Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Systems and goals WAS: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple
Peter. (01)
This conversation is taking place at a time that I am working with Doug to
try to convert his colloquium talks into text, which requires a fair amount
of attention. Interestingly, you are hitting on points I just happen to be
dealing with in this work. I am looking at "frontier outposts" now, will
touch on A-B-C later. Hence, I like to delay my reaction. (02)
But in the meantime, I am all excited about Lawrence Weed's Problem
Knowledge Solver, brought to our attention by Jack Park (Topic: Augmented
medical diagnosis). Fleabyte stuff here. (03)
Henry (04)
Peter Jones wrote: (05)
> (Henry, I'm moving this back on to the list as I think we're
> hitting some interesting territory that perhaps needs discussion in
> the wider arena.)
>
> OK, but that would bring me to another point.
>
> In the ABC model, A = productive process, B = improvement
> process, C = improving improvement process.
> However, I would have thought that one way to ensure
> improvements all the way was to assert a 'short-circuit' between
> C and A and suggest that one could improve from C by making
> A highly flexible from the outset. If A is highly flexible then
> surely B must be even more inventively flexible but easier because of
> that. And from that
> it follows that C must itself be even more highly flexible in its
> provision
> of recommendations for flexibility back down the line or via
> the short-circuit but is easier because of that. So in introducing
> flexibility we've introduced what looks like an extra efficiency into
> the whole.
> But what happens is that that flexibility in essence flattens the
> hierarchy
> more into a huge system of interdependent variables without order of
> control.
> And this implies that variable control in the system might not be
> possible - the domains of factors might be too big (chaos theory). And
> these
> systems are so rarely properly closed.
> So it seems that there is a limit to the extent to which the
> ABC model is applicable and it is perhaps lower than one
> might like.
> Therefore, one might argue that the ABC model only applies in system
> where the production goals
> are very clearly defined, and where fundamental flexibility is known
> not to introduce a direct improvement in the whole.
>
> Now those thoughts can be spread across the dimension of time, not just
> production systems. The long haul goals aren't known. Some short haul
> goals are. So if we fix the short term ones that gets us to...? Another
> set of
> short term problems caused by fixing the last lot? How do we prevent
> that?
> By suggesting an ideal end state perhaps - the Heaven on Earth scenario.
> Does anyone agree what the HoE scenario should be? No, we've just
> said that no-one knows what that should be.
> So in the absence of defined end goals it looks as if we aren't dealing
> with a production system here.
> In which case, is the ABC model applicable to the whole at present?
> Doubtful, I think.
> Does it make sense to apply it in part to particular activities and not
> others?
> Doubtful too, because you can't track the influences.
>
> Doug is a holist (I hope I'm correct in asserting that - he seems to be
> to me) and
> so am I and, I think, many others on the BA lists.
> In which case, maybe we (unrevvers unite!) need to fire up
> some serious debate and research into what long term system goals
> humankind should
> have on the table now?
>
> --
> Peter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henry K van Eyken" <vaneyken@sympatico.ca>
> To: "Peter Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk>
> Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 11:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple
>
> > Peter.
> >
> > I agree that in the long haul humankind hasn't got the foggiest of
> where it
> > is going. But degree of certainty is higher the nearer the future.
> Life
> > insurance rests on this. And going to school, getting married, buying
> a
> > computer, etc.
> >
> > Doug's idea IS to control things, but not just from the outset. His
> idea is
> > to have people - academics, presumably - manning outpost into the
> future, to
> > assess things and to feed back a stream of information to help us,
> sluggers
> > to optimize preparations for the future.
> >
> > Henry
> >
> > Peter Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, then we get into a real debate about whether consensus is
> > > healthy. For example, take
> > > A) The Dilbert Principle: People are idiots.
> > > B) Mob rule & Demagogic persuasion.
> > > C) The fact that basically humankind hasn't got a clue where it's
> going.
> > >
> > > Isn't the consensus approach just swapping one madness (pluralist
> > > cacophony)
> > > for another that's got no brakes (the runaway train to hell
> phenomenon)?
> > >
> > > I've read some books about innovation that talk a lot about how the
> > > truly great innovations come from someone spotting something in what
> > > had previously been considered non-signal (noise) as opposed to
> > > changing the signal.
> > >
> > > Doug's ideas make a lot of sense in processes that should be
> controlled
> > > from the outset.
> > > But to say that people should aways start from the same point and
> > > collaborate from the outset misses the point about creativity in
> > > many cases.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" <vaneyken@sympatico.ca>
> > > To: "Peter Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk>
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That
> Simple
> > >
> > > > Peter.
> > > >
> > > > The point I was trying to make was that we should look for better
> ways
> > > of
> > > > arriving at opinions. Nothing wrong with having opinions and
> > > expressing them
> > > > and doing so having some impact, etc. But whatever opinions we, as
> > > > individuals, offer are more or less in isolation, i.e. partly
> footed
> > > on
> > > > solid ground, partly in thin air.
> > > >
> > > > Doug's approach is not to offer solutions to world problems, but
> > > instead to
> > > > offer a way of doing a better job of arriving at solutions.
