At 08:17 PM 9/7/98 -0500, tom abeles wrote:
>What we have forgotten here is that Kaufman's work is based on abstract
>1's and 0's whereas the systems under consideration are composed of
>humans.
Pardon me, but that was hardly forgotten. In fact, it was pointed it out,
as well as the fact that Kauffman is working with economists who are
applying complexity theory to human economics. Kauffman also points out
that the idea of patches may be a good explanation of why states' rights
contribute to an efficient political structure. Economics is using models
based on complexity to cope with adaptation behaviors, which is turning
economics on its ear, since it was previously limited to brainless
optimizing behaviors.
>This is the great issue- why worry about a learning organizaion if the
>organization can be reduced to a model?
You're using the model backwards, criticizing it for not applying in ways
that it shouldn't and failing to apply it where it does. The mistake is
to equate one model with truth by trying to test it out of context. As
Kauffman and others make pains to point out, one needs to figure out if
the model is adequate to the purpose at hand. For example,
electromagnetism can be modeled as a wave or as a particle. When you're
looking at its wave properties, there's no reason to criticize the model
of it as a particle and vice-versa. All you do is demonstrate a
misunderstanding of the model's purpose.
Nick
[Host's Note: Hmm... So, let's go back to what we might learn from looking
at things through this model. ...Rick]
--Nick Arnett <listbot@mccmedia.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>