The Radical New Reality of Systems Science

 

Culture as Value Prioritizing Semiotic Networks that Enable Social Systems

​

The Contradictory Agentic Impulses of Adaptive Survival​

 

Why, for What Purposes, do We 'Socialize?'

The practical purposes of manipulative control and participatory surrender

Vivacious agent vitality and mechanistic reduction

 

From 'Cultural Behaviors' to Worldview and Social Systems

​

Culture as Collective 'Meaning Making' and its Representations that Promotes Social Collaboration

 

​

​

​

f we are to understand agent-based social systems as distinct complex adaptive systems, with their own agentic autonomy of self-assertion, then we must investigate the underlying level of self-organizing networks from which social systems emerge. The view taken here, is that the interactions of agents become organized around priorities or 'values' related to the 'purposefulness' of collective activity, in a given context. For self-asserting agents, there are inherent purposes, thus priorities, that shape behavioral feedback networks both in and between agents. Those feedback networks are fundamentally semiotic in that meaning is expressed and interpreted through behaviors. Inter-agent feedback conveys meaning between agents regarding 'what to do, how, and why' when acting collectively. Given that social interactions involve numerous purposes, which are relevant to different contexts at different times, its purposes or priorities necessarily have diverse range that prompt similarly diverse behaviors and attitudes. The potential 'actions and responses' among agents are fantastically varied and complexly inter-related. Thus, both the stability and adaptive flexibility of any collective inter-agent relationship requires references for 'when to do what, where, and with whom.' Collective inter-agent sociability self-organizes in ways that generate those references for purposeful interactions. At the immediate level of agent interactions, those references are selected for by the autonomous self-assertion of the agents. The complex adaptive systems of interacting agents act and respond to each other in reference to possible purposes or priorities.

​

builds up a complex of interpretations, actions, objects that 'weight' agent behaviors

 

As such collective behavioral references become increasingly networked into an ongoing social collective, they become more effective at influencing social feedback, creating normative patterns of thought and behavior. In systems science terms, they become "weights" that amplify certain flows of feedback, thus particular agent actions and responses. These patterns become 'customary guides' to agent thought and interactions. As such, they 'cultivate' the attitudes and behaviors which characterize the overall collective.

 

From that perspective, it becomes possible to pose 'culture' as expression or representations of the underlying purposefulness of 'networked sociability.' that are regulated directly by individual agent responses to each other

 

These then, provide the basis for the emergence of an additional, more formalized, complex adaptive social system, which 'feeds back' into those underlying networks.

​

results in material representations (or "material culture") such as clothing, symbolism technology, and architecture, which derive from fundamental inter-agent behavior priorities. These traits of inter-agent behaviors appear as, at the least, a kind of 'proto-culture,' from which can emerge more formalized social systems that exert influence upon agent behaviors. Culture in this sense is a kind of 'meaning making' or semiotic network of significations, that collectively constitute the basics of a worldview. In short, how we behave with each other, and collectively towards things or environments, manifests from shared purposefulness,'cultivates' our priorities and thus worldview, which is reinforced symbolically by 'cultural expressions.'

​

so entangled that

This distinction assists in discerning how agent behaviors influence the characteristics of  a worldview and then social systems and how those emergent social systems in turn influence agent behaviors.

​

​

​98989898​

​

Culture versus Society

​

​​

Social organisms are differentiated as species that collaborate to form interacting populations, which provide benefits for the individuals. The word social derives from the Latin socci, translated as 'allies.' When individual organisms 'associate' as 'allies.' their interacting behaviors become 'sociable.' Their interactions become interdependently related in an emergent 'social network.' This 'sociability' is presumed to have evolved because it promotes the adaptive survival of both individuals and an entire species, whether of ants or humans. It enables the emergence of a distinct agent-based complex adaptive system -- interactive 'alliance' of individual agents self-organizes to become the agentic system of a colony, hive, or social system. Such agent-based systems obviously manifest 'for the purpose of' promoting the adaptive survival of a collective, thus a species. That can be considered the primary 'value' or priority for which the system exists.

