To Dream, To Believe LO11595

J.C. Lelie (
Sat, 28 Dec 1996 23:43:39 -0800

Replying to LO11566 --

Robert Ingram wrote:

> Thought #1:
> Personally, I think you have just described the results of most the
> recent presidential elections. .. Despite a few obvious examples,
> Americans mostly rejected extremists this year in favor of centrists
> (i.e., "homeostasians").

A nice thought, though i didn't intend to describe any "result". What
would be more interesting is to ponder how Americans and the American
system interrelate. Which fits in nicely with your second thought:

> Thought #2:
> What about chaos theory? .. Anybody know much about this approach?

As i remember it from university (i studied physics, experimental physics,
i must add and chaos theory is, well, theoretical physics) chaos theory
just states that the "result" (what we see, hear and feel, what we can
measure) of dynamic processes rests on re- and re- and re-itterating the
outcomes of certain types of functions into the same functions. These
functions have certain characteristics (their results neither "explode"
as in a function like squaring (2, 4, 16, 256 ..) nor "implode" like
taking a square root (2, 1.414,...: they in "stable paths" through a
solution space) and might have some randomoccuring events. The results of
this re-iterating can be seen in clouds, mountains, the coastline of
America, but also in snowflakes.

Chaos theory, as i read it, just limits the predictability of an outcome.
The further away in the future, the less predictable. Just like the
weather forecasts: for tomorow they are usually allright; on the long run:
they're like predicting climate.

On the other hand, the theory also limits the "paths" of outcomes: they
must be continuous. Every next situation is the iteration of the function
with the previous situation as its input, sometimes with a small
statistical choice.. You probably recognize systems thinking here. This
doesn't mean that there are no sharp turn however. The system may evolve
into a supercritical stage: it shot past its equilibrium, doesn't return
and may become unstable. Then a simple event may trigger a chain-reaction.
Or not. When these avalances happen: try to be somewere else. Or if you do
not like a big one: arange for a series of small ones. Or perhaps a new
equilibrium "plane"can be reached.

So, i would tend to conclude: this is homeostasis (and evolution, i now
know) revisited.

All the best to you and your families,


PS: with regard to the "US-system and the US-citizens": a nice case to
consider might be the system of fire-arms and its proliferation and use.
The reaction to a random event (a killing, a shooting) greatly differs in
the US from the UK or from The Netherlands (all three united countries, by
the way). Also, for some centruries, Japan was able to abolish guns,
wereas the US seems to enforce there possesion. What are the systemic
archetypes in use/espoused? Success to the succesful, a tragedy of the
commons, symptom fighting...all in the name of reducing chaos??



Drs J.C. Lelie CPIM (J.C. Lelie) @date@ @time@ CREATECH/LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development - + (31) 70 3243475 Fax: idem or + (31) 40 2443225

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <> -or- <>