Bich L. (2016) Systems and organizations: Theoretical tools, conceptual distinctions and epistemological implications. In: Minati G., Ambram M. & Pessa E. (eds.) Towards a post-Bertalanffy systemics. Springer, New York: 203–209. https://cepa.info/3666
The aim of this paper is to present some system-theoretical notions – such as constraint, closure, integration, coordination, etc. – which have recently raised a renovated interest and have undergone a deep development, especially in those branches of philosophy of biology characterized by a systemic approach. The implications of these notions for the analysis and characterization of self-maintaining organizations will be discussed with the aid of examples taken from models of minimal living systems, and some conceptual distinctions will be provided. In the last part of the paper the epistemic implications of these ideas will be presented.
Dávila X. Y. & Maturana H. R. (2009) Hacia una era post posmoderna en las comunidades educativas. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación 49: 135–161. https://cepa.info/723
In this essay, the authors invite us to take a different look at the fundamental phenomena of today’s education, imagining a flow of events that can orient us into following a drift that results in a reflexive transformation by the year 2021. This invitation is assumed with gravity, responsibility and boldness. Gravity, because of the reflexive precision that the authors use in their analysis; responsibility because they encourage to assume generationally the consequences of understanding education in this zero-time; and boldness because this is a proposal that allows us to shift our look into the comprehension of the cultural and biological foundations of human living. This proposal is undertaken from an unitary epistemological foundation that consciously avoids all dualistic temptation, broadening our understanding of our constitution as living creatures and as human beings, inviting us to reflect and to broaden our possibility of living in individual and social welfare, as naturally ethic and autonomous beings, capable of assuming the responsibility of being conscious of the world the we produce with our own living.
Purpose: To consider how the approach and work of Heinz von Foerster, among others, can aid psychotherapists. Design/methodology/approach – A family therapist, as every therapist, is caught in the dilemma that (s)he cannot separate what (s)he sees from who (s)he is. One possibility to understand what happens in a therapeutic system is by means of the model of resonance. The therapist observes himself or herself and regards these thoughts and emotions as part of the therapeutic system. (S)he takes part in the reciprocal double binds, i.e. the strategy how each member of a human system s(he) is part of is protecting the worldview of the others by acting in a way, which is reinforcing their worldviews. Thus, a homeostasis is maintained. Findings: Proposes a new systemic approach closer to Ilya Prigogine’s work on systems far from equilibrium where chance plays a role helping members of human systems to leave a world of predictability and to enter a universe of freedom and responsibility. Also uses the teachings of Heinz von Foerster about being part of the world and not separated observers. The viewpoint of constructed realities entails freedom and responsibility and is a highly ethical position. Originality/value – Provides help in understanding how the teachings of Heinz von Foerster, among others, can aid psychotherapists.
Systems thinking provides insights into how ideas interact and change, and constructivism is an example of this type of systemic approach. In the 1970s constructivism emphasised the development of mathematical and scientific ideas in children. Recently constructivist ideas are applied much more generally. Here I use this approach to consider beliefs and their role in conflicts and the conditions needed for reconciliation. If we look at Reality in terms of how we construct it as a human cognitive process, we recognise two things. First, that we cannot go beyond our senses and thoughts to what exists independently of us, and second, if we construct what we know we have to take responsibility for this. This inevitably focuses our thinking on the relation we have with the physical and social world, we are a part of the universe rather than apart from it. This paper argues that accepting and understanding these limits of human knowing together with our interconnectedness provide opportunities to understand conflicting positions. To resolve conflict, people with opposing viewpoints have to be prepared to understand each other. That is a challenge because our own reality plays a vital role in our lives, for everything from personal survival to social support.