Time to proceed with semiotic ecology. It is very pertinent, I think,
to discussions like the one on cultural artifacts, psycho tools, and
signs or to Gordon's dialog perspective. But I have to make my
concepts clear so that we can see how artifact distinction looks in
SemEco terms, whether it is phenomenological or function or whatever
classification of objects. In the first view, for me they are all
'structures'; we can discern them, but we understand them only within
the processes they are involved in. They are generated in cultural
processes and they are used again in cultural context and have
respective effects in commerce among individuals. That is a bit
broader than function. Sorry for repeating some ideas, here in
context.
The idea of discerning structures is just a starting point. All our
inquiry must base thereupon. What is important next is to look at
encounters among structures we discern. That is, when structures have
interactive effects. Then we get at the mutual dependency of what we
discern as structures in processes or of processes involving
structures. Processes result from structures encountering; and new or
modified structures or their demise result(s) from such encountering
processes. From nothing else, I assume. Let's see how far I can get
with this single assumption I make at the base of SemEco.
Of, course, we are still the observers and can discern both
structures and processes. But the distinction is a relative one.
Between state and process we can discern is no clear boundary in
terms of time. Our different sense use different distinction criteria
and when we try to settle on some temporal threshold, it is
inevitably arbitrary. A difference in terms of activity may be more
revealing: being constant or being in change is rather evident. It is
relatively easy to indirectly make that difference sure by comparing
records of something at successive time points. It is successions of
change and preservation of state, we will see later, that is at the
base of the evolutive process.
This is most interesting if we think a structure to be formed in one
process, its structural qualities then being preserved, and
eventually that structure becoming involved in another process. It
may then be possible to think of a structure formed and given certain
qualities to become effective later in a different context. No that
is essentially equivalent to the notion of memory: store an effect of
some circumstance and let it have an effect under other circumstances.
Thus it might better to emphasize the complementarity rather than the
difference between processes and structures. Process/change and
structural stability are then two phases that alternate indefinitely
to form the evolutive streams: matter-energy-formation stable and in
change due to interactive encounters.
To generalize from our observation of structures in processes there
may be many structures involved simultaneously or successively in
what we think is one process. Again, what we discern as an unitary
event is perhaps misleading, at any rate quite arbitrary, resp. from
our point of view, through our specific spectacles. We should let
things and their interactions show us how they interrelate rather
than projecting our prejudices bias upon them. (This point has been
elaborated in my responses to Steve and Bruce re system and
boundaries.)
We may also make a logical analysis for what is necessary and
sufficient for evolution to occur and find that the basic structure
formation process must be triadic, must involve three structures in
an unreducable relation. If new structures are to come about they
must result from encounters of at least two preceding structures. If
only one precursor is admitted as in the common notion of causation
where A necessarily leads to B, nothing new can come about.
Introducing a chance component is no explanation but rather a
declaration of no understanding. If everything had so to say built
into itself what it can become, we may have change, but that change
would eventually return into itself. This is a Platonian or a Hindu
or a Christian world, the latter planned towards an end.
Factually and phenomenologically, we may find that many structures
are involved in one process. But analytically, this can and should be
reduced to triads. I owe this great insight to Charles Peirce. The
triad is the basic relation to which everything becoming can be
lastly reduced. Higher order relations can be construed as
combinations of triads. But triads cannot be reduced to any set of
dyads or construed out of dyads. One of Peirce's example of genuine
triadicity is: A gives X to B. You may analyse it into the dyads: A
looses X, B gains X, A relates to B; but this does not imply the
giving of X by A to B.
It seems we have now brought together the necessary preconditions to
conceive of evolution in a generic sense. Structures in triadic
relations; phase alternation among stable states of structures
("memory") and generation or change of structures in encounter
processes; combinatorics of such triads.
Evolutive steps occur when (a) a structure is formed in one encounter
of (analytically) two pre-existing structures, (b) retains some of
its qualities over time (i.e. "memory") and (c) gets involved in
another encounter with another structure at later moment and brings
into that encounter an effect that is based on its being formed in
the first of these three phases. Generically, structures are formed
in phase one, retained in phase two, and brought to effect in phase
three; this amount to building memory and its use, if you want to
apply the term in its generic sense.
Evolutive streams or trees are generated in units of these three
phases forming chains and trees -- or even nets because some
structures, once formed may enter some process stream at any time
later and repeatedly as long as they are retained. When they are
changed in successive encounters they will produce slightly or
strongly different effects and thus generate variation or innovation.
Insofar the structures encountering are selective in their encounters
based on their qualities acquired in their history they generate
selective or evaluative effects. The diverging effect of
variation/innovation and the converging effect of
selection/evaluation bring about that wonderful mixture of
unpredictable systematics that characterize the evolutions.
This is, very broadly expressed, a generic theory of evolutions. I
think it applies to perhaps six types or kinds of evolutive processes
we can observe and infer. Their distinction is secondary to their
commonalities with which I am now firstly concerned. But perhaps it
helps to group them thus: three basic, and three genuine.
The basic or preorganic evolutions comprise (1) the physico-chemical
formation of elementary particles from the cooling plasma, (2) the
cosmic formation of heavenly bodies and their motions, and (3) the
mineral formations such as on the cooling planets. The genuine
evolutions on planet Earth are (4) the biotic evolutions of the forms
and systems of live, (5) the individual evolutions of gathering and
using experiences of a lifetime of individual organisms, and (6) the
cultural evolutions of communicative groups in their traditions. Note
that I do not call No 4 the biological evolution; for I consider all
six as facts to be separated from their theoretical interpretations
as theories. Only the latter should be called biological.
