With which I've agreed based on the nature of the linguistic system that
has "resistance" be an assessment _from the outside_ perspective of
another. He goes on, to introduce what is valid in its field but probably
irrelevant in this field - and thereby reveals the embedded trap in much
systems thinking applied to intelligent or language based systems. (This
is a distinction that I am attempting to generate as a useful distinction
in this work on organisational learning and human systems in general.)
> The law of
> requisite variety states that the controlling part of a system
> is the part with the most flexibility.
>
The law of requisite variety, as far as I know, was developed from the
study of complex but non-living systems. It can be applied to living
systems and even to intelligent systems _but_ is not a fundamentally
living systems view. That is, when living systems are responding
mechanistically (however much complexity or complication is involved) then
the law will hold and that will turn out to be much of the time - even for
an intelligent system.
However, when the particular attributes of living systems in interaction
with other living systems are operating, something more profound than the
one with more requisite variety controlling the one with less (or the
whole the system) is occurring. The case of intelligent language systems
interacting is not _merely_ a matter of requisite variety controlling. In
the perspective of complex adaptive systems, the behaviours and results
will be emergent and not "controlled" by any of the elements nor even
traceable to any of the elements in any cause and effect way. (And the law
of requisite variety is an example of cause and effect thinking.) In
intelligent, language based systems, the use of language in processing is
itself a complex adaptive phenomenon which far exceeds requisite variety
analysis and the language user is able to observe and intervene in his or
her own processes as well as the _larger_ process of the dialogue - hence
my assertion that we are dealing with a different order of phenomena.
>
> If you encounter "resistance" it is because you are not being
> flexible enough in your approach.
>
It _may_ be that if you encounter resistance it is because you are not
being flexible enough in your approach. It may also be that you are not
flexible enough in your thinking, or your actions, or your skills, or ????
However, it may also be that there is no resistance at all and that what is
called for is a matter of interpretation. Is this a trivial
distinction? I don't think so if we are interested in becoming effective
in developing theory that will generate action. If we are simply looking
for a good tool, then the advice to "be more flexible" may be useful. But
then we don't need to drag in the "theory" of systems theory.
--
Mike McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
"Postmodern society is the society of computers, information, scientific
knowledge, advanced technology, and rapid change due to new advances in
science and technology." Postmodern Theory, Best & Kellner