critiquing
On an intuitive level, self-organization refers to exactly what is suggested: systems that appear to organize themselves without external direction, manipulation, or control (Dempster 1998: 41).
One intention of this work is to make attempts at uncovering and disrupting the systems of domination that gain support through the language and concepts of "self-organizing systems" as well as "systems" more generally. (More realistically, the attempt is to rattle the supports enough to cause some disturbance or to present support for others who also rattle.) Here, in support of this general intention, I draw greater distinctions among the variety of systems that are referred to as "self-organizing." I re-name the general category, self-forming systems, breaking it into four types: self-ordering, self-organizing, self-producing and self-determining systems. The increased specificity helps in teasing apart and articulating the "self"-determined generative mechanisms. As such, they may also help in uncovering generative aspects of domination and in understanding possibilities for change. In pursuing these intentions, a few points seem of critical importance:
- Unless underlying political implications are carefully attended to and addressed, retaining the "self" centered nomencalture also retains the potential to deny responsibility for whatever emerges.
- Morin's question, What is the radical "self" of self-organizing�
- observers...
- The [power/knowledge] language and idea of "systems" has been and continues to be a language and idea of the "ruling class". In considering the factors involved in the generation of self-ordering, self-organizing, self-producing and self-determining, it is essential to keep in mind and abrogate the epistemic/discursive power that rests in their articulation.
Given these notions/arguments/points as an introduction framing the discussion, consider the following directions:
- systems provides a more general discussion, including system definitions and my approach, with involves understanding systems as heuristics
- forming self-forming systems describes the generative processes of the four different system types mentioned above - and also describes the results that emerge
- definitions of self-organization provides more detail on the (contested) meanings of this term
reflecting
[R2] On this node the tension between systems-as-heuristic and systems-as-existing-entities must be confronted - because I claim an attempt at providing greater clarity or understanding by categorizing entities. In making the categorizations, I attempt to describe what I observe, but I use human constructs – words and the meanings invested within them, all embedded in a particular socio-cultural context – to explain the distinctions. Even more, in a recursive twist, my defense of the distinctions arises – at least in part – from their very creation! I claim a need for drawing distinctions among four different types of systems (which I claim as heuristics, but seem to describe as existing entities), by drawing distinctions among four different types of systems (which I claim as heuristics, but seem to describe as existing entities). Do I simply reinforce, then, my own mix of self-entailed [**] and encultured predispositions? I expect so, but is this a good thing or a bad thing? Or is this all there is...? What is the interplay among (my own percepton of) ontological and epistemological existence? How can I (can I?) – tell the difference? Further, how do I uncover and address the ethical/political implications of these differences and of my own distinctions?
[R3] Given the preceding comments, the terms I use here – self-ordering, self-organizing, self-producing and self-determining, all grouped under the generic term: self-forming systems – must be questioned. Is there a more appropriate generic phrase that captures the set of phenomena (conceptualized as systems) that seem to emerge all by themselves? Or is this a mistaken question – a sort of definitional red-herring? The chosen generic phrase is, after all, inconsequential, because the deeper questions are: What(who) are the "selves" that are being referred to? And why this propensity for naming systems as "self"-derived in some way? Why attribute them with the capacity for organization, production, determination? Is it a means for taming the mystery of their emergence – perhaps a rejection of divine design in favour of more prosaic material causes? By attributing systems with the capacity to organize themselves, even in some unknown (i.e. still mysterious) way, the nmed – even the possibility – for entelechy, élan vital or divine creation is firmly put to rest. A (subliminal) collective effort to squash any hint of non-material force for once and for all; an emergent cultural undercurrent intent on denouncing any ideas other than material ('objectively' explainable) causal influences.
[R4] But perhaps these questons hint at something too conspiritorial; too organized, too paranoic, too set against the idea that all is explainable. Do I actually argue for something like Bergson's élan vital? Is this an attempt to imbue the world around me with some degree of mystery? Perhaps this is the point of the term: calling them "self-deriving" systems is a way to emphasize the mystery, rather than squelch it... Or perhaps it is even simpler, baser: a convenient term that simply evades questions around cause. The phrase is a simple handle – a phrase to grab onto that has enough (but not too much) ambiguity to satisfy the worst and the best in us...
