Under the classical, mechanstic paradigm, identities were delimited by crisp, sharp edges — crisply defined conceptual boundaries, if you will. But the contextual embeddedness of complex systems makes them more like bramble bushes than geometrical shapes. Even worse, boundary conditions actually structure and organize complexity — just like the Aristotelian formal causes of old. The boundaries of a complex system are like a cell’s organic membranes, like the eardrum, permeable active site without which complex organization would not take place.
In light of this dynamic, where does an “ear” end and a “not ear” begin? How are we to understand the concept of “identity” given complex boundaries and their dynamics?

< Prev

Eat my words time!

I guess Nobels also go for hope. I guess, too, that just as there are ...

Category:

Further Posts

Next >

Spandrels and exaptations

Brunelleschi or other architects of the renaissance did not set out to design spandrels, those ...

Category:

Further Posts