> > > >
> > > > The last couple of days, I have have here, lying among papers
> around
> > > my
> > > > desk, The Economist of June 6, turned to page 3 of its special
> > > section, "A
> > > > survey of the global environment." It points to the contrast
> between
> > > the
> > > > opinions of economists and those of environmentalists, and how
> finally
> > > those
> > > > begin to converge - sort of. Had those people and their advisors
> been
> > > > working on the same document all along, instead of working on
> separate
> > > > documents, they could have come up with a consensus ("the same
> > > songbook")
> > > > much sooner - i.e. do a better job of arriving at a potential
> solution
> > > to
> > > > complex, urgent problems. That is Doug's theme, and one
> appropriate to
> > > this
> > > > list.
> > > >
> > > > Henry
> > > >
> > > > Peter Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Henry,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure I understand you.
> > > > > Surely the point of dialogue is to get all the views on
> > > > > the table, then discuss in the _hopes_ of reaching an
> > > > > agreement. To enforce agreement would be
> > > > > tyranny.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peace in plurality is surely better; mutual recognition of
> > > > > difference without antagonism.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" <vaneyken@sympatico.ca>
> > > > > To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 1:22 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple
> > > > >
> > > > > > John, Eric, Peter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I Found Eric's e-mail after responding to John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interesting the difference between our responses; the
> different
> > > > > > foundations on which they are based. Our "global brain" is
> still
> > > not
> > > > > > functioning in unison as that label kind of implies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Henry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eric Armstrong wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them,
> but
> > > > > > > on this on I have to disagree.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is in the nature of a bully to use force to achieve their
> > > goals.
> > > > > > > It is in the nature of the truly brave (Ghandi, for example)
> to
> > > > > > > achieve their ends peaceably.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In Ghandi's case, too, occupation was ended, but by far less
> > > > > > > brutal, despicable means.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What holds back Western nations is *conscience*. Massive
> > > > > > > retaliation of the kind never before experienced on this
> planet
> > > > > > > would else end the atrocities. But Western nations are held
> in
> > > > > > > check by their own conscience. They do want the slaughter
> > > > > > > of innocents on their hands.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fantatics, on the other hand, know no such restrictions.
> That
> > > > > > > puts even a large power at a disadvantage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A lack of conscience allows a foreign leader to cry out
> against
> > > > > > > the injustices done to him, while inciting equal and greater
> > > > > injustices
> > > > > > > at the very same time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The question is, at what point can a nation afford to *stop*
> > > > > > > standing for fair play and honor??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is lost in the dim recesses of history that the
> Palestinian
> > > state
> > > > > > > was formed on the very same day as the Israeli state, by the
> > > > > > > very same decree.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Immediately, the Israeli state was declared unacceptable by
> > > > > > > the Palestinians, and war ensued.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once vanguished, the Palestinians immediately set about
> > > hollering
> > > > > > > about how their land was unjustly taken from them. Yet, once
> > > > > > > given back, the wars resumed -- time and again, in one form
> or
> > > > > > > another.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Each time, promises were made: "Give us back our land, and
> > > > > > > there will be peace". But there never has been peace. This
> is
> > > > > > > the way of things when you deal with people who have no
> honor.
> > > > > > > They will say anything. They will promise anything. But they
> > > will
> > > > > > > do nothing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unfortunately, Arafat is as totally without honor as anyone
> who
> > > > > > > has ever existed on this planet. His words mean exactly
> nothing.
> > > > > > > To accept any representation he makes is simply to play into
> his
> > > > > > > hands, and to gain nothing in return.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For years now, the argument has been "We own it all. The
> > > Isreali's
> > > > > > > have no right here. Israel has no right to exist."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Although there has been some softening of that position
> > > recently,
> > > > > > > it has only come about as a result of the realization that
> force
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > not rule the day.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To retreat in the face of that force is to give the bully
> > > everything
> > > > > > > he wants. And after a stake has been driven far enough into
> the
> > > > > > > heart of Isreal's borders, Isreal, too, will fall -- if the
> > > > > religious
> > > > > > > fanatics have their way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe the Israeli state should have been founded on some
> > > > > > > unoccupied islands in the South Pacific. I don't know. It
> sure
> > > > > > > would have solved some problems -- not that anyone would
> > > > > > > have gone there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Personally, I see religious movements as the cause of the
> > > greatest
> > > > > > > human suffering and the greatest travesties against mankind.
> To
> > > > > > > be so totally enamored of some rock in the middle of a
> dessert
> > > > > > > that one cannot even think of living elsewhere -- well, that
> > > defies
> > > > > > > sensibility, in my book.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > After religious fervor comes national fervor, and after that
> > > comes
> > > > > > > free market excesses, in their capacity to do harm in the
> name
> > > of
> > > > > > > good. But, like it or not, people do have those religious
> > > beliefs,
> > > > > > > and they do hunger after the same piece of barren rock.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, what is there to do?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The options are:
> > > > > > > 1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere else.
> > > > > > > 2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to
> > > > > > > Israel.
> > > > > > > 3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the
> > > > > > > situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks
> (force)
> > > > > > > even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or
> > > > > > > a few hundred years.
> > > > > > > 4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly
> that
> > > > > > > they either quit, or there aren't enough left to
> make a
> > > > > > > difference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've no doubt left out some valid alternatives, but of that
> > > > > > > list, I think #3 makes the most sense. It combines a sense
> > > > > > > of honor and decency with the gumption not to get pushed
> > > > > > > around.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the other hand, when we start thinking about the problem
> > > > > > > of nuclear waste, it occurs to me that I can think of a few
> > > > > > > places I wouldn't mind dumping it....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > (06)