Replying to LO30806 --
Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Our host, Rick Karash, writes:
>
> >The Theory Underlying Organizational Learning
Rick, you and Ray both put many deep thoughts into the system at once.
That's a nice gift to us, but it may take time to assimilate.
> > 8. Living systems are structurally determined systems (Maturana).
> >That is, a wide range of stimuli can cause a living system to make a
> >response, but the nature of the response is determined by the internal
> >structure of the living system and not by the stimulus itself.
>
> Closed-loop feedback systems, I suppose. I think that's true of
> living systems. I'm not sure an organization qualifies as a living
> system. The people who populate it are but I'm not convinced the
> organization per se is.
Bob Williams, a colleague with whom Glenda Eoyang and I taught a
recent systems thinking workshop, would likely say, "There is no such
_thing_ as a system." (I think he's here somewhere; he can correct
any misimpressions I give of his thoughts.) That is, a system is a
mental or intellectual construct we create to make sense of reality.
We find people and frogs and chairs and trees and pencils and ... in
the world; we find systems in our heads. I think that's helpful to
avoid reification.
I think Kurt Lewin postulated that our responses are a function both
of ourselves and our environments (our internal structure and the
stimulus -- e.g.,
http://www.utexas.edu/coc/journalism/SOURCE/j363/lewin.html). Of
course, because he thought that doesn't make it right or wrong, but I
see a contrast in your statements.
If I look for a moment at a system as being modeled by a set of
differential equations (the system dynamics approach, at least if you
make them into integral equations), the response of that system has
two parts: a free response and a forced response. We get incredible
insight from looking at the free (internally generated) response, and
I think it has the good philosophical leverage of suggesting to us
that the world is under our control, that we aren't merely subject to
external forces.
Nonetheless, I think we can't understand the nature of the responses
we see (or generate) unless we take both the structure and the
stimulus into account.
Comments?
Bill
PS: Don't worry about appearing pompous. I see your posting as
evidence of searching for learning, not of pompousity.
--Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541
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.