Topic
Integrative level
About: Integrative level is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 4 publications have been published within this topic receiving 19 citations.
Papers
TL;DR: The Integrative Level Classification project (ILC) as mentioned in this paper is an ontology based on a series of integrative levels (layers), which in turn can be grouped into the major strata of form, matter, life, mind, society and culture.
Abstract: Facets and general categories used in bibliographic classification have been based on a disciplinary organization of knowledge. However, facets and categories of phenomena independent from disciplines can be identified similarly. Phenomena can be classified according to a series of integrative levels (layers), which in turn can be grouped into the major strata of form, matter, life, mind, society and culture, agreeing with Nicolai Hartmann’s ontology. Unlike a layer, a stratum is not constituted of elements of the lower ones; rather, it represents the formal pattern of the lower ones, like the horse hoof represents the shape of the steppe. Bibliographic categories can now be seen in the light of level theory: some categories are truly general, while others only appear at a given level, being the realization of a general category in the specific context of the level: these are the facets of that level. In the notation of the Integrative Level Classification project, categories and facets are represented by digits, and displayed in a Web interface with the help of colours.
20 citations
Dissertation•
1 Jan 2008
TL;DR: The theory of levels of reality as developed by James Feibleman, Nicolai Hartmann and others, and applied to classification by the Classification Research Group, is illustrated and Tentative ILC notation for a sample of articles dealing with mass communication is constructed.
Abstract: Classifying the communication domain according to the theory of integrative levels.
In order to organize a collection of web articles in the domain of communication studies, some knowledge organization
systems have been considered, including folksonomies, the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2), and the Broad System of Ordering (BSO).
Special attention is paid to the Integrative Level Classification (ILC), a system under development allowing an interdisciplinary approach to information. This seems especially suitable for the domain of communication, where several levels of reality are involved at the same time, like those of signals, societies, organizations, cultures, and recorded knowledge.
The theory of levels of reality as developed by James Feibleman, Nicolai Hartmann and others, and applied to classification
by the Classification Research Group, is illustrated.
Tentative ILC notation for a sample of articles dealing with mass communication is constructed and discussed.
2 citations
1 Jan 1978
TL;DR: In this article, the authors have discussed the development of the major integrative levels of nature and discussed their temporalities, causations, unresolvable conflicts, and other determinants of their level-specific Umwelts.
Abstract: So far we have been concerned mainly with the major integrative levels of nature; we have discussed the development of their temporalities, causations, unresolvable conflicts, and other determinants of their level-specific Umwelts. We did note, passim, that there exist certain processes in nature that are difficult to classify as appropriate for one or for another integrative level. They assume ambiguous positions between adjacent Umwelts: sometimes they may be classed with a specific integrative level, sometimes with the level beneath it. Such processes form the class of interfaces. Developmentally they seem to be short-lived. One knowledgeable critic of the theory of time as conflict found this feature important enough to remark that “nature does not make jumps, they used to say, but if you look at the hierarchy of complexity, she seems not to linger at intermediate stages.”
1 Jan 1988
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors make an assertion that for the present and a long time to come we expect divergent answers from experts who do not disagree but have different expectations of explanation or understanding.
Abstract: The first assertion that must be made about the title question is that for the present and a long time to come we expect divergent answers from experts who do not disagree but have different expectations of explanation or understanding It may help to state my personal view of what constitutes understanding in the context of how the brain works In the broadest terms, to explain or understand the mechanism of a phenomenon is basically to describe it in the language of any lower integrative level, even the very next level There are always levels below us (nervous system, subsystem, circuit, cluster, cell, organelle, molecule, atom, particle, etc); thus any explanation is just pushing the mystery down to phenomenology at a lower level This is relevant because the extreme diversity of points of view about understanding the brain, many of them resulting from outstanding successes in cellular, membrane and molecular approaches, underlines a diversity in the conceptual goals of various integrative levels of inquiry (Gerard 1940)
Related Topics (5)
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 2 |
| 1988 | 1 |
| 1978 | 1 |