provision of
trusted software, followed by the provision of trust mechanisms including
identity and then followed by provision of support for higher cognitive
activities.
Perhaps the most
difficult aspect of social ecosystem interactions to model, whether computer
based or purely human to human without computer intervention, are the
consequences of an interaction. If interactions are well defined and well
structured, and if the interaction stimuli of the various participants are well
aligned, then the primary purpose of an interaction can be the arrival at an
intended consequence as defined by all the participant parties; this much is
fairly well understood. Indeed, most interactions arrive at a conclusion that
is accepted by the parties involved. Problems with social ecosystem
interactions arise when they need to involve subjective determination of
interaction status and results. In other words, social ecosystem interactions
are often based on a political
decision process. This sometimes portends difficulty in actually bringing final
closure to the interaction. This process is made all the more difficult if the
interaction stimuli for the various parties originate from different levels of
the needs hierarchy. In essence, a particular interaction may have a far
different level of urgency for one party than for the other party, and, as a
result, a far greater anticipation of the consequences of the interaction. This
may make the assessment as to whether the interaction has been properly
conducted and the result appropriately arrived at very different for one party
versus the other.
Within a policy
infrastructure, interactions proceed according to the rules established within
that infrastructure. For interactions involving people, either directly or
indirectly, the stimulus for interaction is recursive application of the needs
hierarchy. Recursion in this case implies the net consideration of the full
range of needs relative to a specific interaction. An overarching consideration
in the conduct of the interaction is that of the intermediate and ultimate
consequences. Across a spectrum of policy infrastructures, ranging from the
physical ecosystem to a succession of applicable social ecosystems, we see that
the interaction mechanism can itself range from the direct, objective
application of physical laws to the recursive, subjective application of the
rules of competing social systems. This subjective application of
opportunistically defined rules is an example of what has come to be known as politics.
The formal
definition of the concept and term politics is often couched in the structured
interactions of secular governance, the process of creation and application of
law, as opposed to the more informal interactions that we all engage in on a
continuing basis. However, popular usage of the term recognizes it as an
interaction process that influences the full range of our social ecosystems. “The
Boss selected Mary rather than James to be the new Department Head because of
office politics.” While used in this context, the term politics has a
pejorative connotation, we suggest that it is merely an indicator of a
recursive application of needs, and that the stimulus impact of the human needs
hierarchy varies from person to person. Therefore, we might view the outcome of
an interaction pejoratively because it constitutes an application of a
different needs hierarchy from our own. Therein lays the difficulty.
If the outcome
is subjective, then at least one of the participants to the interaction may
disagree with that outcome and seek redress within the policy infrastructure.
The highest level policy infrastructure in the United States, that established
by the Constitution, provides a judicial approach that makes all forms of
interaction, be it criminal, civil or administrative, subject to
post-interaction judicial review. Basically, it can be determined after the
fact whether you broke the law, what the law actually was or whether the law in
any case was appropriately applied.
|