Re: `Structure' and contingency

hi - may i discuss my anthropogenic perception / observations based on my
recently acquired self-understanding re quantum theory (billed the 'lingua
franca')  for synthesizing the wave-particle behavior for all matter - 

the atomic particles (really quarks) can best be explained via quantum
theory but the behavior is mimicked via metabolism which is an explainable
physical phenomena - 

the complexity science and the laws of self-organization assist in
describing 'quantitatively'  the 'rules' of  complex adaptive systems (cas)
and the synthesis of physics, biology, chemistry, standard cosmological - 

the way i see it, as a layman, when our species know the natural "rules"
for the physical phenomena being explained, we can predict with high
probabilities in the success column - there is never 100% assurance as
speed and position in space-time are indeterminate (assume still an
acceptable universal law) - the outcomes via quantum mechanics applied to
the wave-particle duality are awesome and the opposite of classical
physical environments - duality and indeterminacy occur at atomic levels
within the nucleus and its electron circling in layered shells like onion
skins -

in science, to omit useable systemically connected data and to omit
observing for patterns via quantum measurements, is not generally
acceptable good scientific experimental procedures - 

in a heavily laced monoculturalized social environment, i agree the
probability for an accident to be a fitness enhancing genetic aberration
resulting in 'natural selection' speciating the favored (not predetermined)
genetic alteration into the species to have a cascading impact is
artificially controlled - this is un-sustainable - using cosmological
focused coarse-fine graining techniques this un-sustainable meme will be
extinct per self-organizational laws re replicating / reproducing living
species (our biota) -

am enjoying the biodiversity re discussions -

thanks

vaughan

vaughan davidson, cpa
35 legare
charleston, sc  29401
843.577.9443
vaughan@awod.com

----------
From: Carl H.A. Dassbach <dassbach@mtu.edu>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: `Structure' and contingency
Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 10:20 AM



I agree with Peter that

1.)  Once the conditions for a complex system have been
>created, the "freedom" of a participant within that system (be it
>an atom, molecule, or human) to alter the dynamics of the system
>itself are highly constrained by the macro-dynamics of the
>system, hence minimized.

When we speak of the "conditions" under which humans in the normal course
of
events make history (which, as Marx tells us, are not "chosen by
themselves") ,  we must include both "past" conditions (structural
preconditions) and "future" conditions or options for action.  Just as the
former creates the "stage," the latter circumscribes what avenues can be
pursued.  I think this is even evident in semi-exceptional activties such
as
invention. Invention is less a case of individual genius and more a case of
being in the right place at the right time (as the cases of Bell and Edison
demonstrate).

Human decisions can have a substantial autonomous impact but only in
periods
of instability and even in these cases it is only the rare  individual who
is finds themselves under the right preconditions and confronted with the
"right" options.

Where I differ is that I believe that structures "do" more than constrain -
in constraining choices the create situations.  For example, competition
between forms in an industry not only constrains us, i.e. limits what we
can't do, it also determines what we can do and, in so doing, we recreate
competition.

Carl Dassbach