Self-organizing, et al.

[ralphsc]

Wow, this is really juicy, this self-organization/complex adaptive system stuff.

In the interest of clarity, I must say I have not read Jay Vogt's comment with the David Whyte quotes, but I was moved by what Birgitt said and made curious by the relative silence on the topic since then (except, of course, for Jay).

I don't know what I've read that speaks to these topics.  The books on Chaos lose me on about  page 3.  I love to say stuff like "complex adaptive system" and "morpho-genetic field."  It's the verbal equivalent of eating crunchy carrots.  I confess I'm pretty clueless about the actual meaning.of such phrases.

But it seems like Birgitt is experiencing the same soreness I get when I bump up against some of these ideas, and far be it for me to leave a friend in distress, so a couple of thoughts that have helped me...

I, too, have wondered why volumes are written about simple things.  Like sex, for example.  Whenever I get to feeling somebody has gone and deliberately confused us, I do two things:

1. I look into the eyes of my pussy cat.  Guaranteed to help.
2. I recall the statement by the late American judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes.  He said, "I don't give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."

Here is what else I have thought in reflection on Birgitt's (and Harrison's) words on this.

The only truly self-organizing system is the universe.  Everything else is literally a sub-set of that.  If this is true, it means that whenever we open space for folks, we're tapping resources from the pre-existing system and offering them an opportunity to adapt and reflect on themselves.  If they do something as a result, so be it: it's an adaptive response.   Every time we do OS, we're serving the larger pre-existing system, which we assume is capable of adaptivity.

What powers the original universe?  Beats me.  The Big Bang produced a rather large, rather lasting booster shot, but what gave rise to that?  Some say it was God's intention.  Cosmologists say everything came out of that original explosion.  If so, then opening space is just another strategy the universe uses to keep on creating, keep on diversifying, keep on giving each of us subjective experience, keep on showing us how we need each other.  Thus, inside every opened space may be a drop of cosmic fuel which juices the deal and keeps it moving. Do we really need, then, all the technique and philosophy of OS?

I certainly think I need the parts I use of it.  But will I always?  Can I pare away pieces here and there as people increasingly get it?  Less is definitely more.  But how far does that go?  If you go all the way to "nothing," does it become "everything"?  Perhaps Harrison is saying this: if we get rid of the "technique" of OST over time, i.e. gradually delete the use of posters, specially-marked bulletin walls, post-it notes, carefully-worded openings, talking sticks, the law of two feet, etc. then maybe all that will remain when people gather to talk about something they care about is a bit of galactic petrol ­ and maybe that's all we need, once we have communally absorbed the wisdom of the four principles, the circle, etc.  Oliver Wendell Holmes may have understood something of this..

I'm told that the Hindu religion promotes the having of sex.  Have all you want, so that you can get past it and break through to the point where you move beyond it, to another plane. We should all be so lucky.

Ralph Copleman

>From  Thu Mar  4 08:33:36 1999
Message-Id: <THU.4.MAR.1999.083336.0800.>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 08:33:36 -0800
Reply-To: rholloway at outsights.com
To: OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
From: Richard Charles Holloway <learnshops at thresholds.com>
Organization: Thresholds for Human Development
Subject: Re: Self-organizing, et al.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Ralph...

you are a self-organizing system.  you don't need to go beyond your "self" to find a complex adaptive system either.  I won't write about CAS here...perhaps I can just say that the terms CAS and living systems are nearly synonymous, just not quite.

About living systems, two cognitive scientists, named Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, put together a very readable book (the Tree of Knowledge) that presents the work that they've done in this area.

 Fritjof Capra's "Web of Life" explores the development of scientific thought up to our present time (late 90's), and synthesizes the scientific contributions of Maturana, Varela, Ilya Prigogine and many others and applies that synthesis to formulate his definition of living systems.  Capra is a physicist.

Meg Wheatley synthesizes scientific information from an OD perspective.  Her capstone work "Leadership & the new science" was inspired by Capra's earlier effort, "The Turning Point."  Like many, I read and was impressed by Wheatley's book...I then read Capra's 3 books (those mentioned, plus the Tao of Phsyics), which led me back to Maturana/Varela, Prigogine, etc.  I simply mention this to put Wheatley's timely and influential book into perspective as a very narrow synthetical application of very elegant and important scientific discovery.

