Hi Jack,

You asked how R-theory would treat the notion of a catalyst. Here’s what occurs to me.

The short answer is that a catalyst is formal cause. It is one system providing a context for the existence or regulation of another system. It thus corresponds with quadrant 3 in the holon diagram, the expression (decoding) of a model. Every natural system has formal cause and thus the equivalent of a catalyst – it is the aspect of contextual system that allows the material system to exist, or limits or regulates its existence. It can be a rate regulation, but if you take that to the limits it is on a continuum between existence (maximum rate of occurrence) and non-existence (zero rate of occurrence), and is thus a similar causal type to the origin or creation of a system. Is it fair to say that a catalyst regulates existence? This gives a definition that is general to both hard and soft fields.

I am writing more on this, but will finish it later….

John

On Dec 15, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Jack Ring <jring7> wrote:

John,
Apologies if you have already done so and I missed it but with regard to the framework could you please address the notion of a catalyst?
Jack

From: John Jay Kineman [mailto:john.kineman]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 3:00 PM
To: Steve Wallis, PhD
Cc: Ken Lloyd; Lenard Troncale; Gary Langford; Jack Ring; Josh Sparber; Richard Martin; Bill Schindel; Duane Hybertson; Gary Smith; James Martin; Tom Marzolf;david.rousseau; Richard Emerson; Kristin Giammarco; Kent Palmer; Luke Friendshuh; Janet Singer; Michael Singer; Harold; Lynn Rasmussen; David Ing; Jennifer Wilby
Subject: Re: Criteria for A GST2

Hi Steve,

I also rebel somewhat at rigid labeling of theory, model, schema, etc.; although I suppose they have value in relative terms. So lately I’ve been discussing ‘frameworks’ for sustainability science. A common Socio-ecological integral framework is the DPSIR ‘schema'(?) Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response. I’ve mapped that into a more standard four quadrant causality which seems to be much more fundamental and ubiquitous. But its problematic even to call it a ‘causality’ as narrower definitions of cause limit that to mechanical/material causes that, indeed, enforce rules like A and B can’t simultaneously cause each other; whereas in fact in nature we know they can.

The resolution is certainly going to additional causes that allow it to happen in a complex system (this is fundamental in Rosen’s theory for example), but that gets up the fir for traditional scientists who don’t want to go ‘soft’. The distinction between a ‘simple’ system in which A and B cannot be mutually causal (relates to the definition of a mechanism) and a ‘complex’ system in which they can be is crucial in my view. We could even say that complex systems are most fundamentally characterized by loop causalities (which then explains the other commonly observed properties of non-linearity, surprise, resilience, emergence, informatics, etc.).

Being semi-retired and basically cantankerous I just ignore all the traditional nail biting and say there are four kinds of causation in nature; get over it. But of course that doesn’t work for everyone, and there’s so little good work developing it that I really can’t expect it to be at all ‘standard’ thinking as much as I would like it to be (its currently expanding quite a bit though). Even in my class I was very reluctant to teach it until by nibbling around the edges via other ‘frameworks’, including PAR, I found it unavoidable. Perhaps that’s just the inevitability of my own beliefs emerging when forced to be honest, but so far its working and I’m finding it to be very teachable; without which we would be struggling for a focus in a survey of many different kinds of socio-ecological system.

I need to know more about what Len and this group have been doing. I am certainly derelict in not having done so earlier, but the exigencies of time and wading through one’s own swamp have their say.

Meanwhile, I found this Japanese work to be quite amazingly similar, even down to use of the 4-quad model, schema, theory, framework, world-view, meta-model or whatever it is. It works. They took their model from Ken Wilber (another Boulder resident I might add). From what I’ve done I think we can put much more rigor into Wilber’s model. He developed it, like Aristotle, as a way of classifying causal aspects of reality, but neither have been explicit about its loop causality. Aristotle framed it as a hierarchy, which most of the Western world adopted, with the result of requiring that a line be drawn at some level in the hierarchy to distinguish what was in the world of science and knowledge and what was transcendent and unreachable. When properly entailed as a closed cycle of causation, however, those problems go away. The transcendence is then in the 5th cause – the loop itself; why nature invented loop causality and self-emergence. Even the Veda does not consider that knowable other than some urge to exist.

Fortunately, and I think rather surprisingly, these authors chose to make their entire book free in digital form. I highly recommend taking a look or a scan. Perhaps some will already know of it and have some comment. Here’s the link http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-4-431-54340-4

I would also append the book itself but it is over 4MB so it might not make it through some email filters.

Cheers,
John