Roger and all interested,
When I wrote "what is conserved is adaptation" I believe that was something I heard Maturana say in lecture.
An organism in its medium retains the adjustments it makes that improve its chances for survival.
"Conserve" is a highly freighted burdened emotive word. It's a verb, but when used as the noun/adjective "Conservative" it jumps the tracks and abandons science-based discourse.
Tolerance evaporates, hackles rise, and prejudice heaps boatloads of instant assumptions into the conversation.
Having gotten everyone's attention by starting a dispute, allow me to propose a truly provocative notion.
The VSM and cybernetics are more readily congenial to US centrist Republicans than to US progressive Democrats (Allenna being a distinct exception).
Here's why. Stafford gave us the clear uncaveated warning to NEVER EVER make a bureaucracy viable. That algedonic utterance all by itself should elevate its author to the rank of an Edmund Burke.
In the contention between the savers v. the spenders, the GOP v. the Dems, Republicans versus Democrats, it's the former who would resonate to preventing bureaucratic blight.
By contrast, it's difficult for a Democrat to find any bureaucracy-enhancing proposal less than congenial, and mark most new intrusions by government to be unattractive.
Rely upon Democrats to extend governmental bureaucracies too far (and Republicans to not quite go far enough).
The coolness to VSM and
cybernetic modeling arises from demonstrating in advance that the Dems' DNA tells them to blow through limits upon the sovereign, while the GOP inherently stops short of all the government bureaucrats might beneficially do.
For the record, I'm a lifelong right-of-center Moderate Republican. Today we are usually out of office -- a vanishing breed.
The extra-chromosome Conservatives (doctrinaires) are in the ascendant within the GOP, and unlikely to find the VSM or cybernetics to their dogmatic tastes.
Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless