Darwin had only the merest physical access to the work of Mendel (which he did not apply to his theory or mechanisms). Nor did he have access to present-day concepts of adaptation, nor of the systems dynamics of Prigogene, the memes of Dawkins, endosymbiontic synthesis of Margulis, or holographic assemblage (as exemplified by Gabor’s or Pribrim’s work), among other present-day tools. This paper explores a few of the ideas and implications of such 20th Century systems-related concepts which must now advise Darwin’s seminal work. In it, we caution against debating Darwin or any other 19th Century scientific work “Chapter and Verse” without depth of more modern contexts. This discussion includes an explorative Systems Dynamics definition of “species” as “a functional (reproduc
Cawley.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [229.0 KB]

In the past 30 years scholars of international relations have moved beyond the classic dichotomy of realism and idealism (liberalism), in an attempt to enlarge the theory of international relations. Assiduous analysts have extended these classic approaches into, e.g., structural realism (structuralism), hegemony stability theory, institutionalism, institutional liberalism, institutional society, constructivism, Marxism… and a jumble of post-modern isms (Reus-Smit & Snidal, eds., 2008; Carlsnaes, Risse & Simmons, eds., 2003, passim).
Reviving the theoretical exclusivity of state-to-state relations seems inadequate in the post-Cold War, inter-state terrorism environment of the 21st Century. An alternative has emerged that emphasizes trans-state institutions, i.e., reflections of a growing
Glickman.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [296.8 KB]