Self-organising complex marketing systems LO26652

From: Dressler, Winfried (
Date: 05/08/01

Replying to LO26640 --

Gavin writes in reply to John's advocacy:

>> First, I seek marketing not as a discipline, but as a whole. Most of
>> what manufacturing organizations do can be subsumed under marketing.
>That's precisely what the problem is. One of the best exercises ever done
>with this, was by Stafford Beer in the Heart Of Enterprise.
>Identification of the whole and its elements. Page 417, Identity an
>exercise. If this doesn't blow your socks off nothing will.

As I agreed to John, I agree to Gavin as well.

Is it possible that John and Gavin have two different understandings of
the meaning of the word "marketing"?

"Marketing" in the way I understand John, and to which I agree, is a way a
company as a whole operates. Marketing then is a name of the identity, the
culture, the way of thinking and doing or not doing things.

"Marketing" in the way I understand Gavin, and to which I also agree,
depending on context, is a special support function like the service
provided by a marketing department. Marketing then is never a whole "black
box" on any recursion level.

Applying Stafford Beer's Heart of Enterprize (thank you Gavin for the
hint, I enjoyed it very much) to both "marketing" terms lead to the
following: In the second case marketing is not a whole, as Gavin suggested
the identity test to make sure. But what about the first case? I dare to
argue that the adoption of the viable systems model as a whole is driven
by awareness of marketing in the first sense.

Gavin, later you write:
>The definition of a whole is this. Z(n) attached to X*Y*Z attached to X(n).
>where X, Y and Z is the whole. With;
>1) in the concrete X becomes (or has the potential) Z through the
>transformation at Y.
>2) or in the abstract X becomes (or has the potential) Z through the
>transformation at Y.
>notice the output Z(n) of another whole is attached to the input (X) of
>XYZ whole and the output Z is attached to the input X(n) of another whole
>so on and so on.
>X=inputs, flow1, supply , Y= transformation, mixed flow, converter, Z=
>outputs, new flow2, demand.

May I call this the "tube-pump-tube-paradigm of wholeness"? I would like
to do so, because I have a different paradigm in mind and wonder where
these two meet? I could call mine the H2-paradigm or the
"proton-electron-proton-paradigm of wholeness": Two protons X and Z, which
are complex wholes in themselves, commute by means of the less complex
electron pair as Y to form an even more complex whole, the hydrogen
molecule. For this complexifying transformation process H+H->H2 to take
place, an increase in wholeness is requisite, like all other six E's as
you will see easily (effective collision - fruitfullness, otherness of
electron and proton etc.) Are you suggesting to view 'H+H' as X, '->' as Y
and 'H2' as Z instead? I must admit I have difficulties with this.

Well, I am not an engineer and you are not a physicist, so lets meet on
neutral ground. In my paradigm, you Gavin as a complex whole X and I
Winfried also as a complex whole Z meet in this LO-list and commute by
exchanging ideas as less complex wholes Y. We may complexify in a learning
couple by sharing our ideas or we may part again should impaired
essentialities not allow for such complexification. How would this setting
read in your "tube-pump-tube" image?




"Dressler, Winfried" <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.