Dear Organlearners,
Artur F. Silva <artsilva@individual.eunet.pt> writes:
>So, if organisations capable of learning, changing and
>adapting have been there for more then 200 years, when
>Systems Thinking, or Systems Dynamics, were not
>invented, some different founding discipline, or principle,
>must be found to explain the fact.
Greetings Arthur,
Thank you for your thought provoking contribution.
Let me offer another example just to get the picture richer. Consider
the motion of the planets in our solar system. Their motion has been
regular for millions years. Only 312 years ago Newton succeeded in
explaining, describing and predicting their motion by the Laws of
Mechanics and the Law of Gravitation. The millions of years before the
last 312 years show that the explicate formulation of these laws are
not sponsible for the motion of the planets. Something implicate is
responsible for their motion. Newton succeeded in expressing the
implicate into something explicate, known as his Laws of mechanics and
Law of Gravitation. Einstein showed with his general theory of
relativity that the implicate could be expressed in something quite
different, namely the curvature of space-time.
So far I have managed to set up an analogy between what you have
written about the "founding discipline and LOs" and "Newtons laws and
planetary motion". LOs emerged, thrived and immerged all along the
thousands of years of human existence, long before Senge expressed
their dynamics explicitly in his book "The fifth discipline". In other
words, the life of LOs is determined by something implicate rather
than the explication (formal expression) by Senge. Furthermore, just
as Einstein managed to give a second explicate version completely
different to that of Newton, it is quite possible that some else will
do the same to LOs.
But the analogy breakes up because of the human factor. Neither
Newton's explication nor Einstein's explication had any influence on
the motion of the planets. The planets still move with the same
regular pattern, seemingly ignorant of Newton's or Einstein's
explications? Why? According to newton, the motion of the sun and
planets is determined by only two quantities, namely "mass" (of each
stellar body) and "distance" (between two stellar bodies). The "mass"
and "distance" of Newton's or Einstein's explicate formulations are
far too small to have an observable and thus significant influence.
In the case of Senge's explication (formal expression), that very
explication can have a serious influence on the dynamics of the LO.
Actually, it is intended by Senge to have as great influence as
possible. But why does the LO respond to this explication? One reason
is that Senge's explication makes use of natural language. And natural
langauge is an important characteristic of the LO -- think of the role
of dialogue. Another reason is that Senge's explication makes use of
learning. And learning is also an important characteristic of the
LO -- think of personal mastery and team learning. By using things
such as language and learning which are implicite to the LO and also
to its explicate fornulation, two powerful feedback loops are set up
which will influence the LO.
Is it possible to break these feedback loops? Yes, by replacing
natural language with an artificial language and learning with a lower
ordered activity (like entropy production) in the formulation of an
LO. In other words, we can break these feedback loops if we formulate
the LO with a mathematical description based on entropy production.
Horrible, is it not, describing, explaining and predicting an LO in
terms of symbols and concepts completely alien to those who want to
participate in these LOs.
Is it necessary to break these feedback loops? Well, I cannot offer
any better example than history itself. 400 years before Newton, even
before the renaissance, Roger Bacon of Oxford had the incredible
insight that physics will become of age when physicists use empirical
data rather than their every day concepts and also use mathematics
rather than their natural languages in the explication (formal
expression) of their physical systems.
It is wierd to think that when somebody is able to explain, describe
or predict a system in such a manner than almost nobody else are able
to follow it (so that the feedback loops can be broken), the
management of that system is ready to come of age. Think of Einstein
as an example. When somebody said to Eddington that only three people
understand Einstein's theory of relativity, he replied innocently "Who
is the third person". It is the same Eddignton who created the
description that "entropy is the arrow of time". Today we have nuclear
power (bombs or reactors) to attest that relativity theory has come to
age.
But please, let us not make a doctrine out of this symbolic-empirical
explication because then the wierdness will become a horror.
Consequently, when some people do succeed in this symbolic-empirical
explication, they have the immense responsibility to translate their
explication back into a natural language and commonly experienced
concepts. Obviously, there will always be people who will resist and
denigrate those who try to create such symbolic-empirical
explications, people who will oppose Roger Bacon's insight. It was
even like that in the days of Roger Bacon. He had to spend several
years in jail for his radical views.
>I think that Senge can be again of some help here. I will only
>refer two points.
>
>First, in the chapter "A sixth discipline?" he mentions the
>possibility of a sixth or even 7th discipline to be needed;
>how can we be sure that an eventual 6th discipline will not
>prove to be the "fundamental one"?
Arthur, you have expressed the possibility that Senge's explication may be
incomplete. Hence it will require an additional discipline. However, I
think that we must also consider the possibility which I have described
above, namely a completely different explication (formal expression) of
the LO. Whatever the case, the more we learn explicitly of LOs, the more
we will be able to manage them in terms of their implicate dynamics.
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 <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>