 |
 |
***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org ***** Loet: >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! :-) Ryan: Disturbances is an interesting term. I say open system, you say closed systems with disturbances. What is the difference? I think the difference is profound. The 21st century will be the one of unintended consequences...disturbances. The morality of our science will hinge on who sets the boundaries--as it always has. The boundary between myth and history was once thin then fat and is now thin again. The boundary between network and context is everything. SNA wants it to be fat, but it is always and everywhere very thin...gossamer at best. SNA wants to be a highly bounded (discrete) methodology for considering the social...its error. "It" believes in structure and selective views of order. But you are right not to abandon "It" too quickly--I was chastised by Professor Wasserman, already! It is unlikely Eric Beinhocker will be taught in many economics classes in the next 20 years. After the next 20, you will find few where he is not mentioned and then not read--rather like Adam Smith whose title he played with. Paradigms die slowly. Taste is in the eye of the beholder as the French and Romans knew and know. But we are not bound to a philosophy of SNA that is in the eye of the beholder. We can engage in attempts to justify why we selectively cull out networks from contexts and who gets to decide what is order and architecture and what is not. You are right to use the term operationalize because he who defines networks defines operations...not contexts. And operations always have a purpose. I think that is just right. Social networks are methods of ontology extension. They are open systems because they are methods...not structures. The processes of inclusion and exclusion matter most. Your s/n is my "meaning." Thanks for chatting mon semblable. Bon appetit! 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.