I think there needs to be a difference between "reductionist" methods which imply what you are saying, "get the individuals right and society will work itself out" and then recognizing things for simply what they are.

Humans make things more than they are. That is the great folly and wisdom of humans. A group of people really is just that... but it is us (individually) who look around and see something greater, and when us (individually) all happen to "see" the same thing, at the same time... that is organization, that is order, that is a society.

We make words more than just scribbles on a piece of paper, we make buying a car worth something, we lend gold its supposedly intrinsic value, and we do all of this individually... based upon certain social constructs which have emerged throughout history that we continue to build upon, and deconstruct as well revealing new levels.

No human can think, believe, or act for any other human.

And symbolic systems are the only things connecting minds of individual humans.

You last two statements are plain wrong I think Mark. The comment on symbolic systems being the only connections is plain wrong on any reading of cognitive science. The earlier statement on humans thinking etc. for any others is challenged by history and the family, if you say "should" instead of "can" then there is an argument.

Let me see if I can clarify...

No two humans have the same brain.

So the only thing that can "connect" two brains are things that mean something to the two brains, but is seperate from the two brains (sign systems).

This is well developed in The Trivium, Semiotics, Symbolic Interactionism, etc...

Being that humans are seperate, they cannot think, believe, or act for one another.

I cannot think, believe, act for Dave Snowden's brain.

"History" and "Family" are symbolic links, not intrinsic... so it may LOOK like a person can/does think, believe, or act for another, but only through symbolic derivatives.

Consciousness is a distributed function, its not co-located with the brain
Communication and connection are far more complex that we understand, but we do know that its not just symbolic, resonance, smell and other factors all come into play
We know that culture can force exaptation and adaptation in humans and that includes changing cognitive processes
Ritual activities the brain in different ways, and in a collective environment such as a crew the cognitive process exists in the flows between things as well as the things themselves
Its all moved on a bit from Latin Grammar

Consciousness cannot be a distributed function I wouldnt think (complexity exists precisely because people falsely think certian ones do intrinsically and independently of individuals, such as "America") because particular unity is what allows consciousness to be recognized. A country cannot recognize it's citizens independently of it's citizens recognizing the country as a symbolic concept... much like I can recognize my brain existing, but not reverse (or atleast I would never know). Depends on what we say is "distributed" though, which I am assuming to mean crossing between two or more seperate unities.

Without a recognizeable particular unity, consciousness could not be evident, it could not be recognized authoritatively.

I would agree that communication and connection are FAR more complex, and we have to look at WHY/HOW they are more complex, which I think precisely has to do with how individual consciousness deals with pattern, and how they play off each other.

I would argue that even resonance and smell and such are purely semiotic as well... Semiotics is what led me to complexity being perfectly evident as "normal"... while order being a mere dream.

My point being you can't speak of culture without speaking of individuals, but we can speak of individuals without speaking of culture. We can't put more focus on derivatives...

A "society" does not exist in front of individuals, but behind them. It is individuals' own fault for thinking that it may, resulting in unorder (complexity/chaos). Example being, me and my friend define a new word, and therefore that word and its meaning now have a "life of their own" (but only within our own minds)...

Culture forces exaption and adaptation upon people who do not lead symbolically (most people choose to use previously created words rather than new ones for instance). I do not believe though that this is evidence of society being seperate from the aggregation of individuals.

I understand what you mean about ritual activities, and the flow between things, and things themselves... but I believe the fallacy lies in people thinking that "things" (snapshots of the flow) ever "exist" (with permanence) in the first place... while I would say it is more about an argument between "assumed certainties" and "accepted uncertainties", and if people can come to terms on those levels there can be a respect and honor for unorder, complexity, and chaos (which are intrinsically unescapable).

I personally think the great folly of modern culture is specalization of education and labor, forcing dependence on society NEEDING to be greater than the sum of all individuals (rather than actually being so)... I would fondly welcome a general return to the trivium simply as:

- things as they are known
- things as they are symbolized
- things as they are communicated

By individuals...

And "individuals" meaning any "particularly distinct things".

We may have to agree to disagree Mark.

