The first is to be explicit about levels of complexity and to be aware
that we are not talking about a simple equivalence when we use complexity
and chaos. These are not synonyms. When the distinctions are collapsed,
we lose most of the potential power of the language.
Fred says, "languaging is still a material based act (ie. acoustic waves
as sounds, etc.) just as a chemical might function as a transmitter in the
nervous or immune system of even the simplest animal."
The nature of languaging and, its related area, listening are far from
material in any important sense if we are interested in uderstanding and
meaning. If we are interested in mere functioning, then the material
plays an obvious part. The distinction here is important. The fact of
"material" being involved doesn't make a phenomenon material. As far as I
know, there is no phenomenon that is solely "material" - except possibly
the emergent ones which emerge (at least partially) _from_ the material.
While hearing sounds _may_ be mainly material and mainly linear. The
production of languaging - or any meaning - is far from either material or
linear. At the most surface level, even understanding an existing
language isn't a material nor linear process. Granting that the sound
waves and their register (ear, nerves, etc) are material and that the way
in which they interact is material and linear (neither of which may stand
a rigorous examination), the understanding of even a simple sentence isn't
either material or linear. We don't know the sounds will make a word or
the words will make sentences or the meaning of those sentences until
_after_ the whole is complete. And then its too late if the process is as
simple as described by Fred.
When we consider the first emergence or the later evolution of language,
then we are far beyond material or linear. And the act of "languaging" of
bringing into existence through language is far from material as well.
The whole idea of listening as a "sender-receiver" model is so limited as
to do more damage than good. At best it will describe a limited kind of
communication (facts, orders, evidence). At worst, it will obscure the
human intelligence required for understanding and the possibilities of
paradox and redundancy in creative communication.
Fred's comment on stability being a result of "habit-taking" is bery close
to what I refer to as practices. This is related to the influence that we
might have on emergent phenomena. What makes it particularly powerful for
our purposes is that it can be the source of intelligent design based
interventions in human systems.
That leads to an answer to Fred's question, "What shall we call that way of
providing an environment which is like a gardener?" As he points out,
organisations are more like gardens containing life processes which are
more like tomato plants (than entities to be manipulated or controlled),
and management is more like being a gardener. He is searching for a word
to replace "control".
I think this is important because we are not going to get very far telling
managers that control is not possible and they should give up the search
for it. (I've heard that one and seen the response often enough to
foreswear it.) What we want is a different kind of control. One that
influences without force and without guarantee of detail but with
confidence in patterns. I suggest that the word we are looking for is
"design".
Fred, can you get what you were looking for from this word? We can see
design in nature even while we know its our way of describing how things
fit. We can see design in a garden because, even while things grow in
their own ways, we can provide certain patterns to their environment and
to the way that they receive what they need.
Try it out.
--
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