Rog, John, Dave
Rog, sorry for the delay I'm very very busy lately. I think the way you push
poeple and take time to work on discussions is very enforcing thanx for
that.
>Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:27:31 EST
>
>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?
There is not really a difference between order and disorder, every disorder
is just a different form of order. It reminds me of a joke I heard recently;
I hope it comes across. This guy told me he found it very strange that
hurricanes(or whatever)always have gay names. He did an impression of a
hurricane; Hi my name is Floyd I'm not going to destroy anything I'm just
going to redecorate!
>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?
Davor;
Hm, sorry can't follow this, why not? And what is?
At least the tree needs decay to maintain it's so-called high quality. It is
part af a high quality pattern. Humans needs water, if there is no water
humans die, does that make water a high quality pattern? Say yes and agree
say no and disagree? (is water considered as nutrician, does your argument
to John still stand in this case?) Im actually do not know the function of
water for the human body, but I don't think water is being restructured in
our bodies or something, but I could be wrong here.
>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.
Davor:
So what exactly is the edge of chaos, is there something like an edge of
chaos or is there just order to different extents?
>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.
Good 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;
I tend to agree here with you but I'm not totally convinced yet, Can you
give an example of destruction, without falling in the same trap I did? If
so;
I said before that destruction is a different form of order, that was my
point in my previous post also i'm not sure if you got that(my mistake) but
at least you seem to agree? I don't think that something is of less quality
because it decays, or is destroyed, or there is a disorderly situation. I
must admit that this subject confuses me a little and I don't think we are
going to agree on what destruction is(when it even exists); maybe we can
find a way to describe the problem better;
Also for John and maybe Dave and others
.
I suggest we take a look at destruction, disorder and decay at the different
levels of the MOQ?
Greetings Davor
>******************************************************************
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
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