LC 00555

The lesson learned from second-order cybernetics and Luhman’s social theory is that (human) systems have a function and their reason of being (raison d’être) is to sustain that function. This is again rather paradoxical. For a system to sustain its function, it has to change, otherwise, as we have seen, a system ceases to exist. A system has to become what it is not, and yet remain the same.

Geleerde les: We got to move

Samenvatting:
We have to become what we are not, and yet remain the same.

---

Context:
Stakeholders' worldviews may differ.

---

• Mensen in een samenleving moeten constant met elkaar in gesprek zijn, of anders, in het ergste verhaal, houdt een samenleving op te bestaan of valt uiteen in deelsamenlevingen;
• We moeten naar elkaar toe bewegen (we have to become what we are not), op basis van gedeelde waarden en normen, zoals vrijheid, democratie en rechtstaat (and yet remain the same);
• De constante factor is dus bewegen, maar in een fysieke en sociale ruimte die ons bindt.

---

In Laws of Form (LoF) terms, this means that there must be a difference, which means in this context that a (human) system has to adapt to changing conditions in its environment. By the way, this restates that a system cannot exist on its own. A system is dependent on its environment, which, from the standpoint of the system, is populated with other systems that induce changes in the environment again as a result of the need to sustain. It is indeed a reflexive domain. And it is safe to say that the constant factor in life is movement. We got to move!

alles blijft, alles gaat voorbij, alles blijft voorbijgaan

everything stays, everything passes, everything keeps passing

Jules Deelder

Geleerde les: Movement

Samenvatting:
The constant factor in life is movement.

---

Context:
Stakeholders' worldviews may differ.

---

---

The connection between this conception of change and EM_ont can be found in the PQR formula. Recall that in SSM a sharp distinction is made between the P–what and the Q–how. The P–what and the R–why can be seen as the reason of being. The Q–how’s are observable, they are particular ways of doing things. A Q, a way of doing things, may be replaced by another Q due to changes in the environment in order to stick to the P-R reason of being.

The relation between P-R and Q is explored to investigate the possibilities and limitations of change. Three options for change can be identified:

• Same Q – same P-R, but with differences in the environment as manifested in changes in environmental conditions;
• Different Q – same P-R, a more radical way of adapting to environmental changes;
• Different P-R, the system is in transition from one reason of being to another one, or more formally, a system is replaced by another one. It could be the case that a system ceases to exist altogether, if no new reason of being can be found.

Due to the in principle endless recursiveness of the PQR formula as used in EM_ont, overlap between the three options is possible. For instance, in a large organization comprised of several units, a particular unit can be assigned a different task, although the company as a whole remains doing the same things. The three options can thus been seen as typical patterns to be used and combined as (mental) tools to think about change.

Dit is een beveiligde pagina.

• Lees hiervoor:
  Social Innovation Applications
• Lees hierna:
  Same Q – Same P-R

Hier wordt aan gewerkt of naar verwezen door: Extending the Human Cognition and Behavior Model, Mutual Understanding and Shared Meaning, Summary