Unorg philosophy LO16274
JAMES_H_CARRINGTON@HP-Chelmsford-om1.om.hp.com
Tue, 16 Dec 97 17:10:09 -0500
In LO16239 At de Lange wrote:
>Much of what you written, applies to conditions far from equilibrium.
>Thus much of your theory will be proven in such conditions. However,
>little of it will be proveable in conditions close to equilibrium.
>Thus it will be a sad if your insights are discounted because they
>were applied to situations in which they are not applicable.
>In fact, it will be very, very sad because, after all, we are of one
>world. Although different regions of this world act differently, we
>are all speeding to the great showdown or grand bifurcation in about
>fifty years from now. It is our grandchildren which will have to keep
>a cool mind in those days. And if we disqualify our insights by
>applying them where they cannot be applied, they will have so much
>more confusion from which to recover.
>What exactly will be the nature of this showdown? Nature complexifies
>itself by the production of entropy, following the route of a MINIMAL
>production. Human culture is also complexifying itself by the
>production of entropy, however, following the route of a MAXIMAL
>production. The showdown will be between nature and culture. Human
>culture will have to give in - your unorganisation on a scale so vast
>that it sends shivers down my spine. The sooner we realise it, the
>better it will be for our grandchildren.
I am reminded of the current situation in the former Soviet Union -
Clearly born of the heinous static structure against which Simon
rails. That environment is a clear example of a rigid structure turned
into a destabilizing force. Had the planners of Soviet Communism
enabled their system for evolution, they might very well still be in
existence today. For much the same reason, the United States has
survived.
Indeed it is the most adaptable systems on this planet which have
survived and profligated. Am I wrong, or does this not epitomize the
unorg philosophy? The ability to adapt and change as the need to
survive dictates? It seems to me that this is not possible with rigid
structure.
Even Simon, however, conceded the necessity for rigid structure where
the situation warrants, giving Air Traffic Control as an example. But
even here, there is a certain level of collapsibility. Aircraft with
emergency situations are given precedence no matter what the
conditions. Military aircraft are given priority in times of war.
The point is that there are exceptions to every rule. We have to make
allowances for the situations that occur outside of our structure. It
would seem that the less structured a system is, the more likely it
will be able to adapt to changing forces.
I echo At's lament, although it goes against my general optimism and
faith in human nature. If we can show that we need to destructure
(unorganize) our world to allow for and adapt to this impending
conflict between cultures, then the clash might not be so devastating
to the worlds cultures and economies. I too get a shiver every time I
hear of a conflict based upon the inability of one side to understand
the other, particularly when it involves persecution of spirituality
rooted in the intolerance of a rigidly structured society.
"If we are to have peace on earth, ...our loyalties must transcend our
race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must
develop a world perspective. No individual can live alone, no nation
can live alone and as long as we try, the more we are going to have
war in this world. We must either learn to live together as brothers
or we are all going to die as fools." - Martin Luther King
jhc
--
JAMES_H_CARRINGTON@HP-Chelmsford-om1.om.hp.com
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com>
Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>