Michael, I think we are much in alignment but perhaps are viewing
complex system's intervention from different perspectives.
You commented...
>
>Bill uses a term that muddies the waters of
>the complexity field. "Emergence" is a term of cause and effect
>which is not amenable to:
>
>> 2. Many of the most important system behaviors emerge from, can be
>> explained by (small snip) their micro structures.
The micro structures are a cause of the macro behavior. With several
micro structures involved the cause and effect may be obtuse and be
understood only after years of research. However, cause and effect
prevail throughout science.
>Emergence (as used in evolution) says the term applies to new levels
>(of complexity) coming into being that:
>- - are not simply rearrangements of pre-existing elements
>- - the characteristics are qualitatively, not just quantitavely,
>unlike anything that previously existed
And in working with organizations to effect change it is just this type of
change that is desired. The organization, one part of the system is to
work (to foment emergence) with the intent of gaining some desired change.
The results cannot be predicted, but an analysis of possible outcomes
should bound them between worst and best cases.
>- - the emergent phenomenon was unpredictable not only on the basis of
>the knowledge available prior to its emergence but even on the basis
>of ideally complete knowledge of hte state of the cosmos prior to its
>emergence. (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan)
Taken to the extreme this implies that we should never fiddle with a
system because we have no idea of what the outcome will be. I don't
believe that is viable. An organization could not hire a new leader,
a presidential elections is a dangerous undertaking because we
cannot know the outcome.
Now, there is some truth to that last statement, but the range of
possible results is circumscribed. This may be our point of departure.
I believe that the effects of changes in complex systems are bounded.
Making a change in a complex system in which human control is
involved and in most cases the possible outcomes are very restricted.
Revolutions are still rare occurrences.
I view organizations, in one sense, like pools of viscous fluids. If I
drop a pebble in the pool the ripple effect is quickly damped to no
effect. At the edges of the pool there may be no effect at all.
>Another way of talking about emergence is that the qualities and
>characteristics of one order cannot be predicted nor remain the same
>as another order.
What we are able to do to change organizations, I think, is much less
that this comment implies. My changed organizations retains many
of the characteristics of the generation from which it came. It has too
for it must still survive in the same environment. Even in evolution
if the environment does not change the emerging life forms are very
similar to their progenitors.
>Emergence cannot be explained by reductionist science.
Two comments. The current scientific understanding of complexity
does not explain emergence, just as it didn't explain planetary
motion a short while ago.
I cannot categorically reject "reductionist" science. (Why is it I hear
people using the term "reductionist" with negative implications?)
We humans have a limited ability to comprehensively understand
complex systems. Our tactic has been to decompose complex systems
into units we can study to understand their behaviors and their
relationships with interfacing subsystems. Our study is to effect
desired change knowing that some results will remain unknown. If
this is reductionist, so be it, it works.
Perhaps I am too pragmatic. Perhaps too naive.
Cheers
--bhobler@worldnet.att.net Bill Hobler
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>