Self-organising complex marketing systems LO26687

From: Gavin Ritz (
Date: 05/17/01

Replying to LO26672 --

Hi Winfried

"Dressler, Winfried" wrote:

> the spontaneity of self-organizing is your concern, right?:

Nope, no organisation can be spontaneous, one has to apply logic and work
to it. The definition of organization work is mental concentration over

> >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.

I am joking Winfried.

> Well, I can only beg you to take care of the essentialities, not only as
> requirements but also as demand. For example if spareness is impaired in
> the self replication, this computer may grow like cancer. And if it then
> does not obey Asimov's fundamental "Laws of Robotics":
> First Law:
> A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human
> being to come to harm.
> Second Law:
> A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders
> would conflict with the First Law.
> Third Law:
> A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not
> conflict with the First or Second Law.

Yes, Asimov was one of my most favorite Authors. good stuff.

> (cited from: )
> then good night and see you in the "Matrix"... ;-()

Very good.

> >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.
> I understand. So in your picture, wholes are built from parts, which are
> not wholes in themselves.

You have the incorrect picture, wholes are always from wholes, see my
discussion on recursion in one of the other threads. That picture can be
applied to the human body where the next whole is a recursion down and up.
I think you have a planar approach, which is not quite correct. This is
where bifurcations come in but lets not go there tonight.

> I think this is the reason, why your wholes do
> not emerge spontanously.

A organization can never be spontaneous but organic things can (See
Prigogine End of Certainty, )

> Those parts have to be designed and fit together
> nonspontanously by an outside "creator" or engineer, as I would prefer in
> this context. Even "thinking" as a transformation of input-information
> into output-information need to be designed by a kind of "mind-engineer"
> in this picture, right?

This is correct all organizations are engineered, to the requirements of
mind. But its like this. input-transformation-output.

All business have only two forms, they are either pumps or transformers or
a hybrid.

> My understanding of wholeness requires spontanous wholes as parts to form
> more complex wholes spontanously, when the necessary (enough free energy)
> and sufficiency (essentialities) requirements are met. Thus in the XYZ
> pattern, each X, Y and Z need to be wholes in themselves. This is my view,
> because I do not agree to your last assertion:

In an organizational sense X and Z are not wholes, that is correct. But
neither are they in spontaneous systems the wholes are a recursion up and
down in so-called pertuity.

Warren MaCulloch says that Y the transfer function is an eighth order non
linear differential equation.

> >These things apply to matter, life and mind X, Y and Z can be
> >abstract or concrete.
> Your view may apply to matter, if handled by an engineer. When applied to
> life and mind in an engineering way I am afraid this would cost the system
> its spontaneity of self-organizing.

No man made systems are spontaneous in that sense that is why I joked
about the Russian scientist.



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.