***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****
Chacun son gout!
The system operates in terms of (changing) relations, but the network of
relations contains an architecture. This architecture can be expected to
change at a pace slower than the first-order variation.
Contexts provide disturbances. The disturbances become relevant for the
architecture where the signal can be distinguished from the noise. One can
operationalize in terms of different types of coupling. For example, what
you write in a message can be understood by me, but whether you wrote it on
a PC or a Macintosh is as a context no longer relevant for our communication
(at this stage). Have a nice breakfast! :-)
With best wishes,
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
[log in to unmask] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 5:26 PM
> To: Loet Leydesdorff
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Networks and conformity
> > I would be inclined to think of the vectors as providing
> the variation
> > and the matrix as containing the structure ("eigenstructure"). The
> > structure is determining since selective. Variation can be
> random, but
> > selection is deterministic. In addition to eigenstructure at each
> > moment of time, one would have to define an eigen-dynamics
> over time.
> > The eigenvectors and eigenfrequencies can be recombined by a
> > self-organizing system because it contains one more degree
> of freedom
> > for the reflection. In
> > sum: a vector is a one-dimensional probability
> distribution, a matrix
> > a two-dimensional one, a system which develops over time
> would need to
> > be modeled as a three-dimensional probability distribution, and a
> > self-organizing system as a four-dimensional one. The entropy
> > statistics of probability distributions of more than one are not
> > different from the simple ones. Thus, one can move this forward.
> > The cybernetic expectation is that the systems are constructed
> > bottom-up, but that control tends to emerge at the next-order level.
> Two comments:
> 1. This approach creates fairly rigid boundaries between
> system and external.
> The rigidity is lessened by the introduction of
> probabilities, but made no less autonomous. These boundaries
> are necessarily arbitrary...they do not allow for partial
> inclusion outside of the probability measure.
> 2. The notion of scale would also need to have (presumably)
> probabilistic boundaries. It would also create nested levels
> of dimensions...implausibly complex.
> Dynamics will require a systemic approach like evolution that
> is an open system.
> That is why there are no probabilistic models of mutation
> worth much. Context is part of the equation--inherently.
> I have made little progress, but I am inclined to focus on
> the situation rather than the "network" because of this. SNA
> might be "over" because it cannot deal with context in any
> systematic way. This is because it focuses on systems rather
> than focusing on contexts. I think this is a general flaw of
> prior generation social science. In short, we modeled closed
> systems and that was a red herring. We should have been
> thinking about environments, but instead we thought about
> species. We literally did not see the forest for the trees.
> Ryan Lanham
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.