other systems,
> linear or non-linear. I would think it would be expected to see a high
> level of interaction between similar systems.
>
> You define the system as processing, acting and reacting (all aspects of
> a dynamic system), and operating 'as if it were a semi-conscious enitity
> (this I assume you are referring to complex responses to environment
> rather than to self awareness?
>
One of the defining characteristics of chaotic systems is that small
effects can have large and ultimately unpredictable consequences -- the
so-called butterfly effect. This effect in social systems is described
by the famous ditty (about, I think, King Henry II) that goes something
like, "For want of a nail a shoe was lost; for want of a shoe a horse
was lost; for want of a horse a battle was lost; for want of a battle a
kingdom was lost."
Steve Barnard
|