Replying to LO25541 --
Dear Organlearners,
Roger Key <roger.key@onet.co.uk> writes:
>2. Dependent on your definition of structure and system:
>Are structure and system the same?
(snip)
>4. IS structure really a concept that needs to exist when
>we are looking at systems?
(snip)
>But having defined what a system is have we not also
>defined what the structure is?
Greetings Roger,
I have followed this topic with much interest.
Firstly, to observe the different meanings given by different fellow
learners to the concept "structure". I do hope that you all understand
what I wanted to say here, bearing in mind what I will now write ;-)
Secondly -- and here it is very difficult for me to express what I am
observing -- the "devention" of language. Compare "devention" with
"convention" (Latin: "con-"=together, "veneo"=come). A dictionary gives
the "conventional" meanings of every word of a language. But since the
eighties of the previous century, I have noticed that an increasing number
of people (writers/speakers and readers/hearers) make less and less use
of dictionaries, depending more and more on the context in which a word
was used to "define" its meaning.
This "devention" of language seems to me to happen fastest in English.
But it is also happening in my own language Afrikaans. Perhaps Winfried
Dressler may comment on whether it is also happening to German and Leo
Minningh or Jan Lelie to Dutch. I would really appreciate the observations
of fellow learners on other languages too.
In Dutch and Afrikaans it would be called "throwing overboard" the
principle of "algemeen beskaafde taalgebruik" (general, civilized language
usage). This principle requires that users of a language have to stay as
close to the "fixed norm" in the use of that language with respect to both
the grammer of sentences and the meaning of words in any sentence --
except poetry. In this sense the "throwing aboard" of the principle of
"adhering to normative language" have a negative meaning so that it is
something which has to be avoided. But is this "devention" of language
actually something bad? Is it something which happens solely because of
education failing increasingly to teach people how to use language
normative? Thinking of poetry as an exception to the normative use of a
langauge, is it not possible that a strange thing is happening which has
something in common with poetry? Is there not perhaps a shift from
convention as the simplistic norm for meaning to context as essential to
the complexity of establishing meaning ?
In chemistry the concept of molecular structure played virtually no role
before the shift from Newtonian mechanics to quantum mechanics. In typical
Newtonian fashion all atoms were thought of as point like objects. Thus
it was concluded that molecules could also be treated as point like
objects. But slowly the information accumulated that should two compounds
be added together, certain products could be expected. It was impossible
to bear all this information in mind. This led to the formulation of many
rules what products to expect when two or more compounds were added
together as reagents. In the formulation of the majority of these rules
the arrangement of all the elements in the Periodic Table (PT) played an
important role.
Quantum Mechanics (QM) brought the insight that an atom actually has an
inner structure involving its electrons, based on the number of protons in
the nucleus. In fact, QM even "explained" why the elements can be arranged
into a PT. Furthermore, even the rules needed to predict the now exploding
wealth of information were themselves becoming too many to bear in mind,
especially the exceptions to every rule. Thus chemists began to suspect
that not only does every molecule also have an inner structure involving
all its atoms, but that this "molecular structure" could also be used to
predict the too many rules of synthesis and the exceptions on each rule.
For example, the water molecule H20 (2 hydrogen H atoms, one oxygen
O atom) has the O in its centre and the two H's bonded to its sides to
form a bent molecule
. H H
. \ /
. O
But the carbon dioxide molecule CO2 (2 oxygen O atoms and one carbon
C atom) has the C in its centre and the two O's bonded to its sides to
form a linear molecule
. O -- C -- O
These differences in structure help to explain why H2O follows certain
rules when reacting while CO2 follows other rules for its own reactions.
(I will not explain how.)
However, gradually the situation became problematic again -- too many
structures and too many rules for each structure to remember. Meanwhile,
the bare information on what happens products will be formed when certain
compounds are added together, were now too much to handle at all. Rulse
were needed and these rules, even with the help of molecular structure,
became too much to bear in mind also. Gradually it dawned on chemists that
whereas they thought of molecular structure as something
rigid/fixed/static, it was actually something dynamically alive. For
example, the angle in H2O which the two H atoms make with respect to the O
atom in the centre, is not a fixed 104 degrees, nor is the distances
between the H atoms and the O atom fixed. There were actually continuous
fluctations in the values of the angle and the distance. The avarages of
these respective fluctucations were a fixed angle and a fixed distance.
As the chemists became more aware of the different variations (each
leading to a normative value) in the internal structure of the molecule,
the more their capacity increased to predict the outcome when two
molecules react. Many of their rules based on lifeless
(rigid/fixed/static) structures became superfluous. Molecules had a
"life" inside them in which both "being" and "becoming" were essential.
These INNER "living patterns" of each molecule were crucical in
determining how each molecule would (or would not) "interact lively" with
every other possible molecule having an inner identity of its own. In
other words, the INNER "living patterns" determined the OUTER "living
patterns" (or rather called by chemists the "chemical reactivity") of
these compounds and vice versa. It means that the inner organisation of
each of the molecules is intimately connected to how all the possible
outerly organisation between them.
Today chemists working at the frontiers of chemistry think in terms of
what they call "structure and reactivity". They bear intuitively the
following in mind, although they will not articulate as I will do it now.
