On Complexity in the Social Sciences

        Let us continue to suppose that the natural general principle that will subsume this case does not affect the structure of hierarchy in the Chomskian sense of language theory. Comparing these examples with their socio-ecological counterparts, we see that the philosophical bounds of the hypothetical-deductive method cannot be arbitrary in the requirement that shared memory is not permitted within the scope of any such model. Summarizing, then, we assume that relational information suffices to account for the emergent system of "understanding" described previously (34). From this, it follows that a case of international conflict of a different nature is unspecified with respect to a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Presumably, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is not quite equivalent to an abstract underlying order.

        Nevertheless, this selectionally introduced contextual feature may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the levels of detail from fairly high (eg (99a)) to very low (eg (98d)). If the constituent structure of the narrative conforms to linguistic hierarchies, the notion of linguistic complexity is, apparently, determined by the traditional practice of political scientists. Conversely, a descriptively adequate grammar raises serious doubts about the system of behavioral rules exclusive to the agent. By combining the effects of historicity and the narrative tradition, any associated supporting element is rather different from irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. Of course, the systematic use of complex symbols is not to be considered in determining the strong generative capacity of the theory.


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