BW: Again, you fail to define terms. Competition is not the *opposite* of cooperation. Two or more competitors can cooperate on any number of things ... even sharing the same space for mutual convenience. There are all kinds of "competitions" from civil to barbaric. There are also wide ranges of cooperation, from voluntary to coerced. You never make any distinction, you just ramble on about microcosms, as though they were objectively defined entities, even after you've asserted that "cosms" are random, subjective classifications.
TSW: "People joined in social groups simply because they were "attracted" to each other. Of their own equally mysterious free will, they came to desire social collusion."
TSW: "In one (classical mechanics), human cooperation was forced; in the other (systems philosophy), human cooperation was chosen."
BW: "Forced cooperation" is slavery, "voluntary cooperation" is trade. If determinism precludes free will, then there is no such thing as "voluntary" anything: people do whatever they do. In the absence of free will, determinism doesn't dictate cooperation any more than it dictates competition: whatever happens, just happens. In that scenario, whether we know *why* it happens or not doesn't matter; there can be no such thing as human "motives", except as necessary mental fabrications.
TSW: "Only [Neomechanics] could discover an adequate explanation of bonding in molecules or of cooperation in humans."
BW: The only "explanation" you offer is that things interact and change. Sometimes they combine, sometimes they don't. That's not an explanation of any chemical or human interaction, much less an identification of cause and effect.
TSW: "... bonding occurs when two microcosms reach a temporarily stable equilibrium distance ..."
BW: If they stick, they stick; if they don't, they don't. Until you define boundaries between two distinct objects, it's impossible to tell whether they will stick or not. Until you identify the unique properties of the objects, you can't predict what kind of spatial equilibrium they could or will achieve. Simply labeling them as "microcosms" seeking thermodynamic "least motion" provides none of that information and explains nothing.
TSW: "The bonds of cooperation and socialization ..."
BW: You seem to equate cooperation and a new term, out of the blue, called "socialization". Again, you don't define either word. Obviously, societies are individuals with many things in common, which facilitates cooperation and civility:
1a. an enduring social group ... having common traditions, institutions, activities, and interests.
"Socialization" is a process of persuading or coercing an individual to conform with those social norms. Which method is used doesn't seem to matter to your "Neomechanical" analysis, since individuals are just colliding particles of mass. In that context, killing an "abnormal" person is just another way of achieving a new "social equilibrium" and motivating others to "cooperate" ... or else.
TSW: "The lesson: complex systems never collapse merely because they are complex, but because their surroundings change."
BW: This seems at odds with your persistent assertion that BOTH micro/macro matter equally. In fact, a simple or complex "system" (a perspective you disdain) could collapse in any environment. All living things naturally "collapse" into death eventually, no matter what their surroundings. Societies regularly "collapse" because their normative traditions, institutions, or activities are *inherently* self-destructive.
Next: The Social Microcosm (Part 3 of 7)