LC 00555: verschil tussen versies

Geen bewerkingssamenvatting
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting
 
(16 tussenliggende versies door 3 gebruikers niet weergegeven)
Regel 1: Regel 1:
The lessons learned from second-order cybernetics and Luhman’s social theory is that (human) systems have a function and their reason of being (''raison d’être'') is to sustain that function. This is again rather paradoxical. For a system to sustain its function, it has to change, otherwise, as we have seen, a system ceases to exist. A system has to become what it is not, and yet remain the same.
The lesson learned from {{Internal link|link=LC 00455|name=second-order cybernetics|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} and {{Internal link|link=LC 00458|name=Luhman’s social theory|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} is that (human) systems have a function and their reason of being (''raison d’être'') is to sustain that function. This is again rather paradoxical. For a system to sustain its function, it has to change, otherwise, as we have seen, a system ceases to exist. A system has to become what it is not, and yet remain the same.
 
<!-- {{Include lesson learned|Lesson learned=LL 00027|Description=Stakeholders' worldviews may differ.|Reference=LC 000346}} -->
{{Include lesson learned|Lesson learned=LL 00027|Description=Stakeholders' worldviews may differ.|Reference=LC 000346}}
{{Include WGTM statement
 
|WGTM Aspect=Tradition
In LoF terms, this means that there must be a difference, which means in this context that a (human) system has to adapt to changing conditions in its environment. By the way, this restates that a system cannot exist on its own. A system is dependent on its environment, which, from the standpoint of the system, is populated with other systems that induce changes in the environment again as a result of the need to sustain. It is indeed a reflexive domain. And it is safe to say that the constant factor in life is movement. We got to move!<blockquote>alles blijft, alles gaat voorbij, alles blijft voorbijgaan</blockquote><blockquote>everything stays, everything passes, everything keeps passing</blockquote>''Jules Deelder''
|WGTM Statement=A system has to become what it is not, and yet remain the same.
 
}}
{{Include lesson learned|Lesson learned=LL 00029|Description=Stakeholders' worldviews may differ.|Reference=LC 000346}}
In {{Internal link|link=LC 00454|name=Laws of Form|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}} (LoF) terms, this means that there must be a difference, which means in this context that a (human) system has to adapt to changing conditions in its environment. By the way, this restates that a system cannot exist on its own. A system is dependent on its environment, which, from the standpoint of the system, is populated with other systems that induce changes in the environment again as a result of the need to sustain. It is indeed a reflexive domain. And it is safe to say that the constant factor in life is movement. We got to move!<blockquote>alles blijft, alles gaat voorbij, alles blijft voorbijgaan</blockquote><blockquote>everything stays, everything passes, everything keeps passing</blockquote>''Jules Deelder''
 
<!-- {{Include lesson learned|Lesson learned=LL 00029|Description=Stakeholders' worldviews may differ.|Reference=LC 000346}} -->
The connection between this conception of change and EM<sub>ont</sub> can be found in the PQR formula. Recall that in SSM a sharp distinction is made between the ''P–what'' and the ''Q–how''. The ''P–what'' and the ''R–why'' can be seen as the reason of being. The ''Q–how’s'' are observable, they are particular ways of doing things. A Q, a way of doing things, may be replaced by another Q due to changes in the environment in order to stick to the P-R reason of being.
{{Include WGTM statement
|WGTM Aspect=Reflexive Domain
|WGTM Statement=The constant factor in life is movement.
}}
The connection between this conception of change and EM<sub>ont</sub> can be found in the {{Internal link|link=LC 00479|name=PQR formula|dialog=process-linkpage-dialog}}. Recall that in SSM a sharp distinction is made between the ''P–what'' and the ''Q–how''. The ''P–what'' and the ''R–why'' can be seen as the reason of being. The ''Q–how’s'' are observable, they are particular ways of doing things. A Q, a way of doing things, may be replaced by another Q due to changes in the environment in order to stick to the P-R reason of being.


The relation between P-R and Q is explored to investigate the possibilities and limitations of change. Three options for change can be identified:
The relation between P-R and Q is explored to investigate the possibilities and limitations of change. Three options for change can be identified:
 
* Same Q – same P-R, but with differences in the environment as manifested in changes in environmental conditions;
·        Same Q – same P-R, but with differences in the environment as manifested in changes in environmental conditions;
* Different Q – same P-R, a more radical way of adapting to environmental changes by adopting a different way of doing things;
 
* Different P-R, the system is in transition from one reason of being to another one, or more formally, a system is replaced by another one. It could be the case that a system ceases to exist altogether, if no new reason of being can be found.
·        Different Q – same P-R, a more radical way of adapting to environmental changes;
 
·        Different P-R, the system is in transition from one reason of being to another one, or more formally, a system is replaced by another one. It could be the case that a system ceases to exist altogether, if no new reason of being can be found.