For them "structure" is "inner organisation" involving not merely "being",
but also "becoming" while "reactivity" is "outer organisation" involving
not merely "becoming", but also "being". They are begining to think more
and more in criss-cross network involving many complementary duals.
Roger, you write:
>I ask the above because I do not understand the question. There
>are too many undefined big sweeps. I always tried to avoid the
>'simple' questions in exams - the fewer the words and the fewer
>the definitions in the question, the harder the question is to answer.
What is simpler than asking
. Predict the reaction A + B + ... => ............. completely!
Chemists never tried to avoid this question because it concerns the
very "soul of chemistry". However, they have learned a very valuable
lesson while trying to answer it. Their many preconceived Mental Models
were their worst constraint in answering this question for any possible
of input (mixture) A + B +..... The one Mental Model which took them
the longest to get rid of so as to make fairly accurate predictions was
. (static inner structures) with (dynamic outer processes) => .......
They still do not have a word which they use for "inner structure which is
more than static" and likewise a word for "outer process which is more
than dynamic". I simply articulate this tacit knowledge with
"organisation" for both the inside and outside of every molecule. This
affords me to say that at the inside all the organisation is not only
constant, but some organisation also changes while at the outside all the
organisation is not only changing, but some organisation is also fixed. In
other words, whereas you have asked in the beginning what the difference
is, if any, between using "structure" and "system", I am now adding a
third ingredient into this "mental broth", namely "organisation".
I wish I had the time and you fellow learners the patience to add a forth
ingredient also, namely "pattern". Dwight Dwiggens will certainly be able
to add it with finesse. Thus we actually have three other questions
similar to the one which precipitated this topic:
(1) >>My question is - What is structure in a system?
>>Is it visible, invisible or both? Is it formal or informal
>>or both? What is it?
These questions are, continuing with the numbering:
(2) My question is - What is system in a system?
Is it visible, invisible or both? Is it formal or informal or
both? What is it?
(3) My question is - What is organisation in a system?
Is it visible, invisible or both? Is it formal or informal or
both? What is it?
(4) My question is - What is pattern in a system?
Is it visible, invisible or both? Is it formal or informal or
both? What is it?
My first observation is the following: Few thinkers ever ask themselves
question (2) since its seems to be too self referential. Most thinkers ask
themselves (3) since the system thinking seems to be prerequisite to
organisational thinking. Some thinkers are beginning to ask themselves (4)
because they suspect that the other three questions lead to circular
reasoning.
My second observation is the following. See how many times LEM (Law of
Excluded Middle -- either "xxx" or "not xxx", but not both "xxx" and "not
xxx") becomes part of the question. Is this questioning of exclusivity not
curious?
My third observation is the following. We think in manner laid bare by
Socrates that once we have a definition for a concept, that definition
will help us out of all troubles using the concept. This may be true for
simplicity, but it is not true for complexity. I am weathered by the
experiences of too many discussions-arguments (rather than dialogues) to
claim its truth for complexity. The contribution of Socrates assisted us
for 2400 years of simplistic thinking, but it cannot do so any more for
complexity thinking.
But in addition to these experiences I also want to illustrate it with my
comments right in the beginning on the meaning of every word and the
process of "devention" which I am now observing. Dictionaries are able to
establish the meaning of every word by convention as the norm. This
convention makes the norm fixed, almost as if it gives a rigid structure
to the meaning. It is for me as if linguists have been doing over a much
longer time (because of the greater complexity involved) what chemists
had been doing over a shorter time (less complexity) and learned
painstakedly not to do since the days of Lavoiseur by one after the other
"devention" -- do not make the structure rigid by convention, but led the
inner organisation be determined by the outer organisation and vice versa.
In other words, let the organisation of the context of a word determine
the organisation of its inner meaning. Hence the norm for meaning is
shifting from fixed convention to the living context. It is as if a sort
of "ecological" or "environmental" sensitivity is now creeping into even
language.
As I now understand it, to know the internal organisation of system SY
requires a knowledge of the external organisation of all the surroundings
systems considered together as the complex system SU. The inner complexity
of a system requires an awareness to its outer complexity and vice versa.
It is not possible any more to explore further inner (or respectively
outer) complexity with outer (or resp inner) simplicity. At a certain
level we need a minimum complexity (rather than maximum simplicity) to
evolve further in complexity. In other words, at a certain level our
paradigm will have to shift from simplicity to complexity to keep on
sustaining our authentic learning.
So, to the four questions above I can add a fifth one which will give the
mental broth even more taste and flavour:
(5) My question is - What is complexity in a system?
Is it visible, invisible or both? Is it formal or informal or
both? What is it?
Some of you may now feel angry, frustrated, confused or many other
feelings, thinking that it is my intention to make you feel like that. It
is not the case. I merely have described what will sooner or later happen,
if it has not already happened, in your minds like it happened in mine and
a few others also. You will rather want me to answer the question "What is
structure?", something we all want to know as Learning Individuals. But I
am now pretty sure that the answer will not come to us as Learning
Individuals, but to us when we are organised also into Learning
Organisations. Our organisations will have to emerge into Learning
Organisations in order to continue exploring the deeper meanings of the
words which we are using. It is then when Senge's "metanoia" and the
"deeper meaning" which we search for join into one emerging whole.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
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.