From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Mon 31 Mar 2003 - 14:12:21 GMT
Hi, Bill,
James Grier Miller, LIVING SYSTEMS, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1978. It is out in
paperback, and, I think, in an expanded version. Miller defines a living
system, describes 19 subsystems that are essential for living systems, and
then examines these 19 subsystems and how they functions in different levels
of living system: cells, organs organisms, groups, organizations (e.g. an
ocean-liner, a corporation), societies, and a supranational system.
Since his initial work, Miller, with his wife's help I believe, had added a
couple of additional subsystems, though not he pure 'cognitive' one that I
thought his initial listing required.
Beer's work, which focused on 5 essential subsystems required of a 'viable'
living system, seems adequately complete, given his focus on (mere)
viability. If one if interested in high performance, as I am, them Beer's
model is not adequate, but one can add the missing pieces readily enough,
into what I call the BeerPlus model. But Beer did not want to expand his
model, having become committed to the 5 subsystems he locked into in his
several excellent books.
Cheers,
Lawry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Bill Hall
> Sent: Mon, March 31, 2003 7:34 AM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1319 - are memes alive?
>
>
> Lawry,
>
> Beer's books are on my desk, with Brain of the Firm quite heavily
> annotated,
> but I haven't encountered the Miller work yet. Perhaps that is
> due to my ego
> as a biologist.
>
> If you want some real hair raising reading about memes in
> autopoiesis, read
> Nelson and Winter's 1982 An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change - and
> especially their chapter on Skills where they discuss the existence and
> evolutionary significance of tacit knowledge at the
> organizational level. Of
> course, they apparently were unaware of the ideas of either memetics or
> autopoiesis when they wrote their book. Involvement with Santa Fe
> Institute
> came only later.
>
> Anyone interested in some further exploration of these ideas should
> subscribe to Critical_Cafe http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Critical_Cafe/ on
> the Karl Popper Web -
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Critical_Cafe/. There is
> a lot of quite useful overlap.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Hall
> ------------------------------------------
> Information is not knowledge
> Knowledge is not wisdom
> Wisdom is not truth
> Truth is not beauty
> Beauty is not love
> Love is not music
> Music is THE BEST
> -----------------------------
> (Zappa - Packard Goose)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:11 PM
> Subject: RE: memetics-digest V1 #1319 - are memes alive?
>
>
> > Nice summary, Bill, and nice to see the mention of Varela and Maturana,
> two
> > of the most useful thinkers of recent years.
> >
> > I would add Jim Miller's LIVING SYSTEMS THEORY to the mix, and Stafford
> > Beer's work as well -- both represent extraordinary advances.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lawry
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
> [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > > Of Bill Hall
> > > Sent: Mon, March 31, 2003 5:55 AM
> > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1319 - are memes alive?
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll amplify a comment I made last week about whether memes can be
> > > considered to be living.
> > >
> > > To me the closest thing there is to a living meme is the
> self-producing
> > > (i.e., autopoietic)organization, which could be interpreted as a
> > > self-producing assembly of mutually catalytic memes.
> > >
> > > The theory of autopoiesis as a definition for the property of
> > > life was first
> > > introduced to the English language in 1980 by Humbeto Maturana
> > > and Francisco
> > > Varela in their book Autopoiesis and Cognition. A more recent work is
> The
> > > Tree of Knowledge, 1988. Personally, I think their structure is quite
> good
> > > because I was using a very similar definition as an heuristic
> when I was
> > > teaching a variety of basic biology courses in the 1970's.
> > >
> > > Georg von Krogh and Johan Roos 1995 applied the theory to
> > > organizations, in
> > > their book Organizational Epistemology. Here they give a neat
> > > checklist for
> > > determining whether an entity should be considered to be autopoietic:
> > >
> > > o Identifiably bounded (membranes, tags). In other words,
> > > if it can't be clearly distinguished from its environment
> > > it isn't a discrete entity.
> > >
> > > o Identifiable components within the boundary (complex)
> > >
> > > o Mechanistic (i.e., metabolism/cybernetic processes)
> > >
> > > o System boundaries internally determined (self reference)
> > >
> > > o System intrinsically produces own components (self production)
> > >
> > > o Self-produced components are necessary and sufficient to
> produce the
> > > system (autonomy).
