Hello Winfried,
sorry for delaying my response. Here it is:
At 15:26 05.06.97 +0200, Winfried Dressler quoting Alexander Weber wrote:
>> ...does not require the control of a superior. People are autonomous,
>> selforganized and - responsible, if you let them.
>To whom does the "you" in "if you let them" refer? It sounds like "you"
>refer to the "superior" who controls the "people". But isn't the
>"superior" part of the "people" (you are not talking about god - and
>whatever god does, it is surely not to control, what people do)? In a
>selforganised world in which we live and of which we are part of, I think
>it is misleading to divide people into some who act on others and these
>others reacting on some. ...
"You" could be anyone. Anyone who does not treat other persons like
structure determined systems. It could be a mother trying to control the
behavior of her child: "Don't do this! Don't do that!" Recently I saw a
woman that tried to control where and how her child walked. At last she
beat him. I think she had the idea of controlling him like a marionette.
It didn't work... It could also be a subordinate who attributes his
incapacity to control his boss to a lack of e.g. intelligence. I do not
think that there are people who can act upon others in a deterministic
way. But some believe they can do...
>...Yet it is puzzling, that selforganising prozesses
>let emerge hierachy. Again my favorite example: atoms - molecules - cells
>- organs - mind - self - ...
Or, let's say that one can divide a unity into its components and their
relations. Is that hierarchal?
>The word "selforganising" is always a key for my thinking. To put it in
>logical (not bio-logical) terms, it means
>
>1.) "a" organises "a"
Let me specify the word "to organise". It means (in short) to put and
maintain a system in order. A self-organising unity is, therefore, a unity
that maintains his order on its own. It not necessarily puts itself up, I
think. Autopoietic systems are examples of self-organizing systems.
>Question: What else has an influence in organising "a"? Let's call the
>answer "b". This means that sentence 1.) is incomplete, leading to
>
>2.) "a" and "b" organises "a"
What do you mean by influence? Is "b" necessary for the self-organization
of "a"? Isn't "b" a part of "a", then? Of course, if you distinguish a
system, you also distinguish its medium. And, of course, the medium has
an influence on the system. But, is this influence deterministic in the
sense of the medium specifying changes in the system? Can the medium act
instructively upon a system? I don't think so.
I'd like to introduce Maturana's concept of structural determinism: The
things that can happen to a structurally determined system are determined
by its own structure. An external agent can disturb (perturbate) it, but
not determine the states of structure it will have after. There are no
instructive interactions. There is no King Midas' touch.
Maturana says that when two structure determined systems meet, they start
to "dance". They are perturbating each other, but cannot determine the
states, the other will take. In the case of meeting autopoietic systems
this coupling results very interesting...
>What is the difference between a mystical experience and a borderline
>pathology?
With the first you can become a religious leader, with the second they
will take you under care.
Greetings
Alex
Alex WWWeber
stu33436@mail.uni-kiel.d400.de
tel/fax: +49-431/674661
--Alexander Weber <stu33436@mail.uni-kiel.d400.de>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>