I offer a new service on my website www.bartnooteboom.nl: If you are interested in on of the items on the blog, and you want to know more, I can send you any book on the website, free of charge, in an electronic version, if you send me an email, at bart.nooteboom@gmail.com, with the  title of the book and a few lines to tell me why you are interested.

 601 Networks

 Script networks are usually linear, with few side branches, indicating the sequence of some practice. Other networks are often wide, with many intersecting branches and are more volatile than a script. Human networks serve for the exchange of capital of different sorts: Economic, social, cultural (including knowledge, information) and symbolic. Symbolic capital is prestige, reputation, fame, and the like.

 Networks vary in their density, i.e. number of direct ties between nodes, and the strength of those ties. Maximum density is n(n-1)/2 , where n is the number of nodes. With n=3, density is 3. High density yields much exchange of resources, but the corresponding communication may crowd out activities in a node. That is why hierarchy was invented, to limit communication  to the next level up or down the hierarchy. Strength of a tie is the number of activities involved in it, duration and frequency of the exchange, and the degree to which it carries ‘specific investments’, dedicated to the tie and useless elsewhere. Examples are machines or instruments or training dedicated to a relation. When the relation breaks, the investment becomes useless.

 For a node it matters how many direct ties it has, and where in the network it is located. If it has many direct ties, this is called ‘network centrality’. It yields the benefit of direct access to many resources, and being popular to have a tie with, but the drawback of getting locked in. ‘Network centrality’ is that many indirect ties between nodes run through it. The advantage is to have many contacts, direct  near and indirect afar, with varied resources and information, but it can lead to an overload that exceeds its absorptive capacity. An ideal structure is that of ‘small worlds’, with dense patches of strong ties, mutually connected by weak ties. The dense patches yield the advantage of a ‘buzz’ of intense exchange with reputation mechanisms, and weak external ties to widen access to resources and prevent stagnation of an ‘in-crowd’. A ‘peripheral position’ yields the benefit of dense local ties, with weak ties to other communities yielding wider variety of resources. This is the position of an ambassador or ‘boundary spanner’, but the risk of losing trust because of the ties with ‘outsiders’.

Networks arise spontaneously, to exchange capital. They carry the risk of exclusion: you are accepted as a member only if you have some worthwhile capital to contribute: economic, intellectual, cultural or symbolic. Those who are low on education, intellectual capital, and on prestige, symbolic capital, are excluded. They also lack acquaintances who can act as ‘wheelbarrows’ into networks, They feel neglected and ignored, and this is one of the causes of the present discontent of the poor and low educated. They feel left out, denigrated, scoffed at. But they are free to enter social media, and they do so, to excesses of rancour, grudges, expressed in invective that takes revenge on the well-connected ‘elite’, and retaliate with being ‘influencers’ who crack unfounded firecrackers.  

 

 600 Transformation

I have not posted anything on my blog for some time, because I was involved in writing a book, with the title ‘Transformation’. It is a sequel to a book entitled ‘Process Philosophy’, published in 2021 by Anthem Publishers. That book is now in reprint, in paperback, to be published in 2025.The new book is currently in review at an international publisher. In the upcoming items in this blog, I will elaborate and give illustrations in different areas.
 

In the book ‘Process Philosophy’, I discussed change, distinguishing gradual, incremental change, treated as the realisation of potential, and radical, structural change, treated as the breakthrough to new potential. An example of the realisation of potential is how an oak grows from an acorn. I formalised the subject with the notion of a ‘script’. A script is a network of nodes that model component activities of the whole, each node with a repertoire of ‘subscripts’. The subscripts are connected by sequence in time, causality, or shared resources. Minor change is the selection of a different subscript from the repertoire, in response to what happens in the environment. A situation can arise where this change is not adequate, usually in a new environment, and attempts at adaptation are made by adopting subscripts or entire nodes from other local scripts, which succeed where the focal script fails, and threatens to collapse. The script as a whole is subscript in some encompassing ‘superscript’. Transformation, radical change, then is a new script with familiar and new nodes in a new structure.