• Consciousness is a distributed function according to all the cognitive science I have read in the last few years. OK if the brain dies it goes, but it is distributed and connected and its no aggregative in consequence. That also means that social constructs have identity (for example country) and can act as an attractor mechanism that is stronger in contexts than the individual.
• Your use of "recognition" seems a throw back to social contract theory (mind you a log of traditional liberal and libertarian thinking still does that)
• A society can exist in front, behind and along side of individuals - it co-evolves
• It looks like culture can achieve biological change (read "not by genes alone" and others) and its fractal in nature (clans, fief, nation etc. etc). Aggregative concepts simply don't apply, its just a throw back to a set of philosophical thinking that was at its heyday in the 17th/18C but is now more or less discredited where science intersects with Philosophy
• Switching from atomistic concepts to "things" to "flows" is just swinging the pendulum, we need to thing more about identity and stabilities/coherence then we can move on
• Assumed certainties and uncertainties sounds suspiciously social constructivist/relativist to me but will suspend judgement
• I really don't think you can define individuals as particularly distinct things, it makes the word meaningless (but maybe that is the relativism coming out?) ". Similarily I think its stretching it to include smell in semiotics, but then I think it is a mistake to interpret everything in terms of signs anyway.
• Of course (and this is critical), Locke is a contemporary of Stubbes and takes about semeiotics in his work. The whole construct goes back to that period (my point about social contract theory) and Peirce and the early pragmatists start to bound or modify the concept to a more restricted realm. Interestingly its the same error that underpins the SECI dominated world of KM

So I think we are ontologically and epistemologically separated to be honest ...

First off, I like the ground we have covered, and honor the last statement of your response with great respect. but...

Consciousness is defined as self-recognition best I know... recognization of "self"... of "individuality". You say "OK if the brain dies", well what if ALL the brains die? Then what?? And notice your "individuality" use of "brain". It can only be connected to other functions and brains, through things which "mean" things to other brains (which are sign systems). Smell responses, are metaphorical bio-semiosis...

Your right that I would say a "society" can "co-exist" and "co-emerge" with "individuals" but only in a symbolic sense, where the said individuals have placed an intrinsic value upon the society rather than their control over it's direction. (do members define a group, or does a group define its members? maybe both? this is really the crux of it ALL I think)

Try defining a country without involving individuals? My point is that we need to recognize the need to stray away from thinking that a "country" is separate from those who relate to it, thereby defining it. A "country" cannot act individually of those who cause action in "it's" name.

Even if we are ontologically and epistemologically seperated... I think this is the great importance of it all... that needs to be recognized. and further reconciled.

For you, or I, to state an objective stance over one another would be to impose order where only complexity can exist.

The one criticism that I have regarding the Cynefin Framework, and my considerations of your work, has been that I feel you don't express enough the WHY and HOW behind complexity and chaos.

My overarching point is that ontological and epistemological differences are the overarching sources of complexity and chaos in systems and environments such as human interaction.

I believe that once a human puts meaning outside of their own mind, complexity and chaos arises... and when meaning co-exists within multiple minds order arises... but only as a result of individual activity, whatever an "individual" may be "individually" classified as (refer to your own work regarding "self"-signification).

If you want to talk about "social contract theory" my only opinion would be that we shouldn't assign or ascribe more value to the contract itself rather than that which recognizes the contract ("Individuals")... thereby producing meaning.

Consciousness involves awareness and a capacity to act but I am not sure it really requires self-recognition of "individuality", OK in some philosophies yet - but that is my point you are in a 17th/18th model of human identity. Hence my reference to social contract theory, I don't particularly want to talk about it, I was making a link to try and clarify a position.

If all brains dies then there is no society - so what? If there is more than one brain and they interact then meaning exists in the connections. I don;t know of any definition of country that involves the definitions of the individual members os that society. Normally its in terms of culture, history, geography. Its not aggregative.

I think you are confusing truth and coherence with ideas of order and complexity. I am happy to state as a fact (based on references I can give you) that consciousness is a distributed function. Other statements I might argue have coherence - they are moving in the right direction and some are incoherent. I have no problem with taking an objective stance, if its backed up. I am not a relativist. I simply don't understanding your overarching point - ontological and epistemological differences as a source of complexity and chaos. It seems like confusing apples and pears.

