thesmokingfrog
13th October 2009, 22:40
This is an excerpt from a book im reading about systems theory, wherein the dialectics issue is adressed. I found it interesting:
In general, when different modes of description appear as opposites, it is more satisfactory to consider them as complementary instead. This is the case, quite rigorously, with the apparent dualities net/tree and recursion/behavior, as we have seen above. On a more intuitive level, there is a similar relationship for the pairs autonomy/control and operational/symbolic discussed in earlier sections. As a matter of fact, we may go one step further to duality and dialectics as a broad philosophical idea. Accordingly, I would like to go into a brief excursus to discuss trinities.
By trinity I mean the consideration of the ways in which pairs (poles, extremes, modes, sides) are related yet remain distinct-the way they are not one, not two (Valera, 1976). The key idea here is that we need to replace the metaphorical idea of ‘trinity’ with some built-in injunction (heuristic, recipe, guidance) that can tell us howto go from duality to trinity.
* = the it / the process leading to it
The slash in this star (*) statement is to be read as: “consider both sides of the /,“ that is, “consider both the it and the process leading to it.”
Thus the slash here is to be taken as a compact indication of the way of transiting to and from both sides of it.
We can now transcribe the familiar relationship between nets/trees into a star form:
* = Network / trees constituting the network,
because the duality is connected with processes in both directions quire explicitly. The totality (the net) is seen as emerging of resulting from part-by-part approximation of the trees (the process leading to it).
Similarly, we may consider a more generally appealing star:
* = whole / parts constituting the whole
By a whole, a totality here we mean a simultaneous interaction of parts (components, nodes, subsystems) that satisfies some criteria of distinction. Thus a star of a more operational flavor is
* = stability / approximation in time.
Let us formulate a number of other interesting dualities in this complementarity framework, informally called star. To this end, take any situation (domain, process, entity, notion) that is autonomous (total, complete, stable, self-contained), and put it on the left side of the /. Put on the other side the corresponding process (constituents, dynamics).
For example:
Being/becoming
Space/time
Reality/recipe
Simultaneous/sequential
Arithmetic/algebra
Analog/digital
Environment/system
Context/text
Semantics/syntax
Autonomy/control
Symbolic/operational
In each cases the dual elements can be seen as complementary: the mutually specify each other. There is, in this sense, no more duality, since they are related.
Notice that this separation of duality is no “synthesis” (in the Hegelian sense), since there is really nothing “new”, but just a more direct appraisal of how things are put together and related through our descriptions, not losing track of the fact that every “it” can be seen on a different level as a process.
More generally, we may see that this view of complementarity signifies a departure from the classical way of understanding dialectics. In the classical (Hegelian) paradigm, duality is tied to the idea of polarity, a clash of opposites. Graphically,
(sorry, im not allowed to post pictures, due to the restriction)
The basic form of these kinds of duality is symmetry: both poles belong to the same level. The nerve of the logic behind this dialectics is negation; pairs are of the form A/ not-A.
In this presentation, dualities are adequately represented by imbrications of levels, where one term of the pair emerges from the other. Graphically,
(sorry, im not allowed to post pictures, due to the restriction)
The basic form of these dualities is asymmetry: both terms extend across levels. The nerve of the logic behind this dialectics is self-reference, that is, pairs of the form: it /process leading to it.
Pairs of opposites are, of necessity, on the same level and stay on the same level for as long as they are taken in opposition and contradiction. Pairs of the star form make a bridge across one level of our description, and they specify each other. When we look at natural systems, nowhere do we actually find opposition except from the values we wish to put on them. The pair predator/prey, say, does not operate as excluding opposites, but both generate a whole unity, an autonomous ecosystemic domain, where there are complementarity, stabilization, and survival values for both. So the effective duality is of the star from: ecosystem/species interaction.
We may generalize this to say that there is an interpretative rule for dualities:
For every (Hegelian) pair of the form A/ not-A there exists a star where the apparent opposites are components of the right-hand side.
It is, I suspect, only in nineteenth-century social science, that the abstraction of the dialectics of opposites could have been established. This also applies to the observer’s properties. We have maintained all along that whatever we describe is a reflection of our actions (perceptions, properties, organization). There is mutual reflection between describer and description. But here again we have been used to taking these terms as opposites: observer/observed, subject/object as Hegelian pairs. From my point of view, these poles are not effectively opposed, but moments of a larger unity that sits on a metalevel with respect to both terms. In other words, it is possible to apply the interpretative rule here as well. Briefly stated this interpretation could be phrased as: conversational pattern / participant in a conversation. I am here using “conversation” in a general and loose sense. Species interaction achieving a stable ecosystem can be thought of as the biological paradigm for a conversational domain. But human interactions can be similarly treated, as participants engaged in dialogue, whether with each other, with the environment, out with ourselves. This is the process underlying the conversational patters that constitute the autonomous unity to which we belong and which we construct. We shall return to human cognition and conversational pattern in Chapter 15 and 16. I only wanted to point out that the star framework could be applied to the observer’s properties as well, to see knowledge as an “it” generated through a process.
