Ben shares a great example of how "organisation comes before self
organisation". As his example says, my point is that design for "self
organisation" is different from design for hierarchical, mechanistic
control, but it is still design.
Why call it "bottom up"? It isn't. As his example shows it is neither
top nor bottom. In this approach, the very idea of top and bottom make no
sense. It might be better to call it emergent, or systemic, or complex or
living or ??
I consider it to "centre out" where the centre is wherever you are.
--
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbdworld.com
web:http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe/TIA/TIAmap.html
"I don't give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity
but I'd die for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."
attributed to Chief Justice Brandeis
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations
For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>