While the basic evolutions build upon their predecessors' emergencies
in essentially linear changes the genuine evolutions have evolved
time and again successors which have gone in different directions:
they are repeatedly branching. And they can even include retroactive
effects not only on the products of their predecessors but also on
the evolution of their predecessors itself. E.g. individual evolutive
attainments such as using personal experience can influence selective
mating and thus co-direct bioevolution; cultural evolution brings
about scores of emergencies of which individual evolutions both
thrive on and operate back in more specific ways onto bioevolution
(you may think of killing or dying out, of selective breeding, or of
genetic engineering or much more)
The specifics of each of these evolution kinds can only be grasped
against the background of their commonalities. Obviously the time
scales and speed of change differ widely; but lets look at they are
generating rather than at some of their surface qualities. A generic
theory of evolution is urgently needed to avoid problematic schemes
such as e.g. the tendency to conceive of the other two genuine
evolutions in terms of bioevolution, as is presently a silly fashion
due to the lack of generic theory.
For the moment, lets look at their common ground. I maintain that
they all arise of triadic interaction among the structures built in
their course.
This is just a concretization of my staring assumption of an
evolutive world. The six kinds are not closed shops; though,
especially in the preorganic range, there is a preference to interact
with products of the same kind, they also interact between those
kinds and, especially in the last two, this may even be the rule. I
give some examples for the different types. I say the following
really al fresco. I'm glad for corrections from the experts.
The physico-chemical evolution builds essentially the atoms and a
range of molecules that may be called the small ones. I appears that
Hydrogen and its fusion under suitable conditions is the starting
process; latter fusion and fission of heavier atoms is added. The
process goes on, mainly in areas where (near)plasma states are still
the case. In cooling and forming they spread and constitute space and
time. Most smaller atoms are astonishingly stable, hold in slightly
varying states by their internal forces, that are huge as such but
are tamed while stable. As far as I can see, the internal structure
as such of the atoms is of small significance, except for quantum
mechanical effects such as the chemical valences. The atoms appear to
have two modes of interaction: the first is by brute force, i.e. they
move and may push each other, from which results their thermodynamic
behavior and effects. A primitive type of interaction. Anyhow, two
structures encountering usually change the trajectory of both; this
may accumulate under certain circumstances quite systematic effects
such as directed "wind" (in a broad sense). The second type depends
on their surface qualities, i.e. suitable surround conditions
attained they combine with or separate from suitable other atoms
depending on their valences and so form the small molecules that
behave in some respect like the atoms. What interests me here is the
idea, how more adequate it would be to describe that process as
essentially triadic: at least two atoms are needed to form a
molecule, and in suitable states, under suitable surround conditions.
All interaction of atoms and small molecules involves of their kind
and depends on further forces. I cannot see at all, how linear or
mono-causation could have brought about the present non-equilibrium
distribution of all atoms we can imagine or think.
The cosmic evolution depends on the physico-chemical one. Swarms of
atoms and eventually small molecules move and distribute and the
forces, their own and those emerging with their distributions such as
gravity, build varying densities, thus building the nebulae, the
stellar bodies, their motions, their interactions depending on
varying gravity fields, their dependence on small or large stellar
formations moving separately. Also here, triads appear essential to
form what we can observe. Say, a body moves, spins and trajects; any
change of its trajectory, I think, should find a cause modifying the
original trajectory. The three or five planet and sun problems are
nice examples. They demonstrate the unpredictability of stellar
motions, I mean in the restricted sense that this is the case:
largely predictable in long ranges; finely unpredictable, and this
not because of measurement error, but in all lieklyhood because of
the real behavior of these structures. The reason is probably the
many influences, which appear all to be of the brute force type.
Nevertheless there are too many; one cause fails to explain; the many
are very difficult to combine in models. Where could be the forces
bringing about those rather round stellar bodies if not in the
interactions among them, brute or fine?
The mineral evolution(s), probably on many heavenly bodies, but known
in the variant on planet Earth, of course is a historical process.
All reasonable geologists know that well; that's the reason they live
mostly in tension with the traditional physicists in so far the
latter avoid to deal with historical systems and their singularities.
I need not describe that the formation of all sorts of minerals
depends to large extent on cooling and then the interaction of the
particles in the local distributions. The process obviously depends
at any time on the particles present in some region and their
valences and on the energetic conditions (temperature, pressure,
radiation etc.) reigning at any location there. This is already
triadic.
Excuse my length. I need another post to sketch the genuine
evolutions and their specifics. And I cannot send that before Monday
or Tuesday. My response to Mike's rocks and tables is only meaningful
then.
The genuine evolutions are of course much more pertinent for bio-
psycho- and cultural scientists. But it is the comparison on a common
ground I need, and, what fascinates me most, the relationship in the
course of the lastly one evolutive process at large. The genuine
evolutions run on the same principles which do not stop totally, they
are simply much slower and reliable enough so that the further
emergencies can thrive. And they emerge conditions that change the
conditions of change. In this view, there is no break at any one spot.
Alfred
--Alfred Lang, Psychology, Univ. Bern, Switzerland http://www.langpapers.net --- alfred.lang@psy.unibe.ch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 01:00:08 PST