To: Valence and the MOQ
From: Rog
Re: The Q
Valence has asked me to resend the unanswered questions. I cut and pasted
from two of my posts to Clay and Davor. I also inserted most of Davor's
original post. Below is the Q, followed by two specific challenges to the Q
and my as yet unanswrered "rebuttals." Input from any and all is encouraged.
THE Q
What do the patterns of higher quality have that those of destruction, decay
and disorder don't?
CLAY's position:
Again, isnt decay and destruction just retrograde
growth and construction having at its core the same impetus?
ROG's inquiry:
I don't know. Why do you say this? Do you believe it? Would you care to
support it?
DAVOR's position:
A high quality pattern can be destructive, chaotic or
decaying(?)!!! (see the full text of his message below)
ROG's rebuttal:
Can it? Is it the destructiveness and disorder that created this high
quality, or is it higher quality DESPITE destruction/disorder?
Implicit in the question is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds true.
Your tree maintains a high quality biological pattern despite constantly
decaying. But decay is not the pattern of quality. Is it?
As for your "disordered organization" example, it again makes the point.
These innovative management techniques are not designed to destroy the
organization, they are designed to destroy static patterns and replace them
with dynamic, flexible adaptive patterns. This is not disorder, this is
reorder. I 110% agree that quality patterns have to be on the edge of chaos.
They ARE high quality and they last not because they resist change, but that
they embrace and thrive upon change.
And your destruction examples also make the point. Certainly it is of low
quality to destoy living cells, however, if these bacteria threaten more
complex animals then we view it as of quality to kill the "germ". The
highest quality position imo though is to protect against the germ doing
harm, but NOT destroying the bacteria. Destruction is not good unless it is
to protect from even greater destruction. But this just makes my point.
Your destruction of totalitarian govts and dogmatic ideas is another example
of not destruction, but reconstruction. You are not suggesting destroying
all government, but of replacing it with a better one, one which better
supports high quality and avoids...destruction, decay and disorder. The same
with the dogmatic idea being replaced with a more flexible and dynamic view.
******************************************************************
DAVOR's full text:
A high quality pattern can be destructive, chaotic or
decaying(?)!!!
A few examples;
Decay;
When it is true(I actually wonder why I use the word true so much, why even
care) that high quality patterns differ from low quality patterns by means
that they survive(which I think is not necesarry for backing up my argument,
it still stands if it just differs in the way that it is decaying) then a
tree is clearly a really ''low-high quality ambivelancy'' of the first order
isn't it? it survives while it decays every year, it needs to!
Disorder;
Disorder is not the contrary of high quality, it is creativity, when there
is no disorder there is no creativity and no high or low quality(bluntly
put)and no freedom. Ok arguments; This might sound a bit uncredential but
credentials are for people who have nothing original to offer so here I go;
by research from Bahlmann(Erasmus university, The Netherlands) and
Meesters(Alons & partners0 who did research on innovative management
discovered the following characteristics of organisations which are
chaotically oriented in crisis situations;
1. In the organisations there is an atmosphere that is characterised by a
collective interest in the generic strategy
2. Top mangament determines processes, but not alone!
3. Structure is simple, autonomy is highly evolved.
4. Organiz(s)ational culture is complex, still chaotic, and allows for
criticism and discussion
5. The organisation redefine their relationships and see their value
Not very bad eh, even high quality!
Organisations(cultures) tend to be closed systems, it's a ''status
naturalis'' or maybe just a habit I don't know but disorder in some way
seems to go beyond this closed systems. It offers more ways to integrate
strategy and identity, need more thought on this how this would be
explained in psychology. It's about integrating who you are and what you
want I'm not there yet, can't get rid of this "'I'' thang.
Destructive,
Destroying germs
'Destroying'' totalitaritan governments
Destroying dogmatic ideas
..............
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:42 BST