Maturana and Varela define organisms and societies as "metasystems," and suggest that the different degrees of metasystems can be determined by their degrees of autonomy within their components.  For instance, within a human body, a heart has no autonomy to act as a kidney or bladder.  So, organisms like you and I are metasystems of components with little or no autonomy.  Human societies (an open space is a subset of that metasystem) have maximum autonomy of components.

On a different scale...let's say of how people organize themselves to make decisions about what's important to them...lectures and seminars might be at one end of that scale (less autonomy) and open space would be at the other end (more autonomy of individual participants).

 Capra takes Maturana's concept a bit further and suggests that communities may exhibit the characteristics of living systems.  Wheatley says (or implies) that communities/organizations may be developing as organic entities.  That's probably simplifying an elegant concept and turning it into a metaphor.

While it doesn't really matter to many people about the "way" we model what we observe, thinking about organizations and communities as living systems presents some interesting insights.

Capra posits 3 criteria of life.  Here, in a nutshell, are those critieria (by the way, "autopoiesis" is a term coined by Maturana; Prigogine coined the term, "dissipative structures"):

The pattern of life, or autopoiesis: a self-making network pattern in which the function of each component is to participate in the production or transformation of other components in the network.  The network is organizationally closed, though it is open to the flow of energy and matter.  Its order and behavior are not imposed but established by the system itself.  It is autonomous, while interactive with its environment through a continual exchange of energy and matter.  Their continual self-making includes the ability to form new structures or patterns of behavior.  The network is a set of relations among processes of production of components.  They must continuously regenerate themselves to maintain their organization. (This is the self-organizing criteria)

Dissipative structure—the structure of living systems: a system that is structurally open but organizationally closed.  Matter continuously flows through it, but the system maintains a stable form, and does so through self-organization.  The structure’s stability relies on the catalytic loops in the system’s autopoietic network that act as self-balancing feedback loops.  These catalytic cycles may also act as self-amplifying feedback loops, which may push the system away from equilibrium until it reaches a threshold of stability.  Beyond this threshold is the bifurcation point—a point of instability at which new forms of order may emerge spontaneously, resulting in development and evolution.  A living dissipative structure needs a continual flow of air, water and food from the environment
through the system in order to stay alive and maintain its order.  The network of processes keeps the system far from equilibrium and through the feedback loops gives rise to bifurcations, and thus to development and evolution. (This is the criteria that integrates change--or chaos--and stability.  The vortex funnel of the whirlpool in the bathtub is the example that Prigogine used to illustrate a dissipative structure).

Cognition—the process of life: the organizing activity of a living organism is mental activity.  The interactions of a living organism with its environment are cognitive, or mental, interactions.  Life and cognition are inseparably connected.  Mind is the essence of being alive.  Cognition includes perception, emotion, action, thinking, language, conceptual thinking and all the other attributes of human consciousness.  The entire dissipative structure participates in the cognition process.  The soul, or spirit, is the breath of life.  Cognition is a continual bringing forth of a world through the process of living.  To live is to know.  Cognition (the life process) consists of all activities involved in the continual embodiment of the system’s (autopoietic) pattern of organization in a
physical (dissipative) structure.  (This is the connectivity criteria)


So...without the ability to offer scientific proof for my choice, I have chosen to consider communities and complex organizations within the context of these 3 criteria.  I choose to think in terms of how I can facilitate the integration of this autonomous entity (you or I) within a living metasystem (community or organization).

As an autonomous individual involved with organizational change, I look to influence pattern, structure and process -- specifically to facilitate a process which engages a set of purposes that others and I might find personally meaningful.  This core purpose set, when shared with the others (process or cognitive development) can generate a self-making network (pattern) if there is a structure within which we can sustain ourselves.  The structure allows maximum autonomy...the pattern generates and regenerates our relationships around our activities...the process keeps us aligned and on purpose.

well... this was longer than I had intended.  I hope it was helpful or informative...it always helps me tell this story again.

regards,

Doc Holloway
an OS List lurker

--
"If you pay attention at every moment, you form a new relationship to time.  In some magical way, by slowing down, you become more efficient, productive, and energetic, focusing without distraction directly on the task in front of you.  Not only do you become immersed in the moment, you become that moment."  -Michael Ray

Thresholds <http://www.thresholds.com>
Meeting Masters <http://www.thresholds.com/masters.html>
Richard Charles Holloway - P.O. Box 641, Long Beach, WA 98631
Voice 360.642.8487 ICQ# 10849650