From: "John Mingers" <orsjm-AT-razor.wbs.warwick.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 14:01:10 GMT
Subject: Re: BHA: defining open / closed systems: autopoiesis


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-AT-warwick.ac.uk
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-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---