Replying to LO25549 --
Dear Organlearners,
Andrew Cambell < ACampnona@aol.com > writes:
>>Elements, connections and relationships;
>>these are the stuff of structure.
>
>Fred responded in part to Richards question concerning
>structure and system... by coincidence I was just at the
>SoL online domain and saw these...they made me wonder
>how many things in May's letter that i just posted contain
>these essentials without her formally being aware of it?
>
>Maybe others can see connections, relations and elements
>I can't. I would be interested to hear what anyone thinks
>about that application.
Greetings Andrew,
What a profound admission. I love your honesty.
As I see it, the meaning of each of the three concepts connections,
relations and elements can be established in many ways. Here are
some of the frequently encountered ways:
(1) conventional meaning using a dictionary,
(2) spesialised meaning by giving a special definition,
(3) explicate meaning by listing sufficient examples,
(4) unfold meaning by creating context (paint rich picture)
(5) let meaning emerge through open dialogue.
These five ways require authentic learning to succeed.
In addition to these ways, another way which is perhaps most often used,
but which seldom, if ever, works is for the writer to assume that the
reader will automatically attach the same meaning to the concept as the
writer. Seemingly the same way, but actually different, is the assumption
that the reader self will be able to use effectively the way (like one of
the five above) which the writer is using. A third way is to import the
meaning from a specific discipline without any modification to suit the
new application self. These latter three ways rely heavily on rote
learning.
Mathematicians think of a system as having a unique structure which
comprises connections, relations and elements. But there are hundreds of
other diciplines in academy. Some of them (having as "elements" some
"connection" with mathematics as "element" giving rise to
interdisciplinary "relationships" ;-) use the concept structure very much
like mathematicians. Chemistry was an example. (But chemists began to
understand that there is a major difference between process/mechanism (the
movie) and the connection (the picture) which it reults into.) However,
the majority of other disciplines each has a dsitinctive meaning for the
concept structure.
Furthermore, some person may import from another discipline the term
structure (and its meaning) into a discipline where it has seldom been
used little, if at all, before. For example, although mathematicians and
chemists use the terms structure (with different meanings) often,
biologists use the term structure very seldom! Such importing frequently
happens when people get exposed to interdisciplinary thinking. Others may
not be aware from which discipline this term and its meaning came so that
they will have to give a meaning self. You can imagine how much confusion
will arise.
In terms of the painting artist's world, perhaps the following may make it
clear to you what the mathematician means by connections, relations and
elements. The "element" is that which appear on the canvas because of the
strokes of the brush with a certain paint on it. The appearance has
colour, texture, area and distribution. The "connections" are how
different "elements" meet each other as "overlays" with sharp contrast,
intergrading or ragged edging. The "relationships" are all the meaningful
perceptions which the viewer gets of this harmony between "elements" and
"connections". The structure is the overall message of the painting --
portrait, landscape or still life.
>Quotes from The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (see end)
>
>A system is a perceived whole whose elements "hang
>together" because they continually affect each other over
>time and operate toward a common purpose. The word
>descends from the Greek verb sunistánai, which originally
>meant "to cause to stand together."
That "hang together" is for me very much like the "connections" as I have
explained them above by the metaphor of the painting. The "continually
affect each other over time" is like the "relationships" in the same
explanation. Thus there is little difference between "system" and
"structure" as I have expmained them to you with the metaphor of the
painting.
It is exactly this synonymy which is of concern to me. The terms "system"
and "structure" are not synonyms for me, just like the terms "molecule"
and "atom" are not synonyms. A molecule has many atoms to it, but an atom
does not have many molecules to it. An "atom" is a property of a
"molecule", but a "molecule" is not a property of an "atom". Likewise I
would like to see which one of "system" and "structure" is the property or
constituent of the other. Furthermore, what about a word such as
"organisation"? How would we arrange "structure", "system" and
"organisation" in order of increasing and encomassing complexity?
What is at the highest level? Anyone of the three "structure", "system"
and "organisation" themselves? As for me, at the highest level (most
encompassing, complex and unique) I prefer to use the word "form". The
second highest level is the "content" of this "form" of the highest level.
When I thinking of both levels, I begin to think in terms of organisation.
This organisation is extended by thinking of the second highest level
which self also has form with respect to the third highest level as its
content. Thus "form" and "content" pervades through all levels of
complexity, except for the highest and the lowest level. The highest level
has only "form" and the lowest level has only "content".
>As this origin suggests, the structure of a system
>includes the quality of perception with which you,
>the observer, cause it to stand together.
Yes, I agree with this. For myself authenticity is the most important
quality of any perception.
>Examples of systems include biological organisms
>(including human bodies), the atmosphere, diseases,
>ecological niches, factories, chemical reactions,
>political entities, communities. industries, families,
>teams -- and all organizations.
See how you have used way (3) mentioned earlier which requires authentic
learning!
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.