> > >
> > > Only where all these properties exist together can the entity be
> > > considered
> > > to be living.
> > >
> > > Memes can certainly participate in forming a complex self
> > > productive system,
> > > but as I understand the term, one meme on its own is like a virus (a
> small
> > > number of genes wrapped in an bomb casing) - it has no life on
> > > its own, but
> > > in the right circumstances it can explode and subvert an existing
> > > autopoietic system to make more of its own kind. (An analogue to a
> suicide
> > > bomber?)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Bill Hall
> > > ------------------------------------------
> > > Information is not knowledge
> > > Knowledge is not wisdom
> > > Wisdom is not truth
> > > Truth is not beauty
> > > Beauty is not love
> > > Love is not music
> > > Music is THE BEST
> > > -----------------------------
> > > (Zappa - Packard Goose)
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net>
> > > To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:28 AM
> > > Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1319
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Memes alive? Have we resurrected animism?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >If I attributed life to animals would you accuse me
> of animism?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No. Butam I wrong in thinking you are attributing
> life to memes
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > literal sense (not the marginally less absurd metaphoric
> > > sense)? I'd
> > > > say
> > > > > > > that a palm tree or a porpoise are alive. An idea is
> not alive.
> A
> > > > virus
> > > > > > > strains ones views on what life is, and I'd probably lean
> > > towards no
> > > > hee
> > > > > > > too. A viral idea ("meme") if this exists, doesn't seem
> > > to be a good
> > > > > > > candidate for being alive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >At the very least, viruses participate in life
> processes. The same
> > > could
> > > > > >be said of memes. After all, the mind/brain is as alive as any
> other
> > > > organ.
> > > > > >A meme, i.e. a "selfish" idea, lives and evolves in
> relation to the
> > > > cultural
> > > > > >environment in the same sense that an animal lives and evolves in
> > > > relation
> > > > > >to the natural environment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > But I thought a meme was akin to a gene, not an animal.
> > > > >
> > > > > An animal is alive. Is a gene alive?
> > > >
> > > > This is really opening up a can of worms.
> > > >
> > > > As "systems" theorist Paul Weiss argued many years ago, there's no
> clear
> > > > definition between life and nonlife. Any self-organized, dynamic
> system
> > > > that perpetuates the conditions of its existence can be
> > > considered alive.
> > > > In recent times biology has tended to arbitrarily divide things off
> > > between
> > > > those systems that utilize genes and those that do not. For
> > > reductionistic
> > > > biology, it's not simply that genes are alive but that they are life
> > > itself.
> > > > It's the gene that makes you alive, and the point of your
> > > existence is to
> > > > spread your genes. As Susan Blackmore reasons, if an
> animal is a gene
> > > > machine, then a human is a meme machine. It's the
> particles, whether
> of
> > > > bodies or cultures, that determine the higher levels of structure.
> > > >
> > > > I'm perfectly willing to grant agency to genes and memes.
> Not simply
> > > living
> > > > aspects of larger systems, they help shape those systems
> and are thus
> > > doubly
> > > > "alive." What's most intriguing about memetics is its
> > > vindication of the
> > > > founding principles of modern psychology. We are driven by
> unconscious
> > > > "forces" carrying their own momentum. But that doesn't mean we
> > > don't have
> > > > our own agency as conscious beings. It's a complex interaction of
> > > different
> > > > levels of determinacy, from meme to group.
> > > >
> > > > Memes in the domain of human consciousness are akin to
> animals in the
> > > wilds.
> > > > This is essentially what Dawkins was saying, except that, as a
> > > reductionist,
> > > > he thinks what evolves (and truly lives) is not the whole
> organism but
> > > > merely its genes. For him the genome stands in for the whole
> > > animal. But
> > > > we need not be bound by this predilection. Memes could just as
> > > easily be
> > > > regarded as species of beliefs competing in the jungles of the mind
> with
> > > > other such species.
> > > >
> > > > Ted
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ===============================================================
> > > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information
> Transmission
> > > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ===============================================================
> > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > >
> >
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> >
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 31 Mar 2003 - 14:06:59 GMT