Due to the in principle endless recursiveness of the PQR formula as used in EM<sub>ont</sub>, overlap between the three options is possible. For instance, in a large organization comprised of several units, a particular unit can be assigned a different task, although the company as a whole remains doing the same things. The three options can thus been seen as typical patterns to be used and combined as (mental) tools to think about change.
Due to the in principle endless recursiveness of the PQR formula as used in EM<sub>ont</sub>, overlap between the three options is possible. For instance, in a large organization comprised of several units, a particular unit can be assigned a different task, although the company as a whole remains doing the same things. The three options can thus been seen as typical patterns to be used and combined as (mental) tools to think about change.
Regel 25: Regel 26:
|Toppage=Other
|Toppage=Other
|Sequence number=100000
|Sequence number=100000
|Sequence numbers=;
|Sequence numbers=LC_00571,100000;LC_00572,200000;LC_00573,300000;
|Context type=Situation
|Context type=Situation
|Heading=Exploring Change
|Heading=Exploring Change
|Show referred by=Nee
|Show edit button=Ja
|Show edit button=Ja
|Show VE button=Ja
|Show VE button=Ja
|Show title=Ja
|Show title=Ja
|EMM access control=Access:We got to move,
}}
}}
{{LC Book additional
{{LC Book additional
|Preparatory reading=
|Preparatory reading=LC 00512,
|Continue reading=
|Continue reading=LC 00571,
}}<accesscontrol>Access:We got to move</accesscontrol>
}}

Huidige versie van 10 nov 2021 om 17:54

The lesson learned from second-order cybernetics and Luhman’s social theory is that (human) systems have a function and their reason of being (raison d’être) is to sustain that function. This is again rather paradoxical. For a system to sustain its function, it has to change, otherwise, as we have seen, a system ceases to exist. A system has to become what it is not, and yet remain the same.




Statement: A system has to become what it is not, and yet remain the same.

Aspect: Tradition, Principle: We got to move, Principle page: Principles and Ground Rules

Statement pageStatement
Exploring ChangeA system has to become what it is not, and yet remain the same.
Some-thing from No-thingThe relationship between things, including humans, is what matters. Something or someone cannot stand or be taken on its own.

Principles, aspects and statements overview

In Laws of Form (LoF) terms, this means that there must be a difference, which means in this context that a (human) system has to adapt to changing conditions in its environment. By the way, this restates that a system cannot exist on its own. A system is dependent on its environment, which, from the standpoint of the system, is populated with other systems that induce changes in the environment again as a result of the need to sustain. It is indeed a reflexive domain. And it is safe to say that the constant factor in life is movement. We got to move!

alles blijft, alles gaat voorbij, alles blijft voorbijgaan

everything stays, everything passes, everything keeps passing

Jules Deelder




Statement: The constant factor in life is movement.

Aspect: Reflexive Domain, Principle: We got to move, Principle page: Principles and Ground Rules

Statement pageStatement
Exploring ChangeThe constant factor in life is movement.
Self-Reference in a Three-Valued SystemEmbrace the paradox, i.e., a difference in what was previously stated and therefore contradicting what was said before. Differences keep setting things in motion. Without differences we cease to exist. Therefore, change is inevitable, in fact, it is a necessity for living.
The Autopoietic TurnHumans and social systems operate autonomously and my react when irritated.

Principles, aspects and statements overview

The connection between this conception of change and EMont can be found in the PQR formula. Recall that in SSM a sharp distinction is made between the P–what and the Q–how. The P–what and the R–why can be seen as the reason of being. The Q–how’s are observable, they are particular ways of doing things. A Q, a way of doing things, may be replaced by another Q due to changes in the environment in order to stick to the P-R reason of being.

The relation between P-R and Q is explored to investigate the possibilities and limitations of change. Three options for change can be identified:

  • Same Q – same P-R, but with differences in the environment as manifested in changes in environmental conditions;
  • Different Q – same P-R, a more radical way of adapting to environmental changes by adopting a different way of doing things;
  • Different P-R, the system is in transition from one reason of being to another one, or more formally, a system is replaced by another one. It could be the case that a system ceases to exist altogether, if no new reason of being can be found.

Due to the in principle endless recursiveness of the PQR formula as used in EMont, overlap between the three options is possible. For instance, in a large organization comprised of several units, a particular unit can be assigned a different task, although the company as a whole remains doing the same things. The three options can thus been seen as typical patterns to be used and combined as (mental) tools to think about change.
























Overgenomen van "https://acpt.projectenportfolio.hz.nl/wiki/index.php?title=LC_00555&oldid=83775"