Self-organising complex marketing systems LO26682

From: Gavin Ritz (
Date: 05/12/01

Replying to LO26679 --

Dear At

AM de Lange wrote:

> Gavin Ritz <> writes:
> >I have combined many theories and models over
> >the years with At de Lange's model being my latest
> >inclusion. (must add that I was skeptical of it at first,
> >the jargon put me off a bit a bit biblical, but after
> >assessing what it all meant, agree with the
> >fundamentals).
> Greetings dear Gavin,
> I remember those times. And do you know what -- many fellow learners
> have learned a lot by following your sceptical questions -- perhaps more
> from you than from me in the issues involved.

I did not know that but if someone has learnt something and it helps them,
then it has been my pleasure to help.

> I cannot stress one thing enough. What I write is for questioning endlessly
> so as to aid the authentic learning of others. So I actually want to encourage
> sceptical questions once again, even from you. Nevertheless, whatever our
> questions, let us stay as close as possible to the spirit of learning.

I couldn't agree more. I had to find my way into your frame of reference,
by reading your articles and placing them in my mind to do their own
transformations and create entropy. Some of what you wrote is very
difficult to understand. However once I had unlocked your key (MONCAT
pattern) everything just clicked into place. Thank you for that.

> Another, perhaps not such a minor, issue is the following. What I express
> in writing is not a model, theory or even philosophy. Jan Smuts stressed
> up to the end that his holism is not a philosophy, but a "way of living".

I have read his book many, many times.

> I
> wonder how many ever understood what he had said. As for myself, the
> closest I would dare to describe what I am doing, is to call it the "art of
> deep creativity". Perhaps as art it is too crude, that for the deep it is too
> shallow and for the creativity it is too predictable since I imagine a too
> rich spectrum of authentic learners to care for. But I put my heart in it
> and get joy from doing it.
> As for "combined many theories and models over the years" which is
> clear to me, it is also clear to me that in terms of the "art of deep creativity"
> that you are operating in the "digestive phase" for a long time. It means
> that there is within your mind a seed crystal with such a degee of purity
> that it could sustain your digestive learning to such a massive crystal. It
> makes me wonder what that tiny seed crystal might be. You once wrote
> that your discovery of algedonic signals has been very important to you.
> Have you discovered these algedonic signals authentically (or did you
> import the idea from somewhere else). If this is the case, have you ever
> studied Hegel more closely, especially his wonderful first work
> "Phenomenology of the Mind".

Yes, I did discover them in myself, but did not discover them (there is
also nothing new in this concept, it has been studied for many years, I
attribute this work too many other people, Hegel being one of them). I do
not use the words algedonic signal (that belongs to S Beer). However the
pain- pleasure is only one part of the process.

I also recognise the algedonic signals now in all language, conversation,
and negotiations. It has given me a terrific tool to work with.

The model for this is attract-transform-repel in the abstract.

Yes Hegel has plenty to say about desire with a capital D. Very good
stuff. The attract part of the whole.

I have shared with you many times over the last year the formula and
pleased to share it again. The tension between our fear, losses, pain and
hopes, desires, yearnings, pleasures. This is how the pump works in the
mental realms. Physiologically mainly through the amygdala. I have mapped
all mans needs, desires, and fears and you may read about it on my
website, a down load file just above my name.

Also many psychologists and psychiatrists have written about the subject,
of pain -pleasure. Like James, R Fairbairn, Kohut, Kernberg, Mahler,
Winnicott and it forms part of object relations theory. I have just
adapted it for business purposes. As a recruiter some years ago was
frustrated with the unhelpful profiling tools on the market.

You have once written about logic and this plays an important role in the
whole. Each whole has a logic to it just like you described in one of your
threads some months ago. This set of logic has been mapped by Elliot
Jaques for business purposes as the Stratified systems theory. The linking
of logic to time horizons.

Another key thing is time and the whole: t1=input, t2=transform,
t3=output, t1+t2+t3 is the arrow of time from Eddington, the disorder from
Boltzman is the t2 part (transformation). Depending on how one draws
boundaries at the whole, entropy can look like disorder or
order-disorder-new order. I realized this when you said that entropy was a
measure of order and disorder. The shape entropy from the whole is really
(-new order (output)-[order (input)-transform (disorder)-new order
(output)]-order(input)-disorder (transform). In straight parenthasis.

In the mental realm time is not so simple but is also linked to the same
process. (input-convert-output). But here becomes an intensive variable
(kairos). The time of motivation (linked to the algedonic signal). Also
depicted by t1, t2 and t3. But the outputs are often not immediate and can
even take years to finally be repelled.



Gavin Ritz <>

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.