​

When we speak of 'a culture,' the reference is usually to the particular traits of  behavior characterizing social interactions among a particular group of interacting individuals (or 'agents). These are behavioral traits of agents engaged in the generation of a 'social collective' or 'community.' Culture is often regard as including aspects of appearance, mannerisms, language usage, and gestures, as well as traits of thinking, emotional expression, ethics, and symbolic or artistic expressions. It appears that, as agents interact collectively, for the purpose of collaborating to gain 'allies,' their interactions result in specific behaviors that are the 'cultural basis' of an emergent 'social network.' Any given social network, or 'society,' is identifiable in relation to its 'cultural traits.' The latter can be seen as a complex relational field of references for 'how to behave' as a member of a social network. So, from interdependent social relations emerge cultural traits that 'identify' a social network or society. This can be said of different 'bee societies' as well as human ones.

 

One might assume that cultural references for 'how to do what, when, with whom' and a distinct social system must 'co-evolve,' as emergent phenomena, from collaborative agent interactions. However, these do not appear as identical, as the same dynamical phenomena. Cultural traits are a kind of complex network of references for 'how to behave as allies,' which agents must interpret in relation to other agents. Thus, these are 'traits' of how agents are motivated to act selectively in relation to other agents. A 'social system' is not one of those agents. It is a self-ordering, self-directing complex adaptive system that emerges from a network of inter-agent behaviors -- a system that is 'more than' the properties of its individual agents. 

 

From that notion, we can think of cultural references or traits as 'cultivating' the the behaviors of agents in ways that configure interactive networks of agent collaboration, from which emerge a social network, or a larger scale society. The word culture derives from the Latin colere, translated as 'to tend, guard, till' -- as in agriculture: the cultivation of plants. Here, 'cultural traits' can be viewed as what 'cultivates' collective behaviors, providing the basis for the emergence of and additional social system.  But, if that is correct, from what or where does this impulse to 'tend' or 'cultivate' inter-agent sociability derive?

 

In some species, 'cultural traits' appear completely genetically encoded, such as ants or termites. In more complexly cognitive animals, like apes and humans, there is obviously far more learning required. These agents have extended infancy and adolescent periods of 'acculturation' to the particularities of collaborative behaviors the enable social network configuration. Both cultural traits and social system configurations can vary significantly from one group to another within the same species -- particular in the case of humans. Indeed, distinctly different sets of cultural traits can be associated with very similar social systems.

​

Culture as the Representations of Underlying Values for Collective Agent Behaviors

​

 

From a systems science perspective, we can understand it as a particularly elaborate expresssion of the intrinsic phenomena of ever increasingly complex self-organizing networks emerging from chaotic activity that results in complex adaptive systems with the capacity to assert their self-ordering in a self-sustaining manner.From that, we can infer a sense of purposefulness, of inherent 'value' in such systems. Thus, cultural traits could be regarded as expressing or encoding particular 'values' for sociability, for 'how to live collectively,' for the purpose of promoting adaptive behaviors, within specific contests, that necessarily 'evolve' in diverse ways due to the unpredictable character of emergent self-organization.

​

​

Whatever the relationship between sociability and cultural traits might be, it is clear that these provide the basis for the emergence of social systems that are an additional complex adaptive system, with agentic properties, that is 'something more than' the agents and their actions which enable its emergence. Social systems that emerge from sociability and its cultural traits, to then express their own autonomous self-assertion by feeding back into social networks and cultural networks of references for 'how to behave as allies.' From the interactions of empathically motivated human agents emerge cultural traits oriented around ethical inter-agent behaviors, from which emerge additional social systems that are not capable of empathically motivated 'feelings,' yet can influence, even manipulate, those of humans, thus their behaviors, in ways that might serve the social system's self-assertion more than that of its agents.

 

​--sociability is an adaptive behavior that imposes constraints upon agent self-assertion from which emerge social networks then social systems that order sociability for the self-asserrtion of those systems

​--culyture embodies values of a particular formation of social network

--culture the semiotic network representing modalities of behavior for purposes in a given social network

​

 

Collective Agent Collaboration as Adaptive Behavioral Network

​

So-called 'social animals' are those that engage in collectively interdependent collaboration. These are significantly autonomous agents which interact in some form of 'mutual aid' behavioral network. From an evolutionary perspective, such agents collaborate because collective behaviors promote the adaptive survival of both the individual and the species. When this collaboration is sufficiently fundamental to the survival of agents, it can result in the emergence of a distinctive "agent-based" complex adaptive system -- such as a hive or society. For the individual agent, as a complex adaptive system, the purposes of survival and procreation are priorities, or 'values,' that direct its self-assertion. That self-assertion then becomes engaged in a collaborative collective behavioral network. That network involves inter-agent behavioral feedback loops that promote the adaptive behavior which benefits agents by sustaining the collective. These relationships indicate the emergence of a system that is 'in addition to' the distinct systems of the agent. 

