Dear Organlearners,
Jason Smith <jsmith@quantumsolutions.on.ca> writes:
> I'm prepared to see systems thinking in the language of spiritual
> endeavor. As someone who has been a slow-learner of the Buddhist way,
> I've learned a few things about the trap of dualism. It's been my work
> experience that exploring issues using the tools of systems thinking
> involves the use of a less-dualistic frame of interpretation. My
> conclusion is that this frame is at least part of the reason why tools
> such as causal loops and archetypes are so powerful in practice. They are
> more integrative and give people hope that solutions to tough problems can
> be found without resorting to harmful distinctions -- especially blame.
Greetings Jason,
Thank you also for you most interesting reply.
In system thinking we should try to understand why duals are
important, but also in what they do not play a role.
Asymmetric duals are necessary to set up force fields which are
necessary to change organisation. What are these force fields?
Think of a magnetic pole (N for north or S for South) as an example.
It has an implicate force field which we can discover with a
second pole. If the original pole is N and the second test pole is
also N, the test pole will move away from the orginal pole N. If the
second test pole is S, then it will move towards the first test pole
N. Two unlike poles (N and S) are necessary to have a force
fields stretching from the one to the other pole. Thus a third pole,
say N, will move (FLOW) from N to S. However, the force
field between like poles (N and N, or S and S) is broken. Thus a
third pole, say N, will never move from the one N to the other N.
In other words, to have a connected flow between two duals, they have
to differ (be unlike). Now the field together with the flow forms
what we may call a field-flow (being-becoming) pair. The important
thing to understand is that we cannot ever have a change in
organisation without such field-flow pairs. This is a very strange
truth. You can check this out yourself.
So what on earth are these field-flow pairs? Well, in irreversible
thermodynamics the fields are known as (entropic) forces and the
flows as (entropic) fluxes. Each force-flux pair concerns a certain
form of energy in the process of changing. Each such a force-force
itself produces something with that enigmatic name "entropy". Thus
all the force-flux pairs is responsible for "entropy production". It
IS THIS AND ONLY this "entropy production" which drives the
transformation of one form of energy into another. Nothing else can
drive the transformation.
Did all this stuff about fields, flows, energy and entropy confused
you? Let me then give the bottom line.
Unlike duals are necessary for transformations -- without unlike
duals no organisational change is possible.
However, duals cannot express wholeness. At least three entities are
needed to express the meaning of wholeness explicitly (see my notes
on the essentiality wholeness and especially the facet
"associativity"). Obviously, wholeness also have an implicate
meaning, namely, unity ("monadicity").
> In Ontario, there is growing interest in using systems thinking to deliver
> more integrated learning to children. Perhaps that will help them to see
> past the "omnibus of topics" that you correctly identify. Beyond that, I
> am optimistic that more organizations will become interested in seeing
> systems as a way to address complex issues. Both should make a dent in
> helping humanity overcome fragmented thinking and knee-jerk solutions.
> Maybe we'll see a decline in bombings along the way. Having relatives in
> Northern Ireland, I'm among those wishing strongly for that.
I am sure it will, but then we must walk the talk. The defintion of
philosophy through the ages was "systematical thinking". But
philsophy lost its power. In its place came "systems thinking" or
cybernetics. The name cybernetics says why. Philosophers did not want
to incorporate "feedback" in their "systematical thinking". However,
"systems thinking" is also losing its power. Why? Because system
thinkers also resist the incorporation of certain things in their
systems. In other words, the moment we fragment something from the
whole to exclude it, we lose power.
The etymology of the word "system" is probably the best way to
illustrate the last sentence. It derives from the Greek prefix
"syn"=together and "histemi"=stand. In other words, the direct
translation of "systema" into English, rather than the anglisation of
the Greek "systema" into system, would have been "stand together".
Should we exclude one from the standing, the system lose its power.
What do we fragment from systems thinking which renders it
powerless? I can think of many things. I will note only three
important things: God, life and creativity. It is the horrible
"system" which remains which is causing all the hurt.
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>