<html>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>At 18:05 31-01-2001 -0500, Harrison
Owen wrote:</blockquote><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>But
on the question above... I know that every organization would like
to<br>
think that it is a "constrained system" -- therefore a
"closed system --<br>
and I AM IN CHARGE. Whoever "I" is. But I think the truth is
rather that<br>
there is no such thing as a closed system, particularly in the world
of<br>
organizations -- and so they are all self-organizing
systems.</blockquote></blockquote><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>At 11:58 PM 1/31/01 +0000, Artur
wrote:<br>
Sorry, Harrison, it is seams that I am arguing, but I have not
completely<br>
undestood your point.</blockquote><br>
Go for it -- Just good give and take!!! By the way, after I had
dispatched the last message, it occurred to me that what I intended
as a flippant/humorous tone might be taken seriously -- which would be a
disaster. To be clear, I am playfully serious. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>I was not claimng that a
"constrained system" is a closed one, and is not<br>
self-organized. I was only saying that there is a diference between
self<br>
organization at Open Systems, that are "constrained", and
therefore<br>
"close to equilibrium" (good or bad, that's not the question).
And self<br>
organization at Open System that are "far from equilibrium",
the ones<br>
where Chaos theory apply.<br>
<br>
After all, Prigogine studied thermodinamical systems that were far
from<br>
equilibrium and has discored chaos theory - that were not acting in<br>
systems at equlibrium or close to it.</blockquote><br>
I guess what I am suggesting is that the distinction between
<i>constrained</i> and <i>not constrained</i>, functionally considered,
is not all that much, or maybe nothing at all. I know the conventional
wisdom understands that in most organizations the job of management is to
keep things under control (constrained), and that when they do this,
supposedly they are doing a good job, witness the fact that the system is
apparently "close to equilibrium." On the other hand, when
things get out of control, the managers are fired, and clearly it is all
chaos ("far from equilibrium"). What I am suggesting is that
everything is a question of scale (fractal) and just when you think you
have eliminated all the chaos, it turns out that you weren't looking in
the right places (scale). Worse, since chaos is essential to life (it
provides the open space where new things grow), should management succeed
in its mission (eliminating chaos) it would fail -- the organization
would die. So -- shortly put -- If you think you have it all under
control, you don't. And thank God for that. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<div align="center">
Harrison Owen<br>
7808 River Falls Drive<br>
Potomac, MD 20854 USA<br>
phone 301-469-9269<br>
fax 301-983-9314<br>
Open Space Training
<a href="http://www.openspaceworld.com/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.com</a>
<br>
Open Space Institute <a href="http://www.openspaceworld.org/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.org</a><br>
Personal website <a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~owenhh" eudora="autourl">www.mindspring.com/~owenhh</a><br>
<br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u>OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU<br>
</u></font>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,<br>
view the archives of <font color="#0000FF"><u>oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu<br>
</u></font>Visit: <a href="http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html" eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html<br>
</a></font></u></div>
</html>