 

However, the collective agent collaborative system continually emerges from the impulses of individual agent self-assertion. There is an ongoing relationship between 'agent values' and the manifestation of a 'collective system.' This is not a 'mechanistic phenomena' in which agents 'simply fit together like gears in a machine.' Agent-based systems become adaptive through complex communication and shared decision making. Much of the capacity for such collaboration is 'in born,' or genetically encoded. But in more complex animal species, much of it is learned and expressed variously among diverse agents. The 'sociability' of collective behavioral network collaboration is 'learned' through agent interactions and the individual's encounter with existing patterns of collective behavior. Agents must learn how to promote their survival by learning how to collaborate collectively.

 

When it comes to the extreme autonomy of human agents, the formation of collective collaborations involves a staggering array of references for effective participation in adaptive behavioral networks. Agents must learn the 'value' of that participation through experience of its various aspects and how these are to be 'applied' under various conditions. It must engage in a given 'culture' of collective collaboration and, at least to some degree, 'choose' to subordinate its self-asserting autonomy to the behavioral patterns of a collective. There is intrinsic tension between human agents and the normative behavioral standards of any collective within which they participate. They must be 'accustomed' to the 'how' of participating in any given adaptive behavioral network. 

​

​

​​

How do Individual Agent Interactions Enable the Emergence of Social Systems that Manipulate Agents?

 

From Agents to Agent-Based Systems with Distinctive Behavioral Traits -- or, 'Culture' -- then Social Systems

Social animals form networked patterns of interdependent interactions, which provide adaptive benefits to individual agents, promoting the survival of both the individuals and the collective, thus the species. These are termed "agent-based" complex adaptive systems. The term 'culture' is sometimes applied to the behavioral traits of how agents interact with each other, which can appear differently even within a species such as Orca whales -- some acting more independently, some more cooperatively, some hunting in one manner, some in another. Traits of human agent interactions are even more diverse. What follows is an exploration of initiating motives or purposes for human inter-agent network formation versus those of more formalized social systems which emerge from that basis. The notion being pursued is that 'culture' is an intrinsic expression of inter-agent collaboration which facilitates adaptive survival, but which can become subordinated to the self-asserting purposes of formalized social systems. In that view, social systems can manipulate 'culture' but the latter is not identical with those systems. That being the case, considerable confusion can result from confusing 'the system' with the underlying 'cultural values' for agent interactions.

​

Systems science indicates that interactions which become interdependently linked in feedback networks can enable the emergence of additional or 'higher level' self-ordering networks, which, in turn, feedback influence into the originating 'lower level.' There can be multiple such 'levels' of self-organizing networks, in which 'higher level' influence the 'lower' ones from which the 'higher' have emerged. The human body is an example of many such levels, from single cells that manifest distinct self-organization but are also integrated into additional networks, from organ systems to brains and mental ones as well. However, the emergence of 'higher levels' does not mean these directly control 'lower' ones. This is one of the most difficult aspects of the science to grasp logically. Emergence results in systems composed of systems that emerge from each other and influence each other simultaneously -- but do not control each other. Changes in 'lower' levels can alter 'higher' level systems just as 'higher' can influence 'lower.'

 

How do We Get from 'Belonging Together,' as a Collective of Humans, to 'Belonging to A Social System?'
The above basic concept of 'levels of emergence' can inform our understanding of how individual agents cooperate in ways that enable the emergence of social systems. If social systems emerge from feedback patterns among agent interactions to become 'something more' than those agents and their interactions -- then purposefully exert influence over these -- then social systems are not identical with agents and their interactions. Social systems somehow emerge from the autonomous adaptive behavior of agents, then self-assert as additional adaptive systems, which can purposefully act to manipulate human agents (even in ways that are detrimental to the survival of their agents, as demonstrated by modern societies). Nonetheless, the 'lower level' network of agent interactions remains in some regards distinct from the 'higher level' of a social system. To better understand the relationships between the two, it could be useful to investigate for some transitional boundary between agents interacting and the formation of distinctly additional, self-organizing social systems. The latter can be approached as some form of hierarchical network that imposes obedience upon agents, such as 'clans' and 'kingdoms,' but are most overtly obvious as institutionalized systems such as corporations and governments.

