Michael,
I'm not so sure we disagree, but I cannot accept your comment regarding
"making distinctions" without a gloss:
While it is useful to make distinctions which enable viewing, discussing,
analyzing and - perhaps most important - describing systems as external to
ourselves, we cannot act "upon" systems (intervene?).
In my opinion, action makes us part of the system willy-nilly, and I think
that unless we are able to maintain that in our consciousness we will be
inevitably drawn to wrong choices. The arrogance of knowledge is its dark
side. That's what provokes Luddites and makes victims of us all in an
otherwise enlightened age...
>Jack, I think that the way you represent systems is as if they really
>exist. The idea that there *are* systems will result in then
>deciding whether or not we *are* inside of them or outside of them.
>Surely there are systems which I am outside of - even if I influence
>those systems.
>
>I have no trouble with the idea that systems exist inside of other
>systems and that not only do distinct systems influence each other
>but that then they can be seen to be constituents of larger systems
>until we get out to "it's all one system". But declining to make
>distinctions between various systems and collapsing them all into one
>will leave us ineffective in many possible situations where a more
>limited view of systems might be useful.
>
>I suggest the view of systems offerred by Warfield in a paper on
>complexity recently written where he quotes Gibbs as
>defining systems as "any portion of the material universe which we
>choose to separate in thought". I would extend this definition to
>include the non-material. In this way, we are clear that the whole
>can be seen as a system and be aware that we are creating all of the
>"lesser" systems that we care to (linguistically) create for pragmatic
>purposes.
>
>Michael McMaster
>Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk
-- Jack Hirschfeld With the clear undertanding that jack@his.com this kind of thing can happen, shall we dance?