p.2 Both sociology and modern systems theory study many scientific problems in common: wholes and how to deal with them as such; the general analysis of organization - the complex and dynamic relations of parts, especially when the parts are themselves complex and changing and the relationships are nonrigid

p.59 [Magoroh Maruyama] By focusing on the deviation-counteracting aspect of the mutual causal relationships... the cyberneticians paid less attention to the systems in which the mutual causal effects are deviation amplifying. Such systems are ubiquitous: accumulations of capital in industry, evolution of living organisms, the rise of cultures of various types, interpersonal processes which produce mental illness, international conflicts, and the processes that are loosely termed as 'vicious circles' and 'compound interests': in short, all processes of mutual causal relationships that amplify an insignificant or accidental initial kick, build up deviation and diverge from the initial condition. [The Second Cybernetics: Deviation-Amplifying Mutual Causal Processes," American Scientist , 51 (1963), 164-79]

p.60-61 [Magoroh Maruyama] The secret of the growth of the city is in the process of deviation-amplifying mutual positive feedback networks rather than in the initial condition or in the initial kick. This process, rather than the initial condition, has generated the complexly structured city. It is in this sense that the deviation-amplifying mutual causal process is called "morphogenesis."

p.62 The environment, however else it may be characterized, can be seen at bottom as a set or ensemble of more or less distinguishable elements... The relatively stable "causal," spatial and/or temporal relations between these distinguishable elements or events may be generally referred to as "constraint"

p.63 our more typical natural environment is characterized by a relatively high degree of constraint, without which the development and elaboration of adaptive systems... would not have been possible.

p.82-83 that a set of elements is organized implies that there are constraints operating between the elements such that only certain interrelations or interactions obtain between them, and not others.

p.83 for Ashby, an essential idea underlying conditionality is that, of the product space of possibilities of interaction given by a set of elements, any actual organization of the elements is constrained to some subset of interactions. The converse of organization is independence of elements

p.83 In a word, "the presence of 'organization' between variables is equivalent to the existence of a constraint in the product-space of the possibilities."

p.93 [Frick] we need information only when we are faced with a choice of some sort. [JLJ - I would say that we need information when we are faced with a choice and the situation we face is equivocal or interpretable in multiple ways. Information allows us to reduce uncertainty]

p.100 The Interactional Field: A Dynamic System

Though it is part of conventional wisdom to start with the "individual" and his act, yet as Mead and many others have insisted, we cannot get to the social by way of the "individual" by simple addition or aggregation. Rather, we must begin with an interactional field of independent organisms in an environment, and trace from it what we mean by the human "individual" and the social organization of such "individuals." Our basic model must, at a bare minimum, be based on a coupling of two organisms in some systemic manner.

p.101 Robert R. Sears is one of several psychologists who, in the last decade or so, have suggested a "dyadic" or interactional model as a basis for personality theory. He argues for a combining of "individual and social behavior" (what an innocent distinction!) into a single theoretical framework, with a focus on "action" rather than on internal structures or processes.

p.128 We are arguing that the abstract model of the morphogenetic process in complex adaptive systems (described earlier) constitutes a very general framework within which many current conceptualizations of the genesis, maintenance, or change of social structure may be organized... this model appears to embrace the common underlying dynamics. We recall that the model assumes an ongoing system of interacting components with an internal source of tension, the whole engaged in continuous transaction with its varying external and internal environment, such that the latter tend to become selectively "mapped" into its structure in some way... This adaptive process thus involves a source of variety against which to draw, a number of selective mechanisms which sift and test this environmental variety against some criteria of viability, and processes which tend to bind and perpetuate the selected variety for some length of time.

p.128 The continual shifting of the environment and internal milieu guarantees a continual "cycling" of this process, leading very often to an accumulation of structural and processual complexity. The structure of such a system is thus viewed in terms of sets of alternative actions, or tendencies to act in certain ways, associated with the components, and the constraints that specify or limit these alternate actions. The genesis of organization is thus the generation of these sets of alternatives and the constraints defining them.
  The sociocultural system is to be seen as such a complex, adaptive organization of components.

p.132 Weber conceived of "meaningful action" as ranging on a continuum from innovation to conformity

p.179 [Robert McIver] By social power we mean the capacity to control the behavior of others either directly by fiat or indirectly by the manipulation of available means.

p.182 [Lasswell and Kaplan] The fact that power, by definition, rests on coercion does not entail that the power situation itself cannot be the result, in part, of choice.

p.201 [Peter Blau] Power is the ability of persons or groups to impose their will on others despite resistance through deterrence

p.202 to use his resources to acquire power over others a person must prevent them from choosing any of the four alternatives. That is, he must remain indifferent to benefits they can offer, denying them access to the required resources; he must bar access to alternative suppliers, for example, by monopolizing needed rewards or services; he must prevent the use of coercion, perhaps by discouraging coalitions among subordinates or blocking access to political power, or by dominating the sources of law and order and politically controlling the processes of exchange; and he must perpetuate the social values - be they materialistic values, patriotic ideals, religious convictions - that encourage the need for his kind of services, while opposing counter-ideologies.

p.205-206 The central theme of this chapter has been the problem of "social control." In discussing various facets of this notion we have argued that a model of society as a complex adaptive system is required if the notion is to be sharpened in meaning... A central feature of the complex adaptive system is its capacity to persist or develop by changing its own structure, sometimes in fundamental ways.