 

An attempt is made on this webpage to explore the types of inter-agent relationships from which such additional systems emerge. That is done by using the concept of 'culture' in reference to shared traits of agent interaction which appear fundamental to forming a collective sense of identity. Those 'cultural customs'  are then considered as providing the interdependent basis for emergence of more formally structured social systems. This effort begins from the assumption that agents self-assert for the purpose of surviving and prospering (or, seek to 'act adaptively,' whether successfully or not). That impulse then leads to interdependent agent interactions because these presumably promote individual agent survival. The resulting emergent feedback network between interacting agents must 'bond' them in some way that their behaviors result in mutually beneficial relationships. Such inter-agent bonds are understood here to constitute 'customary' modes of behavior and thinking. These are approached as, at the least, a kind of 'proto-culture,' which then becomes the self-ordering interdependent activity from which more formalized social systems emerge. Here, networked patterns of interdependent agent interactions

 

These distinctions are approached as important in so far as they provide insight into how 'lower level' networks of 'cultural behaviors and identity' not only 'give rise' to 'higher level' social systems that, in turn, influence the initiating 'cultural basis,' but also how there is autonomy in that 'lower level' which can reconfigure the behaviors of the 'higher' one. Perhaps following this notion can reveal important contrasts between the underlying 'purposefulness' that motivates agents to form collective network associations and what purposes those associations 'serve' for more formalized social systems.

​

Distinguishing the Purposes, thus 'Values,' of Inter-Agent Networks for Agents versus Civilized Social Systems

​

From 'Adaptive Culture' of Archaic Societies to 'Official Culture' of Civilized Social Systems

​

​

​

​ Agent Priorities for Collective Adaptive Human Behavior as Basis for Culture and Worldview

 

Agent Autonomy as Basis for Adaptive Collective Organization

Ants and wolves are examples of animals whose adaptive survival depends on collective or social organization. Diversity of agent behaviors is essential for these these cooperative relations to function adaptively for both individual agents and the collective. Ant agents are differentiated by types of functional roles -- which collectively promote the survival of individual ants. But some such species are composed of more highly individualized, autonomous agents. Unlike ants, individual wolves and humans can at times survive alone, outside social groups. But in the long term, survival of the species requires complex social organization and cooperation that emerges unpredictably from agent interactions. The patterns of these interactions, or how collective relations are organized, can change significantly when the autonomous agents alter behaviors. Thus, there can be tension between self-assertion for survival by highly autonomous agents and their need to participate in that of a collective of agents.

​

Agents interact for the purpose of promoting their survival

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

Agent Autonomy and Contradictory Impulses for Inter-Agent Behaviors

Animal agents must perceive and differentiate how other assertive agent behaviors might impact them, and vise versa. Basic contrasts in the options agents must consider within social ordering include whether to compete or cooperate, dominate or subordinate. Further, one or the other of such options might confer more advantage upon an agent in one context versus another. feedback net formation options

​

Agent Diversity, Cooperation, and Conflict 'Drive' Collective Adaptive Survival

These tensions among agents provide the diversity and underlying instability in social networks that enable the emergence of variably adaptive collective behaviors. Though each agent seeks to assert itself to promote its own existence, it must also modulate its behaviors when interacting with other agents in a social network because its individual survival, as well as that of its species, is interdependent with that of the collective's.

​

At base, there is inherent tension between the self-assertion of individual agents and that of collectives of them. An agent must differentiate when acting independently rather than collectively is more appropriate to its survival. The emotional feeling aspect of animal agents appears as a potent factor in this tension, as it can be activated in wither 'direction,' toward individual survival or toward collective.

