> > mutual: A produces something which is food to B and
> > B produces something else which is food to A
> >
> > comensal: A produces something which is food to B and
> > which B may utilise without harming A
> >
> > parasital: A produces something which is food to B and
> > which B utilise to the detriment of A
> What I am not clear about here is not the definitions but how the apply in
> terms of systems where the inter-relationships are so complex. Let's think
> of an organizaiton of ten people who in dyads have various combinations of
> the above, in chains, etc. Of what use are the distinctions? I see how it
> applies with two organisms but not to eco-systems.
If one can understand how these definitions work for a dyadic (two member)
system, then one is halfway through in understanding them for a polyadic
system (many members in multiple relationships).
These dyadic symbiosis (symbolised as X - Y for all three types)
can be extended into
* chains like A - B - C - D - E -.....
* clusters in which members B, C, D, E, ... each are linked to a
central member A, but not to each other.
In the chain we can observe the dyads A - B, B - C, C - D, etc.
In the cluster we can observe the dyads A - B, A - C, A - D, etc.
When the members do not differ to much from each other, a chain
is formed. When the one member is much more complex than the
others, a cluster is formed with that member becoming the
central one.
By now tracing chains of chains or clusters as well as clusters of chains
or clusters, the complex whole may be traced. The unofficial/informal
structure of an organisation in its day to day actions exhibit this
complex chain/cluster network and the various types of symbiosis in it.
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>