 The example used was that of a restaurant, where the nodes are entry, seating, ordering, eating, paying and leaving. The superscript is the built environment, with its streets, zoning, lighting, ducts, parking, regulations, and supply chains. Minor change, realisation of existing structure, is the selection of a new subscript in a node, such as chopsticks replacing cutlery, or cash payment by payment by card or telephone. An example of transformation is that of a shift from a service restaurant to a self-service one. The nodes are similar, but their order is changed to entry, food selection, payment, seating, and leaving. The subscripts of nodes are not necessarily identical. There no longer is the service of a waiter, and seating involves carrying a tray with selected food.

 This is a model of systems in general. A system is a structure of elements that are connected in interaction, yielding effects of the whole system that the elements do not have by themselves. This is called ‘emergence’. The system as a whole interacts with others in its environment. An isolated system will decay, falling apart, in the striving of nature towards maximal ‘entropy’, disorder. That happens in death, for example. Systems need outside connections, but this does not mean that ‘everything is connected  with everything else’, though they may be connected indirectly, through a direct tie.

 Everything is a system in movement, with interaction of its parts and its environment. That view is the basis of ‘Process Philosophy’.

A stone is a structure of atoms that move with temperature, and above a critical temperature I will break apart. In thawing frost, water molecules break loose from the crystal structure of ice, and when the water cooks, they break loose from the water and evaporate in steam. That belongs to the potential of H2O. Oxygen feeds fires and metabolism in animals and plants, and in the process is transformed into CO2 In electromotors, electrons  are transformed into kinetic energy, or vice versa. .

 There are wider networks of connected systems They will be discussed in a later blog.

 

599 Design of a society

 Currently I am writing a book with the title ‘Design of a society’, in Dutch. I will also write an English version. In due time, see my website.

 I do not pretend to be able to found a society, but I can specify what is desirable in it. The book gives the design of a society, based on the sixfold causality of Aristotle: the ‘efficient, final, material, formal, conditional and exemplary cause. There is a. chapter for each cause.

 The desired society is oriented towards the flourishing of ‘Homo Faber’ and ‘Homo Ludens’; the making of things, and the playing, experimenting with things. Crucial in this is the ability to ‘assimilate’ and to ‘accommodate’, learning through absorption, and learning through invention, in the first chapter.

 The second chapter is about the final cause, the motivation of people to make things. The third chapter is about the material cause, the means of production. In contrast with earlier thought, that is not nature, but is a task for the economy. Markets play a large role in this, but there are various imperfections of markets that require intervention. I plead for an Unconditional Basic Income (UBI).

 Het fourth chapter is about the needed competencies, th formal cause. In particular, that goes into the ability of assimilation and accommodation, and into the need for elations between people, with Martin Buber’s idea of reciprocation between people, instead of the purely instrumental relations in pure self-interest. Such interchange requires trust, and it is an art to conduct that well. The fifth chapter treats the needed education and schooling for those abilities, and ethics. The main role lies with the Aristotelian virtue of ‘phronesis’. That is also im[ortant in the practical action of Homo Faber.

 The sixth chapter treats of the conditional cause, in particular institutions. It discusses the task of establishing a balance of ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ freedom, of regulation for the public cause and freedom of action for the individual. It is needed to limit the complexity of regulation, which bureaucracy cannot cope with, in its attempt to individualise, in combination with the necessary control of fraud. Here, the UBI raises its head again.

 The seventh chapter is about nature as exemplary, not material cause as means for the use by Man, but as example and goal of good conduct. In several ways one can learn from nature in making things. Nature also deserves respect, in its magnificent manifestation of evolution. Evolution has seldom yielded organisms that defile and ruin their environment.

 

 

598. Do plants have intelligence?

 It has been written that plants have intelligence. I think that is misguided.