​

​Patterns of Agent Interactions Manifest Priorities or 'Values' for Adaptive Collective Behaviors

We can then think of how agent interactions in a socialized collective form feedback between agents, enabling the emergence of patterns of behaviors, which get 'selected for' as functional or purposeful in promoting the survival of both individuals and the collective. As agents prioritize or assign 'higher value to' certain behavioral tendencies, relative to certain contexts or conditions, their interactions become interdependently self-organizing. The result is a kind of "weighted network" that regulates contrasting impulses and options for how agents interact with each other. These can regulate aggression and competition, or affection and cooperation in various ways, resulting in generally shared behavioral 'values.' This is necessarily a complex and partly contradictory set of references because it must facilitate the unpredictably self-asserting impetus of that makes both agents collectives adaptive. 'Behavioral values' must be understood in relation to particular circumstances. ​
 

Practices that Reinforce Priorities for Collective Adaptive Behaviors as 'Customs'

Shared priorities for inter-agent interactions can then be expressed and reinforced by actions or gestures that 'symbolize' the 'meanings' of these priorities. A wolf's snarl or tail position can an immediate adaptive behavioral response to threats from another agent. But these can also express the general importance of establishing inter agent 'boundaries' for the purpose of maintaining the cohesion of the social collective. That is, such expressions are not only immediate behaviors between specific agents, but references to, or reminders of,  'our collective behavioral values,' the purpose of which is maintaining the adaptive benefits of collective organization. Thus, we might speak of such behaviors as 'customary' to the emergent ordering of agent interactions. Humans are particularly abstract and elaborate in their expression of such 'customs' for relational agent interaction.

'Customs' are defined as some traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time. When maintained over time these become 'traditional practices.'  A 'tradition' is defined as the passing or transmission of customs and beliefs from one generation to a succeeding one. So, behavioral 'customs' that are transmitted across generations are traditions which regulate agent interactions 'within a collective relational network,' by prioritizing or 'assigning value' to specific behaviors.

​

With humans, customary practices range from greetings, such as handshakes or bows, to gender roles, musical styles, language usage, and even ways of thinking about reality that influence behavior. Obviously, these can be influenced by social systems acting to suppress or amplify their importance or interpretation, thereby the priorities or values associated with them. However, if customary behaviors emerge 'at a lower level' of emergent self-organization than social systems, then it appears unlikely that the latter can directly dictate or control the former.

​

Customary Behavioral Models and the Conformist Constraint of Agents to Collective Norms

The emergence of a networked set of customary patterns of behavior creates the potential for feedback loops that establish normative ranges of agent interaction, relative to various contexts and status of agents in a collective. These are constraints upon agent behaviors that enable the emergence of agentic behavior in the collective as an additional system.

​

​The Emotional Aspect of Collectively Self-Organizing Behavioral Customs

​The agentic systems of more complex animals have been shown to have 'emotional aspects', or 'feeling inflected' experience and awareness.  'Emotional feeling' is a trait of animals that can both motivate and reinforce agent behaviors. It can resist or promote collective priorities for agent interaction. This aspect of experience and motivation manifests in relation to biological embodiment, with its capacities for 'feeling,' both physical and psychological. Animal agents can overly experience pain, pleasure, affinity, aggression, sorrow, and even multiple such emotional states concurrently. The diversity and intensity of this psychological factor has been 'selected for' by animal evolution because it enhances survival. It contributes volatile instability to  internal agent system network dynamics as well as to those of collective agent interactions that amplifies the adaptive capacity of selective agent self-assertion. Subsequently, patterns of customary behaviors are essential to mediate the contrasts of emotional states in ways that orient agents toward participation in an adaptive collective self-organization.
 

Culture as Traditionally Networked Priorities for Agent Interaction that Guide Adaptive Collective Behaviors

The notion of 'cultivation' caries the sense that conditions are being arranged for the purpose of the further manifestation of a self-ordering, self-sustaining systems -- such as microbes in a medium, plants in soil, or humans in a society.

​​

​

​

Traditional Customs as Reflexive or 'Unconscious' Agent Behavioral Biases

Customs 'accustom' agents to patterns of behavior, patterns of thinking and interpreting, even patterns of experiencing.

