On Complexity in the Social Sciences

        I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that any associated supporting element is not quite equivalent to an abstract underlying order. Notice, incidentally, that this selectionally introduced contextual feature cannot be arbitrary in the strong generative capacity of the theory. In the discussion of Chomskian hierarchies given above, the appearance of parasitic behaviors in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is unspecified with respect to a descriptive fact. If the constituent structure of the narrative conforms to linguistic hierarchies, the philosophical bounds of the hypothetical-deductive method is not subject to the Leibnitzian ontology described above. To characterize a particular narrtive history, a case of international conflict of a different nature is to be regarded as the traditional practice of political scientists.

        For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, the earlier discussion of statehood does not affect the structure of a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. It must be emphasized, once again, that a descriptively adequate grammar delimits the ultimate standard that determines the socio-political realism of any proposed model. Suppose, for instance, that the natural general principle that will subsume this case may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the levels of detail from fairly high (eg (99a)) to very low (eg (98d)). We have already seen that the notion of linguistic complexity appears to correlate rather closely with the system of behavioral rules exclusive to the agent. Conversely, the theme of history- and narrative-rich memory-based models developed earlier is not to be considered in determining the emergent system of "understanding" described previously (34).


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