As to the WHY and HOW of complexity and chaos - I am happy to talk about the HOW and do so, the WHY on the other hand I am less sure. Both types of system just ARE, not sure what it would mean to talk about WHY unless I was taking a creationist position( which I am not).

- I personally think everyone is always talking about the same thing, they just cant find the right metaphors to agree to. Pattern formation, recognition, dispersion, etc...

- I have no problem thinking that consciousness is a distributed function if we mention on what level. "England" is a distributed function I would agree. But I think it is because there are so many levels people have built up in their own heads, that they get to the point that they think symbolic and social constructs are actually real, and are not a result of their thoughts, beliefs, and actions. The fact that nations come and go, construct and deconstruct, is evidence of this. And construction and deconstruction are done by individuals of some level. You and me are individuals, but England and America are also individuals, but on different levels, which is what I mean. And higher levels are dependent on lower levels... which is why gold has such a high social value. Erase social constructs, and you get high value gold... because it relates on such a low level of human interactivity.

- "awareness" and "capacity to act"... awareness of what, requires an awarer and an awared... and the fact that "I" am aware of "something" else, independent of "me" is evidence of self-recognition. If I can state that I have a consciousness, then I can state that "I" am a separate... how can we talk about "consciousness" without talking about "who" is "conscious" of "what"?

- how can you say you are not a relativist, but you speak of "coherence" and "meaning in connections"? a relativist is simply a person who has a consideration of relations, which is intrinsic to coherence and connection.

- I really could care less what year my thoughts may be coming from, and I am more interested in simply making statements that can be argued against. Believe me, im all for dialectic. I dont really like to talk about old things either, but I would rather talk about them than the derivatives of them, to hopefully realize the same things that those who led new paradigms shifts did.

- I would say that society, meaning, organization, order, culture, etc... is a byproduct of some first activity. Simplest form being you and I take a walk and both see a new animal, and we agree on a word to represent the animal... but then we teach the word to our kids, and our kids now have a first hand experience with the word, but a distant connection to the actual first experience, which constituted the need for the word.

- If you can recognize that if all brains die, there cant be a society, then I think my point is recognized... because society can die and there can still be brains. (a good read of history of nations would suffice). Point being that meaning is an imputed relation.

- The fact that definitions of nations dont include those of their members is only more evidence of my point being that people make meaning more than it is, creating complexity and chaos. We falsely believe that an "America" exists independently of our thoughts, beliefs, and actions which persist the concept of "America" on a real-time day-to-day basis.

- Im not arguing a reductionist analytical point of view, but moreso an individualistic synthetical point of view. I am not saying that we can break down a society and get to individuals, but I am saying that it is individuals who build up a society... and ultimately to a point where people take it for granted, and thereby granting it a life of its own, leading to the position you are taking now saying that it is more than the aggregate, but which I am saying is the source of complexity... which I also believe doesn't fall out of line with your work.

- Point being there is a reason behind the value you find in self-signification of fragmented narratives, told and signified by individual storytellers.

- I think you hit the nail with "confusing apples and pears", because yes I would say that confusion in and between "individuals" is a source of "inter-individual" complexity.

Some comments

• We talk about things in the context of the flow of meaning. So we might use different language to label a cat, but the context of out cultural understanding of cats will mean different things to different groups of people (and that is before we get onto tone of voice etc.)
• England can't a distributed function, its a physical state and an abstract concept (and a few other things beside). My point, based on the scientific literature is that you can't talk about atomised individuals without understanding distributed consciousness. Its not clear if you are conceding that point or simply shifting ground to avoid a fact. If you start to say they are individuals then you are distorting language to the point where every word you use will have to be explained.
• To be aware of something is not necessarily self-recognition, think of autonomic responses for starters.
• You are using relativist is some way that bears no relation to its use in Philosophy, Anthropology or any of the humanities.
• Happy to agree that your ideas are not those of the 17th/18th C but derivative of them, but I still think you need to move on
• Language and meaning are the products of activity (I doubt there was a first one), but it is certainly more than teaching symbolic use of language to children
• Give me one example from history when individuals have lived in isolation from some society grouping.
• You can't argue (well you can but not coherently) in one post that a country can't be defined other than involving individuals and then use my contradiction of that point to continue to assert the same proposition - thats Cheshire Cat tactics.
• Any aggregative approach is a priori reductionist, you are saying the whole is the sum of the parts and at that point its complicated not complex
  
• You haven't answered or responded to my point that you are confusing truth and coherence with ideas of order and complexity

Hmmm...my snap reaction is that an emphasis on multiple and evolving individual and group identities would help avoid a tendency to slide into static reductionism...seems like you've repeatedly tried to highlight identity in your responses, Dave.