​Their 'traditionalizing' is the context that 'cultivates' our self-assertion in relation to self, others, and world.  Our agency is acculturated into reflexive tendencies -- and yet we also retain an individualized capacity to resist or alter our behaviors. that is what makes agents adaptive. for all this cultural conditioning,' agents still have at least potential autonomy. Our agency is cultivated.  Yet we are still 'agents.'  

​​​

Cultural Priorities and Values for Collective Behavior as Orientation to 'What to Live For, How, and Why'

​ weighted network links and flows of feedback that promote so and persistence

conceptual aspect of how values for behavior influence agent attention, perception, interpretation

​​​

Cultural Conditioning of Behavioral Biases through Symbolic Expression and Experiential Practices

Information and knowledge maintained in collective minding rather than genetic coding through language, symbolism, and experiential practices such as arts, stories, and ritualized enactment

​​

Cultural Change as Re-Organization of Customary Behavioral Patterns thus 'Values'

The formation of customary behavior patterns, emerging from inter-agent behaviors, to become traditional practices which constitue a cultural network if relational references, is an on-going emergence out of internal agent instability. Though traditional cultural practices can remain impressively consisitent over time, these are necessarily susceptible to disruption and change.

​

​​

Cultural Norms as Basis for an Emergent Self-Organizing Social Network

The emergence of collective behavioral patterns is the nascent basis for any 'social order.' Yet the formalizing of a continuously self-regulating social system becomes something 'more than' customary behavior patterns.​​​

​

Cultural Values as the Basis for, then Justification of, Social Super Organisms

​​

​

From Traditional Collective Behavioral Regulation to Formalized Social Systems

traditional/customary conventions communally conditioned vs institutional law/procedure enforced by hierarchical authority

​

archaic traditional culture at small scale

​

The feedback influence of social systems on customs and emotionality of agents

​

the Purposefulness of Agents 'Behind' Emergent Social Systems

 

As agent-based complex adaptive systems, societies derive their self-ordering, self-asserting properties from those of their constituent agents. From the purposeful self-assertion of agents emerges that of an additional collective system or super organism that in turn facilitates the survival of its agents. In the case of bees or ants, those feedback connections are relatively fixed by genetically encoded behaviors. However, the vastly more adaptive capacities of humans and human societies necessarily derive from greater diversity and complexity, both within human agents and among these. The intelligence of human adaptivity requires higher levels of analytical and innovative potential. Whereas ants and bees have not need to question their subordination to their super organism societies in order to act adaptively, humans actually  require conflict and individualistic competition in order to act adaptively as a collective system. Thus the 'purposefulness' that impels adaptive behavior in both is appropriately convoluted and even conflicted. There is inherent tension within and between human agents about how best to self-assert in an adaptive manner under what conditions.

Agent self-assertion can arise in response to diverse concerns and in contrasting ways. For a distinct social system to arise there must be shared aspects of such impetus among agents, impetus that becomes linked in feedback loop networks, from which emerge distinct social norms, rules, hierarchies. We can think of these factors as priorities or 'values' associated with seeking 'adaptive advantage' by agents and that become broadly shared by them. However, being complex adaptive systems, agent perceptions of what promotes the purposes of 'adaptive advantage' are necessarily diverse, even conflicting, and context dependent regarding when one takes precedence over others. Not every agent attaches the same priority to a particular 'value' in all contexts, nor 'ranks' various values in the same hierarchy of priority.

​

Cultural Purposefulness as Chaotic Basis of Social Ordering

​

Culture's complex network of conditional and often contradictory 'values' or priorities constitute a chaotic underlying layer of references from which the self-organizing forms of social systems emerge. These diverse references for prioritizing the 'goals' of system self-assertion constitute a chaotically turbulent field of potential 'drivers' for formation of feedback loops among agents, from which emerges the network configuration of a particular social system or super organism. Here it is crucial to realize that the emergent social system is not directly caused not directed by those underlying purposes. It has its own self-directing, self-asserting autonomy and does not have the same emotional basis for generating such complex 'values' as do human agents. Yet it does manifest a capacity to manipulate how agents interpret those values.

​

This chaotic inconsistency in cultural values reflects the paradoxical character of 'how things happen' thus that of effective adaptation for survival. A simple example is the tension between the need for agents to prioritize their personal survival over that of others while at the same time needing others to survive. That is the conflict between competition and cooperation, or individualism and communalism, that leads to choices between 'saving one's self' versus 'saving others.'