 Plants do have an impressive ability to adapt. Green plants grow upward to the light. Their roots grow downwards. Flowers open at daybreak and close at night. They have colours that change, and spread odours and offer honey to attract insects for pollination. They are adaptive in many ways, but this does not prove intelligence. I have proposed to use the notions of ‘assimilation’, absorption of features of the environment, into existing frames of response, and ‘accommodation’ of those frames. Intelligence requires both, but plants only have assimilation.

 How do programs of action arise? Adaptive capabilities arose from evolution. In animals DNA does not directly yield properties, but recipes for the production of proteins, which are distributed by RNA. DNA yields a variety of recipes for making proteins, in a repertoire of response. The environment determines which recipe is triggered. This has been called ‘gene expression’, which yields ‘plasticity’ Plants also have this adaptive ability. In contrast with plants, people, and to a lesser extent animals, in addition have the ability to generate new recipes in response to their environment, in other words accommodation, reconstituting recipes of conduct. Plants cannot do that. For them, repertoires of recipes change only in evolution.

 Operating recipes that were developed in evolution, is ‘instinctive’, inborn. Human beings, and to some extent animals, can go beyond instinct In other words, change of response can be ‘ontogenetic’, in the life of the individual, while with plants it is only ‘phylogenetic’.

 Plants have also been said to ‘communicate’, but interaction is not yet communication. Intelligence is strongly connected to the use of language, where new sentences can be constructed almost infinitely, with words that can change meaning. Some animals have that in some form, such as whales, tunas, and some birds. Plants don’t.

 People and some animals have self-consciousness. Elephants do, and even some fish. This has been proven by painting a stain on their skin and putting them in front of a mirror. They move a bit to better inspect the stain, and try to remove it. My cat does not have a clue, and claws the mirror to try and enter the space reflected in it. 

597. Aim of life

According to Nietzsche, the human being has an urge to manifest itself, fired by its ‘will to power’. According to Spinoza it struggles to survive, in what he called ‘conatus’. From biology we know that life struggles against decay, the increase of entropy. All this can be done egotistically, in self-interest, and it can be done benevolently, with regard to others.

In the foregoing I proposed that people should go for spiritual, intellectual and social expansion. Why are spiritual, intellectual and social expansion good? They arise from communicative interaction, and contribute to it. Perhaps we can say that humane interaction is the purpose of life. It need not be highbrow, and can be just a smile or hug.

The perspective of interaction for communication also applies to the relation between humanity and nature. We no longer need to see nature as the god Gaia, attribute homomorphic properties to it, and act as supplicants to it. Nature has no purpose and is indifferent to us, but it does respond. We one-sidedly exploited nature, and it responds with climate change.

The American naturalist Thoreau enjoyed just being in nature, feeling at one with its flow. Nature can inspire us to experience the dynamics I plead for. Nature is in constant change , of air, wind, rain, with waving trees and rippling ponds. And earth quakes, floods and tsunami’s. It is the exemplary manifestation of dynamics. God is everywhere in nature. The creator is not distinct from its creation, as. in German Romanticism. Thereby nature is divine.

If readers of this blog object or have additions, please let me know.

  

 596 What now?

 Using the work of Stephen Toulmin, in the preceding items of this blog I gave a rather grim survey of the development of thought in Europe since the 16^th century. According to Toulmin’s analysis, In the 20^th and 21^st century, we have, regained some perspectives from the 16^th century Renaissance, such as individuality, diversity, globalisation, scepticism, attention to practical affairs, and receptiveness to emotions next to reason. In the second half of the 20^th century, and in the 21^st century, we have turned back, in some respects, to old perspectives that developed from the 17^th century, in particular universalism, absolutism, nationalism, isolationism, and an inclination towards authoritarianism. As an underlying inclination towards this and 17^th century thought, Toulin suggested a desire for certainty and hierarchy, assumed to be needed for order.

