Tobin Quereau surprised me by saying about "intervention":
>The term can be used, I think, in an appropriate way to
>indicate that _any_ activity by "outsiders" is, in the beginnning at
>least, an intervention which will have an affect on the system (though it
>will eventually be included "in" the system if it persists). Like the
>classic mobile example, if you pull on one part, the whole system reacts.
>And it probably does help if we "design" our interventions with some
>awareness and attention (and input from and with others).
>
>So, while it is probably important for all of us to remember we are
>"intervening" in a system whatever we do, it is helpful to do so in ways
>that reduce the "dependency" and "outside (or "inside"!) authority"
>aspects as quickly and thoroughly as we can.
One of the things I have worked hard to unlearn is the idea that "we" are
outside any system "we" can be talking about. I also try not to think too
much in terms of cause and effect. So, I understand when someone tells me
that the flap of a butterfly's wing can lead to a tornado, but I tend to
think more that a storm was fixing to happen and the butterfly's part was
to flap a wing. "We" don't come riding in out of the sunrise and
intervene in anything. A process is underway, and "our" role is...
Anyway, that's the way I see it, and I kinda thought Tobin saw it that way
too...
-- Jack Hirschfeld When two hearts become one, jack@his.com who could ask for anything more?