"Re-reading" patterns of concepts

Metaphors as Transdisciplinary Vehicles of the Future (Part #6)

5.1 Isomorphism and similarity between concept patterns: General systems theory has over several decades explored the extent to which the different systematic organizations of phenomena articulated by distinct disciplines contained features which were isomorphic with one another. For general systems the interest lay in the stronger forms of isomorphism, especially those which could be effectively described by mathematical equations. In this respect it overlapped preoccupations of cybernetics and operations research and, like them, has proved of limited value in response to the interdisciplinary crisis of the times.

Rather than searching for "strong" isomorphism between disciplines and seeking an expression for it in equations, it is possible to explore "weaker" forms of isomorphism between disciplines. This might be more appropriately defined in terms of the "similarity" between patterns of concepts. This approach leads to two questions:

how weak can such similarity become before it is of no value in linking the insights of one discipline with those of another ?
to what extent can a pattern explicit in one discipline be used to elicit a similar pattern in another, when the latter has not (yet) articulated its understanding in the domain of interest ?

5.2 Evaluating similarity: In approaching such questions, a distinction needs to be made between different perspectives:

Independence: For a discipline, such explorations may readily be perceived to be an infringement of its internal concerns (analogous to geopolitical sensitivity about national sovereignty). Any similarity is therefore of no relevance;
Integrity: On the other hand, for those endeavouring to advance knowledge within that discipline, some degree of "cross-fertilization" is valuable -- but not to the point of succumbing to the insights of some other discipline (analogous to the problems of cultural imperialism);
Utility: However, for those seeking clues to fruitful alternative possibilities, the sole criteria is whether the insights are useful in dealing with the problems under consideration -- especially those problems which cannot apparently be adequately defined within any particular discipline.

5.3 "Re-reading" as a metaphorical art: The concern here is primarily with the "utility" perspective, although the process of "re-reading" is also relevant to the second. The radical suggestion is that all conceptual patterns, from any discipline, can be profitably "re-read" as metaphors -- through which insights can be gained of relevance to other domains of knowledge. The body of knowledge, generated by the disciplines over the years, may therefore be systematically (re-)explored as a resource for implicit insights. In a sense the geological layers of knowledge laid down over the centuries, including "fossilized knowledge", may be mined. Much will be irrelevant, but there are seams of insight of great value. The challenge is to separate the two.