Arthur asks if I'll explain how "rules" can be attractors. I will
respond to only a small part at this time.
First, if they're "rules" in any ordinary language sense, they aren't
attractors as such. They may become attractors but then the "rule"
part is generally dormant.
John Holland is very specific about how rules operate in his approach
to complex adaptive systems in his book "Hidden Order". (Part of
why I'm not addressing the larger question here is that I'd have to
deal with all the mischief in the way "self organisation" is being
used.
I think a key point for "attractors" in human affairs - as I have
operationally defined the word for that purpose (see footnote) - is
the difference between the functioning of something that attracts and
something that demands obedience. This is true even though we grant
all kinds of latitude to "obedience" and insist that there are
variation - even encouraged variations.
Varela and others in biology and brain/nervous work have made a
rather large point that these systems operate by resonance (a term of
attraction).
-- Michael McMaster : Michael@kbdworld.com web:http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe/TIA/TIAmap.html "I don't give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity but I'd die for the simplicity on the other side of complexity." attributed to Chief Justice BrandeisLearning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>