In general, when different modes of description appear as opposites, it is more satisfactory to consider them as complementary instead. This is the case, quite rigorously, with the apparent dualities net/tree and recursion/behavior, as we have seen above. On a more intuitive level, there is a similar relationship for the pairs autonomy/control and operational/symbolic discussed in earlier sections. As a matter of fact, we may go one step further to duality and dialectics as a broad philosophical idea. Accordingly, I would like to go into a brief excursus to discuss trinities.
By trinity I mean the consideration of the ways in which pairs (poles, extremes, modes, sides) are related yet remain distinct-the way they are not one, not two (Valera, 1976). The key idea here is that we need to replace the metaphorical idea of ‘trinity’ with some built-in injunction (heuristic, recipe, guidance) that can tell us howto go from duality to trinity.
* = the it / the process leading to it
The slash in this star (*) statement is to be read as: “consider both sides of the /,“ that is, “consider both the it and the process leading to it.”
Thus the slash here is to be taken as a compact indication of the way of transiting to and from both sides of it.
We can now transcribe the familiar relationship between nets/trees into a star form:
* = Network / trees constituting the network,
because the duality is connected with processes in both directions quire explicitly. The totality (the net) is seen as emerging of resulting from part-by-part approximation of the trees (the process leading to it).
Similarly, we may consider a more generally appealing star:
* = whole / parts constituting the whole
By a whole, a totality here we mean a simultaneous interaction of parts (components, nodes, subsystems) that satisfies some criteria of distinction. Thus a star of a more operational flavor is
* = stability / approximation in time.
Let us formulate a number of other interesting dualities in this complementarity framework, informally called star. To this end, take any situation (domain, process, entity, notion) that is autonomous (total, complete, stable, self-contained), and put it on the left side of the /. Put on the other side the corresponding process (constituents, dynamics).
For example:
Being/becoming
Space/time
Reality/recipe
Simultaneous/sequential
Arithmetic/algebra
Analog/digital
Environment/system
Context/text
Semantics/syntax
Autonomy/control
Symbolic/operational
In each cases the dual elements can be seen as complementary: the mutually specify each other. There is, in this sense, no more duality, since they are related.
Notice that this separation of duality is no “synthesis” (in the Hegelian sense), since there is really nothing “new”, but just a more direct appraisal of how things are put together and related through our descriptions, not losing track of the fact that every “it” can be seen on a different level as a process.
More generally, we may see that this view of complementarity signifies a departure from the classical way of understanding dialectics. In the classical (Hegelian) paradigm, duality is tied to the idea of polarity, a clash of opposites. Graphically,
(sorry, im not allowed to post pictures, due to the restriction)
The basic form of these kinds of duality is symmetry: both poles belong to the same level. The nerve of the logic behind this dialectics is negation; pairs are of the form A/ not-A.
In this presentation, dualities are adequately represented by imbrications of levels, where one term of the pair emerges from the other. Graphically,
(sorry, im not allowed to post pictures, due to the restriction)
The basic form of these dualities is asymmetry: both terms extend across levels. The nerve of the logic behind this dialectics is self-reference, that is, pairs of the form: it /process leading to it.
Pairs of opposites are, of necessity, on the same level and stay on the same level for as long as they are taken in opposition and contradiction. Pairs of the star form make a bridge across one level of our description, and they specify each other. When we look at natural systems, nowhere do we actually find opposition except from the values we wish to put on them. The pair predator/prey, say, does not operate as excluding opposites, but both generate a whole unity, an autonomous ecosystemic domain, where there are complementarity, stabilization, and survival values for both. So the effective duality is of the star from: ecosystem/species interaction.
We may generalize this to say that there is an interpretative rule for dualities:
For every (Hegelian) pair of the form A/ not-A there exists a star where the apparent opposites are components of the right-hand side.
It is, I suspect, only in nineteenth-century social science, that the abstraction of the dialectics of opposites could have been established. This also applies to the observer’s properties. We have maintained all along that whatever we describe is a reflection of our actions (perceptions, properties, organization). There is mutual reflection between describer and description. But here again we have been used to taking these terms as opposites: observer/observed, subject/object as Hegelian pairs. From my point of view, these poles are not effectively opposed, but moments of a larger unity that sits on a metalevel with respect to both terms. In other words, it is possible to apply the interpretative rule here as well. Briefly stated this interpretation could be phrased as: conversational pattern / participant in a conversation. I am here using “conversation” in a general and loose sense. Species interaction achieving a stable ecosystem can be thought of as the biological paradigm for a conversational domain. But human interactions can be similarly treated, as participants engaged in dialogue, whether with each other, with the environment, out with ourselves. This is the process underlying the conversational patters that constitute the autonomous unity to which we belong and which we construct. We shall return to human cognition and conversational pattern in Chapter 15 and 16. I only wanted to point out that the star framework could be applied to the observer’s properties as well, to see knowledge as an “it” generated through a process.