AUT: Re: what is to be done with what is to be done? Survival of the "FIT"

[Thomas Seay <entheogens@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Sebastian Budgen <sebastian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unfortunately, it had very
> little to do with the
> subject of the conference and it's register, while
> perfectly acceptable
> on its own merits, didn't fit with the other papers.


What does that mean that it did not "fit" with the
other papers?  If you have a conference and invite a
number of presenters, uniformity should not be
expected or, at least, not desired.

I've read Doug's piece and think it brings up some
good points.  Apparently, so do you Sebastien, so why
was it excluded and can you point me to some of the
presentations that DO "fit"?


=====
The real world gives the subset of what is; the product space represents the uncertainty of the observer.  The product space may therefore change if the observer changes; and two observers may legitimately use different product spaces within which to record the same subset of actual events in some actual thing. The "constraint" is thus a relation between observer and thing; the properties of any particular constraint will depend on both the real thing and on the observer.  It follows that a substantial part of the theory of organization will be concerned with properties that are not intrinsice to the thing but are relational between observer and thing.

W. Ross Ashby


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---