 Individuality has now derailed into egotism, narcissism, and openness to emotions has evolved to the point of their  dominance, in irrationality and disregard of knowledge, logic and facts, in a slide into emotional outbursts, lies, fake news, false accusations, in particular on social media, which is destroying mutual trust between people, and between voters and government. Humanism is fading away again

 I am quite pessimistic about current developments, but someone said that one has a duty to exhibit optimism, and design futures of a possible better society. So, what could an attractive future look like? What features could or should that future harbour? I list a number of items:

             -          Tolerance or even embracing of uncertainty; adaptability, resilience

-          A dynamic view concerning knowledge, identity and being, language and morality

-          Scepsis concerning knowledge. Theory is indispensable, but rests upon axioms that can be debated

-          Objective truth  is an illusion. Instead of it ‘warranted assertability’, which includes the practical utility and history of a theory or claim

-          Acceptance of individuality, variation; tolerance. Identity as developing from interaction

-          Relational ontology: things evolve and decay in interaction with each other

-          Phronesis: judgement of conduct or morality while taking into account the conditions and background

-          Combining reason with emotions

-          Not rationality central, but being reasonable, prepared to listen

-          Interdisciplinarity

-          Seeing humanity and nature as a whole

 This clearly taps from the humanism of the Renaissance, shedding the later urge towards certainty and hierarchy, but wants to preserve reason next to emotions, and the use of theory in science, while recognising its imitations and dependence on underlying fundamental assumptions that  might need to change.

 I have pleaded for dynamics, but is change or movement always good? It can entail territorial expansion, of ‘life space’ as Hitler called it, increasing extraction of resources from the earth, destroying it, so that now we try to expand in outer space. The expansion includes the increase of riches and pleasure.

 What to do now? Life is movement, in a struggle against decay and increasing entropy. The body has a throbbing heart, breathing lungs; flows of blood that carry food and hormones, and flows of electric pulses through neurons. Aristotle already recognised how organism develops from an inner potential , in ‘physis’, like an oak from an acorn. Personal identity develops, within constraints of heritage and environment, in interaction between people, as discussed earlier. Thus life requires interaction. Dynamics is good if it engenders life. Intellectual and spiritual expansion are good.

 Why are spiritual and intellectual expansion good? They arise from communicative interaction, and contribute to it. Perhaps we can say that humane interaction is the purpose of life. It need not be highbrow, and can be just a smile or hug.

 The perspective of interaction for communication also applies to the relation between humanity and nature. We no longer need to see nature as the god Gaia, attribute homomorphic properties to it, and act as supplicants to it. It has no purpose and is indifferent to us, but it does respond. We one-sidedly exploited nature, and it responds with climate change.

 If readers of this blog object or have additions, please let me know..

595 Rational or reasonable

 The ages of reason and Enlightenment, in the 17^th and 18^th century, were obsessed by reason. Following Descartes, people saw body and mind as separate. Ideal knowledge was context-independent, with universal truths, as in geometry. The body was part of chaotic, variable nature and not a respectable subject for science. Emotions overturned reason, and were to be avoided, to maintain objectivity and ‘clear and distinct ideas’, as Descartes called them

 There was a revival of 16^th century humanism in the second half of the 20^th century, which was more sceptical of the certain knowledge that science had claimed to offer, and appreciated the context-dependence and practical use of knowledge, which made room for the sciences of the human being and society. Emotions came to be seen as indispensable in human life, and even as embedded in the brain. Attention to practical affairs did still lag behind dominant theory.

 A humanistic perspective is critical of exclusive reason, and recognizes the inevitability and value of emotions, but does not proclaim irrationality. It offers being reasonable instead of only rational. It still appreciates logic and facts, but recognises their dependence on history and context. One can still practice and use science, but with scepsis. Science can be useful, but must make an effort to show that, and must recognise that it is based on presumptions or axioms that can be debated and can change in time. An example is Einstein’s theories trumping that of Newton. Attention to circumstances and background in human conduct is needed in ethical and moral judgement, where Aristotle called it ‘phronesis’, as discussed before, in this blog. Ethical and moral rules are seldom absolute and universal. An exception may be human rights.