Re: The Meaning of Holism L LO1898

Jim Michmerhuizen (jamzen@world.std.com)
Fri, 30 Jun 1995 21:41:51 +0059 (EDT)

Replying to LO1723 --

Michael - that's a brilliant analysis of the "greater than the sum of its
parts" expression. And then you go on to say...

> How about starting from the whole being/entity that we are interested in
> and understanding it as emergent (on one hand) and an independently
> existin entity (on the other) with no recourse to reductionist
> "understanding" required.

Yes. We've got to have both. The waves rolling across the wheatfields.
The trouble with "greater than the sum of its parts" is that it tries
(illegitimately) to combine the two perspectives in a single image, and
winds up just one more hashed metaphor.

> We can then see organisations as whole and complete entities in their own
> right with their own properties. That will give us a powerful new lense
> through which to view organisations - a new interpretive approach.
>
> I think that the "organism" metaphor has a great deal of power and is
> worthy of grappling with. It is also important not to throw out the
> machine metaphor. Each has its use.

One of the most compelling instances of how those two can combine is in the
game of "go". The strategic thinking is organic, and cannot be anything
else - the board is too big to be subject to any kind of algorithmic
analysis. But the hand-to-hand fighting can often be rigorously analysed
out to forty or more moves: the machine model.

Come to think of it, what are the attributes of a "machine model" if not
that very susceptibility to algorithmic expression?

--
 Regards
     Jim Michmerhuizen
     web residence at     http://world.std.com/~jamzen/
...........................................................................
. . . . There are far *fewer* things in heaven and earth, Horatio,  . . . .
 . . . . .       than are dreamt of in your philosophy...        . . | _ .

On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Michael McMaster wrote:

> Replying to LO1700 -- > > In Barry's comments on holism, I think we can see that the term may > contain its own downfall - at least in business useage. Part of that > downfall is that, while it is little understood, it's been around for a > long time. It will get a nod when used. But the nod will also be a > dismissal in most cases. "Of course!" they'll say, "But what can we do > with that?" > > Barry asks if holism has anything to do with chaos. I don't enough to > answer that one. I would say that it has something to do with complexity. > A complex system is one which _is_ a whole which has emerged from the > interaction of agents or preceding elements. In that sense, it is > "greater than the sum of its parts". > > However, it is not "greater" than the sum of its parts, its _different_ > from its parts. There is no "summing" going on. And therein lies the > rub. By saying that something is "greater than the sum of its parts" we > are granting the presupposition of reductionism and we are implying - > because it can't be understood by reductionism - that something rather > mysterious is involved. >

> -- > Michael McMaster > Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk > > >