whether
instinctive, like the nest-building of birds, or acquired as most human
skills are, follows the same pattern of spelling out a general intent by
the stepwise activation or triggering of functional holons -- sub-routines
-- on successively lower levels of the hierarchy. This rule is universally
applicable to all types of 'output hierarchies', regardless whether the
'output' is a human baby, a sentence spoken in English, the playing
of a piano sonata or the action of tying one's shoelaces. (For input
hierarchies, as we shall see later , the reverse
sequence holds.)
7
The next point to emphasize is that every level in a hierarchy of any
type is governed by a set of fixed, invariant rules , which account for
the coherence, stability, and the specific structure and function of its
constituent holons. Thus in the language hierarchy we found on successive
levels the rules which govern the activities of the vocal chords, the
laws of grammar and above them the whole semantic hierarchy concerned
with meaning. The codes which govern the behaviour of social holons,
and lend them coherence, are written and unwritten laws, traditions,
belief -- systems, fashions. The development of the embryo is governed
by the 'genetic code'. Turning to instinctive activities , the web which
the spider weaves, the nest which the blue tit builds, and the courting
ceremony of the greylag goose all conform to fixed, species-specific
patterns, produced according to certain 'rules of the game'. In symbolic
operations , the holons are rule-governed cognitive structures variously
called 'frames of reference', 'associative contexts', 'universes of
discourse', 'algorithms', etc., each with its specific 'grammar' or
canon. We thus arrive at a tentative definition: the term 'holon' may
be applied to any structural or functional sub-system in a biological,
social or cognitive hierarchy, which manifests rule-governed behaviour
and/or structural Gestalt-constancy.* Thus organelles and homologous
organs are evolutionary holons; morphogenetic fields are ontogenetic
holons; the ethologist's 'fixed action-patterns' and the sub-routines
of acquired skills are behavioural holons; phonemes, morphemes, words,
phrases are linguistic holons; individuals, families, tribes, nations
are social holons. **
* The 'or' is necessary to include configurations in symbolic
hierarchies -- which do not manifest 'behaviour' in the usual sense.
** Various authors have pointed to certain affinities between the
concept of the holon and Ralph Gerard's 'org'. Thus D. Wilson
in Hierarchical Structures: 'Koestler (1967) elects to
designate these "Janus-faced" entities by the term holon
. . . We note that Gerard uses the term org to designate the
same concept (Gerard, 1957).' This of course amounts to a veiled
hint at plagiarism. The two quotations from Gerard that follow
indicate the similarities and differences between his org
and the holon (my italics): 'Those material systems
or entities which are individuals at a given level but are composed
of subordinate units, lower level orgs'. [13] The limitation to
'material systems' is made more explicit in the second quotation,
where he defines the org as 'that sub-class of systems
composed of material systems, in which matter enters into the
picture; this excludes formal systems, for example.' [14] Thus
the term 'org' cannot be applied to behavioural or linguistic
or cognitive hierarchies where the concept of the holon proved
especially useful. Orgs, as defined by Gerard, represent a
sub-category of holons confined to material systems.
8
The set of fixed rules which govern a holon's structure or function we shall
call its code or canon . However, let us note at once that while the canon
imposes constraints* and controls on the holon's activities, it does not
exhaust its degrees of freedom, but leaves room for more or less flexible
strategies, guided by the
instinctive, like the nest-building of birds, or acquired as most human
skills are, follows the same pattern of spelling out a general intent by
the stepwise activation or triggering of functional holons -- sub-routines
-- on successively lower levels of the hierarchy. This rule is universally
applicable to all types of 'output hierarchies', regardless whether the
'output' is a human baby, a sentence spoken in English, the playing
of a piano sonata or the action of tying one's shoelaces. (For input
hierarchies, as we shall see later , the reverse
sequence holds.)
7
The next point to emphasize is that every level in a hierarchy of any
type is governed by a set of fixed, invariant rules , which account for
the coherence, stability, and the specific structure and function of its
constituent holons. Thus in the language hierarchy we found on successive
levels the rules which govern the activities of the vocal chords, the
laws of grammar and above them the whole semantic hierarchy concerned
with meaning. The codes which govern the behaviour of social holons,
and lend them coherence, are written and unwritten laws, traditions,
belief -- systems, fashions. The development of the embryo is governed
by the 'genetic code'. Turning to instinctive activities , the web which
the spider weaves, the nest which the blue tit builds, and the courting
ceremony of the greylag goose all conform to fixed, species-specific
patterns, produced according to certain 'rules of the game'. In symbolic
operations , the holons are rule-governed cognitive structures variously
called 'frames of reference', 'associative contexts', 'universes of
discourse', 'algorithms', etc., each with its specific 'grammar' or
canon. We thus arrive at a tentative definition: the term 'holon' may
be applied to any structural or functional sub-system in a biological,
social or cognitive hierarchy, which manifests rule-governed behaviour
and/or structural Gestalt-constancy.* Thus organelles and homologous
organs are evolutionary holons; morphogenetic fields are ontogenetic
holons; the ethologist's 'fixed action-patterns' and the sub-routines
of acquired skills are behavioural holons; phonemes, morphemes, words,
phrases are linguistic holons; individuals, families, tribes, nations
are social holons. **
* The 'or' is necessary to include configurations in symbolic
hierarchies -- which do not manifest 'behaviour' in the usual sense.
** Various authors have pointed to certain affinities between the
concept of the holon and Ralph Gerard's 'org'. Thus D. Wilson
in Hierarchical Structures: 'Koestler (1967) elects to
designate these "Janus-faced" entities by the term holon
. . . We note that Gerard uses the term org to designate the
same concept (Gerard, 1957).' This of course amounts to a veiled
hint at plagiarism. The two quotations from Gerard that follow
indicate the similarities and differences between his org
and the holon (my italics): 'Those material systems
or entities which are individuals at a given level but are composed
of subordinate units, lower level orgs'. [13] The limitation to
'material systems' is made more explicit in the second quotation,
where he defines the org as 'that sub-class of systems
composed of material systems, in which matter enters into the
picture; this excludes formal systems, for example.' [14] Thus
the term 'org' cannot be applied to behavioural or linguistic
or cognitive hierarchies where the concept of the holon proved
especially useful. Orgs, as defined by Gerard, represent a
sub-category of holons confined to material systems.
8
The set of fixed rules which govern a holon's structure or function we shall
call its code or canon . However, let us note at once that while the canon
imposes constraints* and controls on the holon's activities, it does not
exhaust its degrees of freedom, but leaves room for more or less flexible
strategies, guided by the
Similar Books
