<html>
Some notes on Winston and Harrison's comments:<br>
<br>
At 01:14 18-10-2001, Winston Kinch wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>Artur wrote:
"...</font>the main point I think that must be reviewed is the
principle "whatever happens is the only thing that
should..."<br>
I thought it was "could have" (not that this necessarily helps
much, but still different I think...) </blockquote><br>
Yes, you are right, Winston. My mistake, sorry.<br>
<br>
It's interesting because after translating the correct version (with
"could")<br>
to Portuguese, then when retranslating it back to English I always get
<br>
"should" instead of "could", due to the overal
meaning of the sentence.<br>
My bad English, probably. <br>
<br>
But I think the rest of the argument still aplies. That doesn't mean that
<br>
I am "sure" that my conclusion is the correct one - only that
when I <br>
change "would" for "could" the same argument can be
applied, in its<br>
general terms, I think.<br>
<br>
At 15:50 18-10-2001, Harrison Owen wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>At 12:35 AM 10/18/01 +0100, Artur wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>5.5. Hence, organizations and countries live
in constrained situations, and <br>
at the social level the self-organization of Open systems rarely apply,
because <br>
we face closed or constrained systems. <br>
<br>
6. So, for me, Open Space and/or OST happen only in situations where
<br>
those "normal" constraints are removed or circunvened - or
where constraints <br>
are accepted as constrains to deal with, and not as "givens" to
please the <br>
sponsors.</blockquote><br>
Which brings me to the whole notion of a "closed system."
Such a system never existed. The notion was first generated in a
laboratory environment in an effort to control variables in an
experiment. </blockquote><br>
I agree with you, Harrison. Indeed I tried to avoid the notion of
"closed system"<br>
(as they don't exist) and use always "constrained systems" (but
one "closed" <br>
skipped my attention ;-((<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Then some young kid comes along and says the
old dude is buck naked.<br>
<br>
The "young kid" in this case was all those wild folks who
developed Chaos Theory</blockquote><br>
Chaos Theory was born from the study of "situations far from
equilibrium". <br>
It doesn't mean that chaos theory can always be applied and one has
<br>
to know when it is correct to apply it or not.<br>
<br>
Maybe we are today in a situation "far from equilibrium" and
that's why <br>
(maybe) we can apply Chaos theory to it and that is also the reason
why<br>
one can say that we live today in a "transformative moment".
But not all <br>
situations and moments are like that...<br>
<br>
And, no, I don't think that all systems are trully open - some are <br>
severally constrained. I understand that the "informal system"
is <br>
always working, and you gave in one of your books a very good <br>
example of how it works. But I claim that even the informal system <br>
can be severally constrained.<br>
<br>
Two examples:<br>
<br>
1. de Geus showed in "The Living Company" (and before in his
first <br>
HBR article) that long living companies - that work like open systems -
are <br>
a small minority and the majority of companies don't live for centuries
but <br>
only for 20-30 years, including many of Fortune 500 ones. He claims that
<br>
those companies have severe learning disabilities (maybe specially in
<br>
"unlearning", I agree). I think that one can say that those
companies <br>
are "constrained" and not "fully open".<br>
<br>
2. The same is true about a country. Maybe that is not obvious in
USA,<br>
but it is clear here in a small, not very developed country, with a
strong<br>
Catholic tradition. We are constrained in any decision we would like
to<br>
take. In fact it is not worth while to vote in elections here. To have
any <br>
influence in Portuguese affairs it would be more useful to vote in the
USA <br>
elections ;-)<br>
<br>
And even more than us are the under-developed countries
constrained.<br>
The French (Marxist) economist Charles Bettelheim showed in the
60's<br>
that the notion of under-developed countries (and that is even more true
<br>
of the concept - or is it a fraud? - of "developing countries")
is wrong, <br>
as it assumes that those countries can be developed like the others.
<br>
In fact "under-developed countries" are exploited countries,
with a <br>
distorted economy, that will never (except for some exceptions <br>
that confirm the rule) be "developed". For them to develop
would imply <br>
to change the relations they have with the developed countries - indeed
<br>
(my words) to destroy the economy of the developed countries. And <br>
that is what they are trying... <br>
<br>
A final comments - is any one out there a reader of Science
Fiction?<br>
If so (or not) I strongly recommend Isaac Azimov's initial trilogy on
<br>
"Foundation", of 1951-53 (later, in the 80's more 3 books have
been <br>
published). The initial ones are "Foundation", "Foundation
and <br>
Empire" and "The Second Foundation". They describe how the
<br>
"Inter-Galactic Empire", that lasted for thousands of years,
was <br>
destroyed from the interior and what happened latter.... Much more <br>
interesting, and maybe "real", than the news on TV...<br>
<br>
Have a nice week end<br>
<br>
Artur<br>
</html>