Replying to LO26706 --
Jan Lelie wrote:
> Good morning processors, let us instruct.
> why is process like a structure? (Because, see u c a b in both ;-) -
> because there is a vice in versa? -).
> As always i feel the urge to "activate" the nouns.
That is the issue, the nouns are the structures but there are no verbs so
they are static.
> To process structures,
> to structure processes, processing structure, structuring processes,
> processing structuring, structuring processing. See the cat? See the
> I value the System Archetypes discipline just because:
> 1. one can describe the structure of the processes and
I think this is one of the archetypes main problem, there is no structure.
What is interesting is that the variables that are created only have a
logic that is useful to maximum five year span.
> 2. while processing the structure of the process the structuring becomes
This is the part that most concerns me about ST, is that there is really
no underlying structure that I can identify at all. Structure and process
are closely aligned e.g. (XYZ) with input x becoming z by transformation
at Y with structure (XYZ) tube-pump-tube. That is the content fits inside
the form. This is in my opinion is the most critical issue in complexity
and systems thinking which systems thinking ignores.
gavin, with friendly greetings. (a direct translation of your Dutch)
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.