Theoretical Constructs

[marct]

The probing of your brain is going to advance on two lines. Please continue to make on the spot corrections.....

It seems to me that there are two threads relevant here in regards to systems. One, our understanding of the world. Second, how we decide to deal with it. Both influence each other.

In general, I would agree with that but extend it a touch more. We, as individuals, have multiple "maps" of component parts of reality, some of which overlap. Each of these maps is "embedded" within institutions (in Malinowski's sense of the term: they don't have to be actual organizations). Institutions are differentially embedded within social organizational entities such as schools, branches, units etc. These organizations are, in turn, embedded in higher order systems - e.g. politics, economics, etc. Often "how we understand the world" implies "how we decide to deal with it" since the logics of "right action" are inherent in the formulation of a mapping of action potentials.

Sorry if this is osunding overtly academic, but it is getting pretty technical <wry grin>. In plain English, how we see the world implies what we can do in the world and both of these potentials are bounded by our social and cultural environments.

The fundamental nature of the world has not changed. Look at it from a personal perspective. Show the world by explaining how people have adapted and needs combine to work as catalysts for creating value systems, administration, military forces, etc. You have history and personal experiences that prove you right. Now explain why doctrine in the past has worked and what their usage was, examplify. Now note the tasks that are likely to be faced in the future, and motivate why they are likely (should be evident from the understanding you created and the circumstances you show), and point out possible circumstances.

About that comment of mine about being embedded in a socio-cultural environment. What you suggest is laudable but, and it's a big but, I have already written one dissertation. What you are suggesting is a major undertaking and I do have to make a living so that I can support my cats (and my wife) in the style to which they have become accustomed since I finished my last dissertation.

Organizational change is different in how you implement it. I think that what it boils down to is motivating those with the relevant power to order necessary changes and training to take place as fits the organizational structure, which may need to be altered. Punish those who refuse to train for the new tasks. Or destroy and create anew. There are other ways, and possibly better. Have to take leadership, power, and a bunch of other things into consideration, including money.

Okay, as part of my first dissertation, I had to spend a fair amount of time dealing with Bussiness Process Re-engineering - you know, implementing organizational cultural changes. In order to make any reorganization work, you need two things: a "champion" at the highest levels who provides a solid vision of what changes will be made, and a lot of buy-in at the lower levels in the organization. Most of the time, changes are evolutionary not revolutionary, and changes can only be made in areas controlled by the organization.

Do you agree or not? How would you change you personal understanding and life philosophy?

I would have to say that changing personal understandings is quite different from changing organizational understandings. Changing an entire "life philosophy" (a weltanschuung?) is even more tricky. I do know how to do it, but that's the subject of another essay .

The second thread of the probing is a follow-on to how theoretical constructs are used. What is your understanding of the nature of metaphors, clichés and catch phrases as regards their effects?

I tend to draw on both Charles Pierce's concept fo semiotics and on Dawkin's ideas of memes. That's the short answer <wry grin>. For the longer version, I would say that theoretical concepts are used as operators in the mind to manipulate sensory data into something that "makes sense" even though it probably isn't "true". I view clichés and catch phrases as "rule of thumb" transformations of sensory data, while metaphors and analogies I consider to be more formalized operations of the mind.

Marc