Given these notions/arguments/points as an introduction framing the discussion, consider the following directions:
- systems provides a more general discussion, including system definitions and my approach, with involves understanding systems as heuristics
- forming self-forming systems describes the generative processes of the four different system types mentioned above - and also describes the results that emerge
- definitions of self-organization provides more detail on the (contested) meanings of this term
skeptical thinking
This text needs some revision to better fit the "skeptic" framing:
Whether it is a tendency of our observational and/or conceptualizing capacities or an ontological fact, entities of increasing complexity appear to exist. Is their manifestation a fact of reality or a fact or our conceputalization…? My answer is simple: It is impossible to tell. There is no way for us to securely and incontrovertibly distinguish between reality and our perception/conception of reality. While my emphasis in this work on <systems-as-heuristics> and on the mutually interactive nature of perception/conception may abrogate the weightiness of this conundrum, it remains fundamental. As indicated in outlining the <basic argument> that underlies this work, however, I think the question is ultimately unanswerable.
[T2] Does this mean that any attempt at describing the conception "self-forming systems" in order to understand reality is a failure before it even begins? I think it is - and it is not. If the expectation is that "self-forming systems" will provide a true picutre of reality; that it will enable the accurate descriptioin of actually-existing entities, then it is/will be a failure. If "self-forming systems" are taken as heuristics that will enable 'better' grappling with that-which-exists, then I think it is a worthwhile endeavour. It is this belief that leads me to emphasize systems-as-heuristics. Additionally, it leads to my intent and hope is to somehow build into the conceptualization of self-forming systems this grappling; [this isnt sounding like a skeptic…] at least some recognition of the limitations we have in perceiving it and conceptualizing that-which-exists. We no more have the capacity to refrain from conceptualization than we do to <refrain from planning.> My descriptions, then, are intended to be different, thus broadening our potential conceptualizations, perhaps providing skeletons/models that have a better fit o or that enable a different fit - than those already available.
[T3] I focus on a set of systems typically referred to as self-organizing. This general categorization is applied (albeit with a variety of meanings) to encompass numerous and ubiquitous systems. Differentiating among the systems in this general category, may prove helpful in gaining greater understanding of them – especially given my further intention of describing parameters and factors that lead to their generation. I draw distinctions among four types: self-ordering, self-organizing, self-producing and self-determining systems. Each category represents increasing complexity, involving more complex factors (including the presence of 'lesser' systems as components) in their generation and continuation.
[T4] The distinctions are perhaps most clearly notable when considering the root meaning of the terms. Summarizing detail presented elsewhere, order refers to a regular arrangement or pattern. It is more static than organization, which refers to parts that are coordinated (or coordinate) in some way to form a whole. Organization points to something more dynamic, perhaps functional, although not functional to the same degree as production, which refers to the creation or making of something. Production implies at least some degree of design or intention – which is precisely the meaning of the last term. Determine refers to intentional control or guidance in a chosen direction or towards a chosen outcome. Conjoined with "self," these terms point to systems that are increasingly complex and increasingly involved in their own derivation. Simply put, self-ordering systems would be ones that arrange or pattern themselves, self-organizing systems would be ones that co-ordintate themselves, self-producing systems would be ones that create their own components, self-determing would be ones that have the capacity to intentionally control and guide themselves in relation to their environments.[T5] In presenting the system types in this order, I am suggesting (intentionally) that there is an evolution or progression from simpler to more complex systems. While I think there may be reasons for considering alternative scenarios, I use this particular perspective as the basis for discussion here – trying not to preclude the possibilities for others. In considering this 'evolutionary' perspective I note a few points. First, the results that emerge at simpler/lower levels become components or factors involved in generation of systems at the next level 'up'. Second, that while I have split factors and results neatly into two columns, the distinctions between these become increasingly fuzzy as the systems become increasingly complex. For example, structural coupling, a factor involved in the emergence of self-producing systems, is also, to a large degree, a result that emerges from the process of self-production.