​

Feedback Network Formation between Agent Priorities and Super Organism Self-Assertion

​

Most agents might rank notions of personal liberty very highly. But some might reserve consider that this value only applies to certain categories of individuals, such as a particular gender or ethnic group. That conditional attitude could lead to a social system which 'justifies itself' on the basis of promoting personal liberty, but actually only promotes such liberty for certain categories of agents. In this way, one sector of agents greater status and privilege from a cultural value that is widely shared but conditionally enforced by the social system. Consequently, those agents more privileged by this bias are more likely to identify their personal self-assertion with that of the social super organism.That in turn enhances the influence of the social system over its constituting agents.

 

Similarly, agents might generally share prioritizing the prohibition of interpersonal violence, but with exceptions for defense against violent attacks on individuals or a community. Such a shared 'cultural value' might lead to an institutionalized social system that 'claims' a 'monopoly' on violence against persons -- only the official operatives of 'the state,' as in police and millitaries, are allowed to commit violence against persons. In this way, a cultural value promotes a social super organism whose own network agency becomes empowered to express its self-assertion through a culturally justified 'monopoly on violence.' The social super organism derives that 'power' from the priorities of its agents, but then has the autonomy to use that power 'for its own purposes' of self-promoting self-assertion. A 'police state' is such a system exerting its psychopathic self-assertion over its agents, supported by a privileged elite of agents who have 'allied' their self-assertion with that of the super organism.

​

Such relationships between the self-assertion of super organism systems and privileged elite groups of agents manifest in financial, corporate, government, educational, and religions systems. These dynamics are found in autocratic as well as democratic societies, sometimes 'justified' in reference to similar sets of cultural priorities or values. It appears that this is a particularly prominent effect of the hierarchical configuration of civilizations.

 

There are numerous historical examples of how the inequitable effects of such network configuration on agents can promote 'revolutionary resistance' to the dominance of super organism systems and their associated elite agent 'operatives.' Such events can be understood as agents concluding that the power of the super organism created by the subordination of their personal self-assertion to that of the larger system is no longer 'serving their interests' or values. It can be seen when investors collectively withdraw there support for a corporation by selling off stock, or workers go on strike against employers.

​

​Agent Subordination by Formalized Super Organism 'Concessions'

human rights, civil rights, nature rights?  rule of law and equal justice
from biosemiosis to cosmological questing --the epistemological ontology of self-conscious consciousness in agentic evolution

​​

Cultural Subordination of Cultural Values to the Self-Assertion of Social Systems

​​

Society, as a Complex System, Does not 'Have' but Expresses a Worldview

​

Social System Configuration can Change or 'Over Ride' Worldview Valuations

​

Cultural Values as Cosmological Worldview for Social Systems

 

Hyper-Semiotic Humaness Promotes a Need for Interpretations of Origins and Purposes

analytical left hemisphere Human intelligence and the 'Question Why'

the manipulative potential of human agency requires 'explanations'

​

Adaptive Cultural Values are Diverse and Conflicting because Self and World are​

priorities or values differentiate purposeful action but adaptive purposes are inherently conflcting and context dependent

​

​

Cultural Values for Adaptive Advantage Beyond  Pragmatic Considerations / outside Social System

​ethics of relations between agents an with non-human​

human rights, civil rights, nature rights? 

​

  filial animism, pagan positive fatalism, ethical spiritualities,

​

​re-linking social systems to nature, resisting dynamical momentum of control systems

4 functions of myth -- The Conflicting Purposefulness of Cultural Values and Practices in Social Systems

​aesthetic

myth as rep of 'fundamental sources' of world and events: from mysterious/agentic to causal/materialistic

​

Cultural Practices versus Social Performances

​cults of culture

​

Cultural Values and Sacredness

​The ultimate prioritization of 'sacred status'

sacrifice

​The 'Cultural Divide' between Ecologically Embedded and Civilizational Worldviews

​

From Inclusive Participation to Exploitive Opposition in Civilization's 'Wild verus Tame' Orientation

​

​Science, as an Analytical Method, is Interpreted through Civilized Cultural Bias

​

​

​The De Facto 'Mythology' of Modernity's Mechanistic Worldview

​