Dear Carlos,

Perhaps this paper may help?

http://plaza.sdlogic.net/uploads/2/7/3/5/2735531/mars_bronstein_lusch_og_dyn
.pdf 

Best wishes,
Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carlos Pires
Sent: Saturday, 7 February 2015 6:58 PM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design
Subject: Re: Beer's Viable Systems Model

On 07/02/2015, at 15:17, Terence Love wrote:

> One source of confusion in your reading of these posts on using VSM is
perhaps because  I'm using the original and general meaning of the terms
'organisation' and 'organisations'  as they emerged in biology (and the way
they are used in systems theory). This is a superset of the more limited way
they are used by management theorists to refer only to businesses  and the
like.


Dear Terry,

You started this thread by summoning a business administration theory based
on cybernetics, which in turn is bionic, but then you make a U-turn and
claim to be talking about biological organisms (?!). And your reply is
actually kind of childish, because nobody in this whole world will claim
that the "general meaning" of the term "organisation" is biological. Or will
you try to convince me that you go to the doctor and say "I'm having trouble
with my digestive organisation"?

It would be advisable if you "eat your own dog food" and stick to writing
messages that have epistemological validity
(http://www.love.com.au/index.php/19-epistemological-validity).

Furthermore, if more than one person don't seem to understand what you are
trying to say, that might be a hint that you are not designing your
communication in a way that is fit for your target audience. There is no
"confusion in our reading" of these posts. I think the only source of
confusion in this thread has been your lack of focus and your failure to
substantiate your previous claims, besides the obvious fact that this whole
affair is irrelevant.
Are you saying designers can learn a lot from VSM?
True, but then again designers can learn a lot from:
-Hydroponics
-Tectonic shifts
-Martial arts
-Curling finals in Winter Olympics
-Sushi
-Train-spotting
-Kama Sutra
-Bumblebees
-My Fair Lady
-The mating habits of the potato parasite -Etc.

I am sorry if it sounds like I'm getting too grumpy, but this kind of
rethotical footwork you are displaying just gets on my nerves. You can't
simply jump from one magnification level to another.
And you can't possibly be talking about everything at the same time.
That would be what I call "The BS Atlas" argument, which is the argument
that "everything is related to everything", and in this case, when it suits
your argument, you stand on one level, and then, if it suits you, you jump
to another.

Would you kindly tell us once and for all what the heck are you talking
about?
You seem to be willing to just fling concepts up in the air, like one of
those machines that shoots plates for target practice. I'm sorry if I just
keep shooting, but I just can't help myself.


Best regards,

==================================
Carlos Pires

[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Design & New Media MFA // Communication Design PhD Student @ FBA-UL

Check the project blog:
http://thegolemproject.com




-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------