[T6] As noted, I consider there to be some value in using these definitional distinctions to consider the generative factors involved. This provides a means for linking different factors with the generation of differentsystem types and the different results that emerge. As indicated in the table below – which indicates the increasing complexity of four types of systems that I will consider here – the generative factors of the less complex systems are also involved in generation of the more complex systems.
[T7] These system distinctions and especially the generative factors and emergent results represent a core feature(thesis) of this hypertext dissertation. In consequence, a single page identifies, in a table, these various different factors, with hyperlinks to descriptions and explanations: forming self-forming systems.
exemplars
- Benard cells: roughly hexagonal structures that emerge in a layer of fluid heated differentially between top and bottom.
- Rivers: dendritic patterns carving into the landscape, emerging through the coming together of even the tiniest water droplets, which are drawn down – ever down – dodging or dislodging small particles, pebbles and rocks, coming together in a pattern that reflects the landscape it crosses...
- Marine phytoplankton: tiny unicellular organisims that draw in sunlight and nutrients, transforming lifeless inputs into a functional, composite living entity that keeps itself distinct from its environment with a boundary formed, itself, by similar inputs and processes...
- A human child: standing defiantly in refusal of parental instructions, insisting to choose her own coat, establishing herself – through this act and countless others – as an individual with the capacity to make decisions that determine her circumstances. Perhaps she will decide – later – that the other coat would have been much better and will – depending on characters and circumstances – complain bitterly or suffer silently. And perhaps she will – again, depending on characters and circumstances – feel a grown-up jacket drop onto her shoulders without a break in stride or hear "I told you so"...
[E2] Each of these describes a different type of system. While all have been referred to as 'self-organizing' (among other things), I think there is reason to draw greater distinctions. As discussed <elsewhere>, the term "self-organization" has multiple meanings and applications. As a generic term, then, I prefer to use "self-forming systems", breaking this into four different types: self-ordering, self-organizing, self-producing and self-determining systems. Differentiating among these types aids in understanding them – especially with respect to my interest in describing parameters and factors that lead to their generation and maintenance.
[E3] Intuitively, the four types represent a continuum from simpler to more complex. Each one involves more complex factors (including the presence of 'lesser' systems as components) in their generation and continuation. Additionally, there is a sense of hierarchical ordering in the last three: one contains the other, contains the other. Such complications suggest that there are other continua to consider here. One in particular that I am interested in, is the axis of individual-collective, which lays across (at least) the more complex end. Consider a forest ecosystem or an activist group - a discussion to return to later...
Given these notions/arguments/points as an introduction framing the discussion, consider the following directions:
- systems provides a more general discussion, including system definitions and my approach, with involves understanding systems as heuristics
- forming self-forming systems describes the generative processes of the four different system types mentioned above - and also describes the results that emerge
- definitions of self-organization provides more detail on the (contested) meanings of this term
manifesting the 'results'
This text need revision to fit the "pragmatic" framing:
Whether it is a tendency of our observational and/or conceptualizing
capacities or an ontological fact, entities of increasing complexity
appear to exist. Is their manifestation a fact of reality or a fact or our conceputalization...? Given my emphasis on systems-as-heuristics, is this question moot: the two cannot be disconnected. (Especially with embodiment as an aspect of conceptualization...)
[M2] Further, manifesting 'results' – when systems are taken as heuristics – leads in two directions: 1) back to the description of systems and 2) description of examples.
[M3]
[M4] Additional ways to proceed from here:
- systems provides a more general discussion, including system definitions and my approach, with involves understanding systems as heuristics
- forming self-forming systems describes the generative processes of the four different system types mentioned above - and also describes the results that emerge
- definitions of self-organization provides more detail on the (contested) meanings of this term
substantive revisions: 2005.10.25
most recent substantive revisions: 2006.04.18
2003 - 2007