Hi John et al,

On Friday, June 11, 2004, at 11:18  AM, John Foster wrote:

> Hi Leonardo,
>
>     I understand you very well and it is enlightening to have you 
> discuss
> these topics on this list. We perhaps hope to learn more from your 
> insights
> and perspective. Good work,

Thank you. When joining a list like this I expect to learn, putting my 
perspectives to test on a forum that can give challenging feedbacks 
that can help me fine tune or discard my perspectives.

On Friday, June 11, 2004, at 11:12  AM, John Foster wrote:

> At a more basic level, Steven, and Leonardo, what do you exactly mean 
> by 'concept'?

Now, that's an interesting question. "Concept"? Hmm, let me give it 
some thought since, what I have found so far, is that many definitions 
and concepts tend to be conceptually confusing. :-) So let me see if I 
can come up with a concept for "concept" ...

I do thank you for your lengthy piece on autopoiesis. It is, in fact, 
more or less what I had in mind, though I hadn't put it in writing.

>  (...) I have the impression that the term concept, and in this case 
> 'autopoesis' may refer to different 'issues' for different 
> interpretors. The term 'autopoesis' is an ancient Greek term referring 
> to 'self' producing, making, hence the processive 'esis' versus 
> 'eidos' or eidetic ending. In more contemporary terms therefore the 
> concept may refer to 'self-regulation'. The term 'concept' is very 
> deeply related to this meaning, which also means 'rule'.

Yes, I can see that the above scenario in regards to autopoiesis (as 
well as chaordic, and so many other terms like, economy, religion, 
politics, education, health ... etc.) refers to different issues 
related to different interpretations. Thus, before I argue over any 
"concept," I usually try to find a common platform of understanding. 
Sometimes that is not possible and perhaps a different concept or word 
has to be used that means, if possible, the same for all parties.

>  
> In thinking which is always located on a gradient, with one pole being 
> 'acting' and the other 'conceiving' the term autopoesis, refers to 
> anything which is self-organizing. An organism which is said to be 
> 'autopoetic' therefore is both acting and conceiving by *making rules* 
> about it's manner of environmental 'engagement'.

I believe, in regards to this, that when discussing with a given 
concept as backdrop, the "rules" that relate to the concept have to be 
clear.

In other words, and like you say above, the "interpretation" of a 
concept means simply that the "accepted rules" are different for each 
party. The question then is to come to an agreement about the 
underlying rules –or maybe better, the "boundaries"– within which that 
particular concept is still valid.

In the case of autopoiesis, the difference between what you mentioned 
and what Steven mentioned is one of boundaries –or how far the rules 
apply– or, in other words, What are the "outer limits" of a process 
that we can still consider autopoietic?

One of the main differences between "autopoietic" and "chaordic" 
(chaordic as refering to the rules that apply to complex systems, allow 
me to list them below), is that autopoietic implies not only the 
self-regulation of the system or organism itself (which is what chaords 
do), but it also takes into consideration the environment in which the 
organism is immersed. That is, while chaordic can be described as a 
process that self-regulates (among other things) regardless of the 
surroundings, autopoietic cannot be separated from the environment 
because autopoietic implies an interaction with the outside as 
"decided" from within (the conceptualization you referred to?).

This "interaction" means, too, that just as the environment acts upon 
an autopoietic organism, the organism, in its interaction, acts upon 
the environment. "Structural adjustment," Maturana called it. In this 
sense, chaordic doesn't take into account this very important element 
related to life processes. Thus, the boundaries of the concepts of 
autopoiesis and of chaordic (complexity) have this great difference 
that doesn't makes them interchangeable even though the "inner 
processes" appear to be the same. We can say, then, that chaordic may 
be viewed, conceptually, as a "closed system," while autopoietic must 
be viewed holistically, that is, related to the organism's surroundings.





>  
> However at the community or social level the attribute of 'autopoetic' 
> cannot be 'intrinsic' except in one sense only. That is if the 
> community or society is left to persist, or subsist, in a state of 
> relative homeostasis, which in many environments is the rule rather 
> than the exception.

If you are speaking of human communities, then one of the main yet most 
forgotten items is the economic system used by that community, 
specifically the monetary side of it. If the money comes from without 
and the community cannot make its own currency to fulfill its own 
needs, then it will depend on borrowing money from the outside, and 
this, under present-day circumstances, means that they must pay back 
more than they received due to interest rates. So, unless this aspect 
is tackled (and few communities actually even consider this, even 
eco-villages and other similar intentional communities), autopoiesis at 
this level will be short-lived even if the political inner structure 
has been designed chaordically.
>
> What I am alluding to is obvious, taken as a whole, and the only idea 
> which has any reality, is the whole.

Which is, ultimately, the context of environmental ethics or bioethics 
as applied to ecology, isn't it?

All the best,

Leonardo