Replying to LO24990 --
Hi Leo
I have responded many times to this thread an others, I have also shared
with this group some very pertinent things about the issues of emergence,
being and becoming, complexity, energy, logic, variables, feedback,
complexity of information, the interdependence of these variables, power
etc, etc.
However At and company have not actually registered the learning, they are
too busy shoring up what they know (I am "being" a bit harsh here). There
are some key issues that have never got a frame of reference, e.g. what
are the variables and the logic we are using, where does all this fit in
terms of LO's. I shared with some a key on the issues of emergence not
long ago and its linkages to TIME and the continuos field. (from a
different point of view). AND MOST OF ALL THE REALISATION THAT AS SOON AS
WE CREATE A VARIABLE (LIKE EMERGENCE OR ESSENTIALITIES OR BEING) IT IS
IMMEDIATELY DISCRIMINATED HENCE NO LONGER A COMPLEXITY APPROACH. That is
why Progogine, Jaques, Bohm (holographic theory) and company are so
focused on Time (the time of chronos and kairos) and becoming because it
tries to take the continuous field into account.(which is no variable,
(the fact that I say this means I am now discriminating again, because I
am now bringing it into being or creation again) it has the all, the
ends, ideals, the systems, the universe, the creation, the interactions,
all the variables, all the logic, all the knowledge past present and
future, we are it part of it in it)
The biggest error made on these threads by At and company is the use of
the discriminated object (or variable) and the naming of them like
(emergence), as we do this we lose the continuous field and hence the
complexity approach. We immediately "become" reductionist. All systems
thinkers seem to do this and be totally oblivious to it.
It is like looking at the vase and the face profiles we see only one or
the other. "from an old thread"
Emergence is seeing it all at once (very difficult) the dog and the lives
of all dogs through history in continuum, their purposes, ideals,
interactions and ends.
> The whole issue of being and becoming is very simple to deal with at
> an LO level. One is simply the discriminated object (a dog) "being"
> that which we observe in the continuous field (the lives of all dogs
> through history in continuum & their purposes, ideals and ends)
> "becoming". The other is the continuous field with the discriminated
> object in the background. and yes this does have a impact on systems
> thinking. But the level of systems thinking in what Senge talks
> about does not take this fully into account. The reasons for this is
> a bit too long winded to go into here.(some of the reasons are mentioned
> above). Systems thinking as at best a 5 year methodolgy.(there lies the
> clue).
> Basically about complexity of information (the level of abstraction,
> they have a mental and physical time component) )
> and the bi-conditional parallel variables (even boring for me). I
> suppose like a vertical continuos cylinder and slices at different
> depths and these slices having inter-connections at these different
> slice depths. (the fact that I do this already means that I am using the
> discriminant object hence by logical deduction this is incorrect, what
> a paradox but very very important to identify)
Complexity is a recursive thing so it replicates at a higher level and so
on into infinitely (the so called becoming stuff or becoming an emergent
system)
This is also a bit contentious because if environments change so do the
emergent systems so they may become totally something else. ( see the NK
Model, Light bulb experiment)
Each level of complexity is linked to a specific time horizon (see Elliot
Jaques) and each level uses a specific mode of processing (that is in the
human brain). A lot of this is continuation of Piagets work.
You can go to my website on Systems Thinking page and look at a slightly
diffrent discussion on this. http://sites.netscape.net/gavinritz/ on
systems thinking.
I personally needed to create a frame work (discriminating again) to put
all the methodologies together so that I could use them in practice.(we
live in a practical world, I think.)
Anyway the levels of complexity of information (Boolean logic) start off
with or/or, and/and, if then, if and only if. Or if one wants to look at
our normal numbering scales it starts off with nominal variables, ordinal
variables, interval variables and ratio variables. (sort of the same
thing). These levels of logic then recur at higher levels of abstraction.
They all link to a specific time horizon, the capability that one can look
into the future (or the past) or the anticipatory capability of a person.
Fuzzy logic is at the higher orders of the if-then and if-and-only if
variables.
So what does this mean to me or you, only that each methodology, Beers
viable systems, or Checkland (SSM) all deal with specific variables. The
key is to know what variables they are talking about and what is the logic
they are using. ST uses a level 4 (see E Jaques) logic or, if and only if
(that is Boolean logic) with variables acting in a parallel fashion ( that
is a whole lot of goodies all going on at the same time). But each effects
each other and if one variable goes up another goes up or down and they
effect each other (that is what ST, SSM and some others are also all
about).
The catch comes in when things can't be quantified like human emotions
(well we can really), psychological things, power, energy the so called
intangibles. These are not well dealt with in any of the methodologies. Or
the big catch higher levels of complexity. The abstracted variables.(the
fact they are abstarcted like atomic theory means they are still
discriminated (an abstracted object or real physical object is much of a
much) and hence not the contiuonus field). The whole issue of a particle
and a wave.
In fact as soon as we create the variable the whole thing crashes down
because we are discriminating again (what I shared at the top of this
message). There are lots of paradoxes here. A sometimes sound approach is
to identify the tension (power) of the variable within the variable (not
that easy) because there lies many of the clues to complexity (bifurcation
point or energy bottleneck). This then sort of identifies the spiral
within the spiral within the spiral, the so called continuous field and
hence the emergence. The macroscope sort of (the microscope and the
telescope from the book the Macroscope (see Pcp web).
Much to be said for Bohms holographic theory.
Kindest
Gavin
Leo Minnigh wrote:
> Today was another day of reflection. I consulted some of the archives and
> some private correspondence with At de Lange and Andrew Campbell. And so I
> was rereading a contribution of At from nearly a year ago. It surprised me
> that this contribution generated so little reactions (only Thomas Struck
> and a reply of At).
--Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.