Replying to LO26652 --
"Dressler, Winfried" wrote:
> 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"?
I am just using the standard meaning of marketing, and not adding any
extra's too it.
> "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.
How correct you are. Demand side commerce. Demand can create a new whole
and that happens all the time. When an entrepreneur sees a demand he will
cleverly create a whole ( a firm) with its output to meet that demand.
> 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.
Wow Winfried, that is correct. the XYZ of business is exactly the same
thing but not spontaneous.
I am actually an engineer and in the process of setting up a Mercury
Cadmium Telluride (HgCdTe) semiconductor plant. But remember I am using
XYZ as the whole, but what you are saying is correct. XYZ (whole) Hg with
ABC (whole) Cd and PQR (whole) Te gives a totally new compound (MCT) that
is not divisible to Hg, or Cd, or Te. I now have a piece of metal that can
detect infrared. But Hg, Cd, or Te can't.
I won't be able to animate it though, pity because some Russian scientist
says he has created a parallel processing, bi conditional, self
replicating computer. I am watching in anticipation, if this is so I want
to build one too. But I am keen on re-growing limbs though. There must be
a way to trick the underlying energy fields to re-create living matter
from the wholes of the nerves, muscle cells etc.
> 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?
I am not using X and Z like that, X is the input, Y is the commutator, or
transformer and Z is the output. So you are XYZ and I am ABC A=X, Y=B,
Z=C. then we are two wholes chatting. X=tube, Y =pump, Z=tube. I then
communicate with you, you take in (input X) what I say then transform it
in your mind (Y), then put it out (Z). However your output might not agree
with mine because your transformer has a different frame of reference and
so on. These things apply to matter, life and mind X, Y and Z can be
abstract or concrete.
Gavin Ritz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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.