Arthur did a fine job with autopoeisis. I've just spent the time to
contemplate that piece and would like to add some thoughts it raises.
The first is that Varela would not agree with it. He specifically
excludes human organisations from applications - or did the last time
we talked. But Varela is a scientist. We are interested in ideas
that may be useful as we consider the challenges of human
organisations. From that perspective, Arthur has done a useful
service.
The point I want to emphasise from Arthur's writing is IDENTITY.
That is what is being self-generated as well as what is guiding the
self-generation. This self-referential nature is what makes the idea
so slippery.
In the domain of corporations, it provides a view which is
potentially far more powerful than say vision or mission. The latter
two terms are given a context by identity in the sense that Arthur
refers to it.
Identity is far more complex and emergent that say vision. This is
the heart of my speaking which downgrades vision as a necessary
corporate component. If we put identity as more senior and vision as
a possible "attractor" for a pre-existing identity and as part of the
process of continued development of that identity, then something
powerful can occur.
--
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk
book cafe site : http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe
Intelligence is the underlying organisational principle
of the universe. Heraclitus
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations
For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>