Re: mesogenesis and friends

Jay Lemke (jllbc who-is-at cunyvm.cuny.edu)
Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:18:05 -0500

I think David that your view of time-scales as potentially orthogonal
dimensions is rather close in some ways to what I was articulating, but I
want to preserve the 'old' view of time as well and work with and between
both views.

Time-scales as distinct dimensions captures the sense in which happens on
each time scale represents a different 'world' (cf. Umwelts of species), a
distinct qualitative aspect of the whole multi-scale, heterochonous
phenomenon. But this unfortunately then also tends to imply the relative
separation of these levels, that each one stays in its own backyard and
only sets contexts for the others, but does not jump the fence and intrude
directly -- and yet this is a critical part of eco-social-semiotic
systems/networks. The dimensions are not completely orthogonal; for some
purposes we pretend they are, but when they intersect, this model misleads us.

The more we separate the scales, as in classical systems theory, the more
we exacerbate for ourselves the problem of how to re-integrate them. Here
the topology of time-scales, seconds adding up to minutes, years to
centuries, really does matter -- as well as do the phenomena where long
past meanings make a difference in the next few seconds.

The dimensional view captures nicely one aspect of the issues, but we need
more.

Fortunately I am postmodern enough not to need to insist that there be a
single consistent picture for the whole problem; as long as my bag of
tricks always has a tool to the purpose, and my ways of using the toolkit
can be learned by others (or improved on), I am perfectly happy to
juxtapose philosophically or mathematically inconsistent notions. Maybe it
is not as easy to explicate theoretical practices of this kind, but my
experience is that full consistency and coherence is too strong a
condition. No single conceptual model can span the complexity of human
systems phenomena. Some people think I'm joking when I compare this to
Goedel's theorem, that if you want completeness in a formal system you must
give up consistency, but I think this is exactly the general situation for
theory. (Actually the Goedelian lesson is that you have to give up
consistent _formalisms_ as you move to account more comprehensively for
systems that include your own accounts of them.)

JAY.

---------------------------
JAY L. LEMKE

CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
---------------------------