This is way longer than it should be but I dont feel like going back and editing now...

Some interesting links I found over the past few days:

http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1260
http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/IV/Contemplating_Impermanence_2.htm
http://www.enformy.com/$wsr02.html
http://c5corp.com/research/index.shtml

Ive been working for a while now over the years trying to develop some more refined diagrams and visuals to better express my positions, so ill be sure to pass on to get your thoughts...

Your points I feel are very in line with Symbolic Interactionism (im NOT attempting to label your positions though), which I am fond of in the vein of Mead and Blume, but recognize its constraints.

I believe it is erroneous to believe that society can exist at the same level as that which caused society to emerge. And I feel that a better way to talk about it may be to say that society is persisted from the present into the future based on how we constrain our selves in the present based on our interpretation of the past, as well as present, and future (ideal states, etc...)...

So I am not recommending a reductionist approach to be taken in the form of starting with society and then analyzing it into a discrete set of parts and activity flows, or such... thinking we will uncover everything which made it what it was.

But I am saying that I believe society emerges from discrete parts (you, me, words, thoughts, buildings, etc...) and activity flows between those parts... and at any point in the present, the parts and activity flows have control over the direction of the society into the future. Whether people take advantage of that possibility is another concern.

You are right that I may be expanding or constraining my use of language differently than you...

My position is that chaos (possibilities / unpredictabilities) is the only thing which exists in the present. And then when we look back at today from tomorrow, we may see order because people chose to act in certain ways based on assumed certainties and accepted uncertainties, but that it is a fallacy to think that the order actually existed at that point where activity took place.

It is a fallacy so say that a word means anything specific in the present, because we have the ability to use it in any way we want in the present... so the fact that we use it in any certain way is not evidence of an order existing at that time, but simply an assumption that it does, and therefore we align our activity to it.

Similar to people thinking that a product is worth any specific price in the present, when it is the act of selling it at a specific price that causes its worth to emerge in a certain way that was not and could not have been known before... this is VERY much in line with quotes I have seen you reference from Mary Douglas.

I feel that you advocate the methods you do precisely because of how much possibility exists in the present, and therefore unpredictability is inherent in the present.

I would say that society is never "complete" but is constantly "under construction", and it is us who are building it... and YES I certainly agree with you that society makes an appearance in the present due to the builders letting it, and sometimes letting it have control over their activity in the present.

So while co-emergence appears to exist in the way you say, only one can precede the other, and let the other have any amount of control.

My advice for employees and citizens would be to lead them to a point where they recognize that they are in control (I believe you refer to this as the "edge of chaos"), and not the constructs that have emerged (perceived as "order), and then as well lead them to recognizing it is them who let constructs have control over them, and they can certainly agree to do so where deemed necessary (such as laws // safety policies).

Patterns are epiphenomena of that phenomena which it emerges from, so when the preceding phenomena begins to act as if the epiphenomena were in control, it leads to entrainment and reinforcement, but it is still the phenomena which is giving the epiphenomena this role.

Order is ordered into existence by forces out of chaos, and most of the time people then persist the order as if it were "finished", as if they could stop ordering it, and it would still have an independent life.

People spend a lot of time arguing as if a word actually means something, rather than realizing that what they decide on in the present will determine its new meaning... and so on and so forth at every single point in the present... meaning we give wayyyyy too much power to the past and future.

An example applying to marriage adivce... Two people meet, interact in certain ways, and a marriage emerges, and then they start acting in regards to the marriage, and I would advise them to recognize that they should not place too much value on the construct governing their action in the present, and should focus on their activity in the present determining the emergence of construct, which may or may not look like it did before. And at the very least, recognize what it means to let the recognized construct govern them in the present.

I may be wrong, but I dont think we are too far from each other... maybe just a misunderstanding of misunderstandings...