Great discussion. A good analysis and why I find it futile to build a system map. Shortly after I build it, it seems to become obsolete. On the other hand, I could argue, why make my bed up, I'm just going to sleep in it again 12 hours from now anyway. There's something about staying in space between chaos and order, where we aren't totally in one or another, that makes us want to keep organizing. I happen to also like unrumpled sheets at the end of a long day, so I make my bed in the morning. I'm not yet convinced about systems maps, and I was a practicing systems engineer from 1982 to 1990.
I would find it helpful to distinguish between various system kinds we perceive/ project - chaotic, complex adaptive, etc. Because I think in a sense there is indeed only one map for some systems- the attractor. If you map a different attractor, you have a different system. This is not the same as the perspectivalism of complicated contexts?
Thanks, David. I talk a little bit about distinguishing between different types of systems here (https://pigontracks.substack.com/p/14-yes-theyre-all-complex). More generally, even complicated systems do not yield to a single map, I don't think.
Luke, you might find it easier to convince people about the treachery of systems maps if you stopped talking as though there are systems in the world to map.
Hi Mike, thanks for the comment. Occasionally I talk about systems in the world as a different way to talk about different contexts or phenomena. As I said above: "While a system map is often a useful representation of a context of phenomena, it is always fundamentally incomplete." Talking about systems in the world is shorthand and it resonates in the contexts I work in. Great to hear you have a different experience, but I don't think there's a simple and consistent linguistic solution to this. It's common to hear people talk about the world being complex as a rationale for the use of more complexity-driven approaches, but that falls prey to exactly the same critique you make here.
Understood Luke, but I don’t agree with your last point. It is much less restrictive, misleading and dangerous to talk about the world as exhibiting ‘general complexity’, in Morin’s terms, than it is to imply it is systemic. The former invites the use of a variety of systems and complexity approaches, some assuming that systems exist in the world, others that don’t. Admittedly there will agent-based modellers and system dynamicists that leap from complexity to their favoured models, but they are easily combatted.
I think the best linguistic formulation is to say that the world exhibits general complexity and we need a variety of systems approaches to deal with that.
Great discussion. A good analysis and why I find it futile to build a system map. Shortly after I build it, it seems to become obsolete. On the other hand, I could argue, why make my bed up, I'm just going to sleep in it again 12 hours from now anyway. There's something about staying in space between chaos and order, where we aren't totally in one or another, that makes us want to keep organizing. I happen to also like unrumpled sheets at the end of a long day, so I make my bed in the morning. I'm not yet convinced about systems maps, and I was a practicing systems engineer from 1982 to 1990.
Is this a comment or a representation of a comment?
I would find it helpful to distinguish between various system kinds we perceive/ project - chaotic, complex adaptive, etc. Because I think in a sense there is indeed only one map for some systems- the attractor. If you map a different attractor, you have a different system. This is not the same as the perspectivalism of complicated contexts?
Thanks, David. I talk a little bit about distinguishing between different types of systems here (https://pigontracks.substack.com/p/14-yes-theyre-all-complex). More generally, even complicated systems do not yield to a single map, I don't think.
Luke, you might find it easier to convince people about the treachery of systems maps if you stopped talking as though there are systems in the world to map.
Hi Mike, thanks for the comment. Occasionally I talk about systems in the world as a different way to talk about different contexts or phenomena. As I said above: "While a system map is often a useful representation of a context of phenomena, it is always fundamentally incomplete." Talking about systems in the world is shorthand and it resonates in the contexts I work in. Great to hear you have a different experience, but I don't think there's a simple and consistent linguistic solution to this. It's common to hear people talk about the world being complex as a rationale for the use of more complexity-driven approaches, but that falls prey to exactly the same critique you make here.
Understood Luke, but I don’t agree with your last point. It is much less restrictive, misleading and dangerous to talk about the world as exhibiting ‘general complexity’, in Morin’s terms, than it is to imply it is systemic. The former invites the use of a variety of systems and complexity approaches, some assuming that systems exist in the world, others that don’t. Admittedly there will agent-based modellers and system dynamicists that leap from complexity to their favoured models, but they are easily combatted.
I think the best linguistic formulation is to say that the world exhibits general complexity and we need a variety of systems approaches to deal with that.