Actually, John, the concept of evolution of complex structures by processes
of continual adaptaton mediated through feedback loops rather than
deliberate planning originated in social theory before being adopted by
biology via Darwin.  Hume and the Scottish Enlightenment (incl. Adam Smith)
developed the concept with reference to custom and common law, and with
Smith, economics.

This is the only case I know of where the physical/biological sciences ever
learned anything of great significance from the social sciences.

oF course there are hierarchical organizations in society.  Corporations,
bureaucracies, unions, the Catholic Church, the African Violet Society,
Greenpeace and a host of others.  But society is not itself such a
hierarchy.  Nor are certain  institutions within that society, such as the
market, science, custom and (in my own published work) democracy.

Things get interesting in part because hierarchies tend to try and take over
the self-organizing institutions within which they exist.  For the most part
they fail - but often do great harm in the process.

Gus

on 1/15/02 9:36 AM, John Foster at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Hayek
>
>
>> Gus, one question. Is Hayek using the term "self organizing" in the Adam
>> Smith sense or in the "Autopoesis" sense. The first I'm sort of dubious
>> about, the second I tend to reject outright.
>>
>
> Organisms are 'self-organizing' ...or autopoetic. Ecosystems are not
> 'self-organizing' (except in a limited way - hence the autecology of species
> relfected in the individual organism). Those systems which can be destroyed
> from without or made from without are heteropoetic or allopoetic. To claim
> that any human instutition can be 'autopoetic' is to make an error in
> judgement,therefore. There are no institutions (family, corporation, nation,
> etc.) which cannot be destroyed from without or changed fundamentally by a
> conceptual 'other'. This is why I think that it is confusing to envision a
> system as being 'self-organizing' beyond the organism. To say therefore that
> "central planning" is wrong or right is really putting the proverbial cart
> before the horse. Planning is considered essential to organizational
> behaviour whether it is the kind of planning that created the "Manhattan
> Project" or the worlds' largest industrial project which is the Alberta Tar
> Sands (Syncrude).
>
> I think when 'politics' is mixed with ecology, then the result is some
> interesting metaphors, but politics is a form of 'prudence' which rests
> therefore on the individual conscience.
>
> Who really made the "Manhattan Project" which employed 200,000 persons? It
> was not simply the US and Canada (the U235 cam from Canadian mines), but
> rather the Ruskies who created a perceived need by representatives in
> government of the 'allopoetic' and 'heteropoetic' nature of the political
> ecosystem. The ideological basis of the other is irrelevant...there simply
> has to be some 'difference' based on political borders and boundaries (which
> in my opinion are illusory). For instance USSR had 'central planning' and so
> did the US (otherwise how could either nation create nuclear bombs - enough
> to destroy life on earth 1000 times)?
>
> Military prep. requires central planning (unless you have legal local
> militias).
>
> chao
>
> John Foster
>