Print

Print


*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

The point, now days old, is interesting I think to SNA mavens--perhaps even to
authorities.

Paul Hartzog points out that I ought not to be teleological about human
evolution--and I agree that one ought not to be so for sociological reasons he
outlines--suicides, etc.  Overall, it seems evolution just happens and is
largely random.  That is, context is everything and context is largely
random--at least in societies that are not teleological.  And most likely even
within those that are teleological in some collective sense.

But one CAN talk about teleologies as aspects of (some) ontologies, I think.

I am not so sure about "social" networks.  Social networks seem to be a
means..not a structure.  They seem to exist as means of ontology building.  I
think social networks (as concepts) are much closer to a methodology than they
are to common nouns.  They aren't things...or even concepts...they are ways of
considering ontologies from a given perspective.

Must networks necessarily have purpose?  If not, what is one?  ...A series of
conveniently noticed relationships seen from a given perspective?  That would
seem not to do.

Ontologies may "win" in the way groups or organizations "win."  By extending
themselves.  That is, methods have a purpose of finding out something from a
given perspective.  Ontologies are to social networks as religions are to
evangelicals.

Ryan Lanham

Quoting "Paul B. Hartzog" <[log in to unmask]>:

> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>
> On 12/22/06, Ryan Lanham <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
> >
> > Said another way, smart apes evolved because they needed to deal with
> > complex territoriality of overlapping networks-tribal rivalries versus
> needs
> > for broader gene pools, mating opportunities, etc.  Migrators or
> > inter-actors inevitably evolve as smarter beings that can solve which
> groups
> > it is smart to belong to.  Said another way still, ontologies are applied
> > when they make sense.  The ontologies that win-including science-based
> > reason-are those that are useful for surviving in complex group domains-or
> > ecosystems...
>
> I can't believe I am hearing someone seriously suggest that the
> ontology of "science and reason" is "winning" because it is "useful."
>
> The counter-arguments are too numerous to mention, but any climate
> change, global poverty, or suicide index should suffice.  The
> historical contingencies involved in the "evolution" of scientism and
> rationality are legion.
>
> -p
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.PaulBHartzog.org
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> --------------------------------------------------------
> The Universe is made up of stories, not atoms.
>                  --Muriel Rukeyser
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 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.
>

_____________________________________________________________________
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.