Re: BHA: defining open / closed systems: autopoiesis

["John Mingers" <orsjm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The discussion of open/closed systems has been
going on in the world of systems theory for many
years.

Traditionally, the distinction was between
systems that were open for input/output with
their environment, and those that weren't
(generally assumed in classical physical
sciences). In practice, of course, no system
could be totally closed to interaction with its
environment.

More recently, a more sophisticated idea has
developed from the work of Maturana and Varela on
"autopoiesis" - self-producing systems.

The theory stems from biology, where it was
developed to explain the difference between
living and non-living systems. Living systems
undergo a continual process of self-production
(NOT REproduction), constructing the very
components that constitute them in the first
place. They are therefore inevitably
self-referential, and "organizationally closed"
(explained more below).

These ideas have generated much interest and
debate in other domains such as social theory
(Luhmann) - are
institutions/societies autopoietic?
Law (Teubner) - are legal systems autopoietic?
family therapy, and politics (Jessop) for
example.

M&V distinguish between structure and
organization. The "structure" refers to the
components, relations and processes of actually
occurring entities while "organization" is a
subset of the relations that apply to all systems
of a similar type. Thus all living systems share
an autopoietic organization, but this
organization is realised or embodied in a
multitude of different structures. Such systems
are "organizationally closed" in terms of the
relations of self-production, but "structurally
open" in that actual instances interact with
their environment through their components.

How does this relate to RB?
I am not wholly sure, but:

i) RB actually uses the term "autopoietic" in
relation to the structure/agency relationship in
Plato, p. 93 but his usage is clearly not
standard. So, either he independently invented
the term (possible but not likely), or he has
picked it up and used it for his own purposes.

ii) One can see similarities between
the real/actual distinction and
that of organization/structure. Organization can
be seen as the underlying, unobservable
generative mechanism, and structure as the
observable occurrences generated by the
organization.

iii) Maturana also specifies a "scientific
methodology" extremely like retroduction:

A) Present an experience or phenomenon to be
explained in terms of what a standard observer
must do to experience it

B)  Formulate a generative mechanism that if
realised by a standard observer would allow them
to have the experience

C) Deduce other experiences that would also be
produced by the hypothesised mechanism

D) Attempt to realsie these other experiences.

The main difference is that Maturana refuses to
accept that we can have interactions with a
"real" world - we are always bound up in our own
(linguistic) experiences - and that therefore we
can say nothing about it. All we can do is
explain our experiences with other experiences.

I think there are lots of interesting contrasts
that could be explored.

If you are interested I have a book on
autopoiesis - "Self-Producing Systems -
Implications and Applications of Autopoiesis",
Plenum, 1995.

John

>
John Mingers, Senior Lecturer in Operational Research and Systems,
Warwick Business School,   Internet: J.Mingers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
University of Warwick,     fax:   +1203 524539
Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.      phone: +1203 522475
WWW: http://www.wbs.warwick.ac.uk/infosys/ors/jm.htm



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---