Furthering the week's discussion

During our discussion section we contrasted hierarchies to networks and narratives (personally I am more comfortable with "processes" rather than "narratives" but "narratives" will work) to databases but were unable to flesh out a clearer picture of the analogous nature of the two dichotomies. Hopefully we can take advantage of this blog space to carry on the discussion by trying to hone the concepts involved and speculate about some of the societal consequences of shifting from a hierarchical/narrative to the networked/database paradigm.

To get things rolling I wanted to throw out some ideas and ask some questions.

I am uneasy about setting hierarchies in direct opposition to networks. The same unease applies to the contrast between narratives and databases. Both of these supposed dichotomies appear to merely occupy a place on a scale of simple/strict/low entropy to complex/loose/high entropy relationships between things. Hierarchies and networks abstractly represent the structure of relationships between physical things and their interactions. Analogously, narratives and databases concretely instantiate the relationships between abstract, informational things.

It would be fine to cast either set as oppositional if they sat at polar ends of the relationship scale they occupy. However, it is unclear that the above-mentioned relationships actually do occupy the polar end of such a scale. Networks are especially easy to see as occupying a middle ground, between the super-structured nature of hierarchies and completely un-structured things like piles of trash. Networks are loose, but must maintain enough strictness to function. With hierarchies it is harder to see that they do not occupy the far end of the strictness side of the scale.

Fortunately, if networks do not occupy the other end of that scale then any opposition we set up between them and hierarchies is one based only in our desire to box things up in neat packages with clean boarders, rather than in fact. This, then, means we need to ask ourselves what is to be gained from viewing these concepts as opposed to each other rather than as specific points on a scale of relational complexity? In which cases is it valuable to hold the oppositional view and in which is it beneficial to take the larger, gradated, view into account.

Talking about this stuff in terms of entropy can help us understand the dynamic role of networks and databases in creating information. I am going to use an example from mechanical engineer Seth Lloyd to explain what I mean.

A screen can be used to illuminate the point. The lowest entropy system possible on a screen is one filled with a solid color; lets say red. This means that each pixel is registering the same bit of information, red. Low entropy systems provide so little information that they do not offer much in terms of meaning. At the opposite end of the entropy scale is a screen where every pixel registering a different color. Again we get a meaningless image, however this time the image is highly complex. Both low and high entropy confound our attempts to draw meaning from the world around us. It is only in the intermediate stage, where the pixels are registering different colors, but in a controlled enough way that a picture forms, that we can draw meaning from the image on the screen.

Hierarchies and narratives, occupying a space of less entropy will be less active in producing new information, but they are not so entropy free that they are devoid of meaning. In fact, it seems that they may have the advantage of being more directly meaningful than networks and databases. The network and database relationships are higher in entropy, and will be more active in the production of information, but lack the structure to provide as much context for making that information meaningful. I think this is why we see corporate hierarchies utilizing networks within their structures. They can use the network to generate new information/ideas, but encapsulate it within a larger hierarchical structure that provides the tools for crafting meaning and use out of that information.

I would love to hear how everyone else feels about our current world state in relation to these ideas. Entropy is always increasing, and we do seem to be stuck in a world where informational entropy is taking off at an exponential rate. Is this something we should fear? Are we in danger of playing out every information variable, so that it becomes impossible to produce new meaningful content? What new processes might be available to us, with which meaningful content could be generated when the current methods fail?

Loosely related to the above is the issue of selfhood. I am intrigued with the dissonance in our culture between the loosening of the boundaries of the self, and the idea that now more than ever we have to tools to individualize our experience of the world. Our selfhood is being dissolved with a realization of a context dependant existence yet now more than ever we are sold the idea of our individuality. Was our idea of self less entropic in time past, yet more meaningful? In current times, is selfhood in danger of becoming meaningless due to the fact that we are allowed to craft more finely detailed, more entropic identities? Can we avoid this? Is it worth avoiding?