On Complexity in the Social Sciences

        A consequence of the approach just outlined is that this selectionally introduced contextual feature cannot be arbitrary in a descriptive fact. This suggests that the earlier discussion of statehood may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the levels of detail from fairly high (eg (99a)) to very low (eg (98d)). Of course, any associated supporting element is not subject to hierarchy in the Chomskian sense of language theory. In the discussion of Chomskian hierarchies given above, the descriptive power of the base component raises serious doubts about the system of behavioral rules exclusive to the agent. By combining the effects of historicity and the narrative tradition, the notion of linguistic complexity is, apparently, determined by the requirement that shared memory is not permitted within the scope of any such model.

        It appears that a descriptively adequate grammar appears to correlate rather closely with the Leibnitzian ontology described above. For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, the theme of history- and narrative-rich memory-based models developed earlier is rather different from an abstract underlying order. Analogously, a subset of all possible reflexively definable class structures is necessary to impose an interpretation on a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Comparing these examples with their socio-ecological counterparts, we see that the systematic use of complex symbols is to be regarded as the emergent system of "understanding" described previously (34). Conversely, relational information does not affect the structure of the traditional practice of political scientists.


Next paragraph            What is this all about?            How does it work?