Print

Print


So happy to hear and see this conversion doesn't die :-)
 
I'm afraid I am a Senser too. Maybe that is why I still don't get it
after almost 10 years.
 
Also, I'm not a manager, certainly not a senior one. 
 
Maybe that is also why I have been able to transform Dave's suggestions
onto some practical form after a few years while I still struggle to do
the same with the VSM.
 
And I would LOVE to do that too with the VSM. I sense that it has value,
but .....
 
Small suggestion: I would really help me to have real-life examples of
applying the VSM stuff to SMALL organizations. Not global problems, not
huge organizations, not societal institutions, but local retail stores,
3-FTE consultancy firms, 10-membered creative design networks, a medium
sized construction firm, etc. 
 
I guess that would attract attention from the Sensers. At least it would
attract me.
 
Harold


________________________________

	From: Forum dedicated to the work of Stafford Beer
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Patrick
Hoverstadt
	Sent: vrijdag 31 oktober 2008 10:29
	To: [log in to unmask]
	Subject: Re: Snowden & Cybermen
	
	

	At the risk of stating the totally bleeding obvious:

	1.       most of the people in the VSM community are extremely
high end conceptual thinkers, express themselves in those terms and
write about VSM in the same way. Most people in management aren't. They
don't work from theory to practice, they either work from practice to
practice, or if you're lucky from practice to theory. If you state it in
conceptual terms, most people simply don't stand a chance of getting it.

	2.       When Doug did a "quick n dirty" MBTI evaluation of the
members of SCiO, I don't think there was anyone who was "S" sensing,
everyone was an "I" Intuitive. We intuit that VSM is right and works.
There actually isn't much hard evidence. We're comfortable with that
because we're intuitives and we "know" its right. Majority of senior
managers are Sensing, in a firm a mate of mine worked for 9 out of 10 of
he board were ESTJ (ie in one single profile of the 16 possible
combinations). "Pragmatic" managers to use Chasm language (presume
you've all forgotten that from the conference in L'pool) are Sensing and
need data to support their decisions - even when they work on a hunch,
they still rationalise the hunch using data. With no hard evidence to
prove VSM works, how are they going to accept it? They aren't even going
to bother engaging with it.

	 

	So to Franks comment - yes + grounding it practice + collecting
& presenting data of what it can do.

	 

	  

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Forum dedicated to the work of Stafford Beer
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stefan
Wasilewski
	Sent: 31 October 2008 09:05
	To: [log in to unmask]
	Subject: Re: Snowden & Cybermen

	 

	Absolutely !

	 

	 

	On 30 Oct 2008, at 23:04, Frank wrote:

	
	
	

	

	Barry,

	SNIP

	 

	>If we could figure out why some think it is intuitively obvious
and others can't get it at all, we would be better able to sell it to
the world ... 

	 

	Perhaps people should write in an intuitive manner? In other
words intuitively choose the right words that connect with their
audience instead of indulging in the obfuscating academic jargon so
beloved by many on this list?

	 

	The end user is (or imo should be) the businessman who needs to
apply the principles of VSM etc to his business in order to improve its
efficaciousness.

	 

	Regards

	 

	Frank Wood 

		----- Original Message -----

		From: BARRY A CLEMSON <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 

		To: [log in to unmask]

		Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:49 PM

		Subject: Re: Snowden & Cybermen

		 

		Joe,

		 

		Some years ago I had lunch with a lady who was doing
very interesting applications of the VSM. Eventually I asked her which
of the books she had read. She looked a little embarrassed and finally
said approximately this; "Well - actually I haven't read any of them --
I just looked at the diagrams. The diagrams make it all intuitively
obvious." My sister had the same reaction to my book about Stafford's
work. She said "After you read it, you realize it is all intuitively
obvious."  And then of course there were those of my students who just
found the entire thing incomprehensible (I like to think they were a
small minority, but one can never be sure how many of the students are
simply trying to tell teacher what he wants to hear...).

		 

		If we could figure out why some think it is intuitively
obvious and others can't get it at all, we would be better able to sell
it to the world ... 

		 

		In a previous post I suggested that Gordon Pask's
distinction between holist learners and serialist learners might be
relevant to this question. No one responded to that suggestion and I
took that to mean that no one found it helpful??? If not holist vs
serialist, then what?

		 

		Barry

		 

		 

		On Oct 30, 2008, at 4:01 AM, Joseph Truss wrote:

		
		
		

		Hi Russell et al,
		rc writes: "...there seems to be something at work in
the brain/mind which makes the VSM appear as an Egyptian hieroglyph to
some -- and yet afford deep insight to others. What is this thing..."
Recursivity in 2 dimensions is an impossible construct,  I think that
what recursivity meant  to Stafford could probably be most closely
modeled using fractal geometry.  Before Mandelbrot, smoothness reigned
in mathematics, only by iterating roughness did we come to better
understand and model 'real nature'.  The complexity leaks between and
among recursive systems are part of the make-up of roughness that
defines their own  boundary conditions - in essence all boundaries are
fractal in nature. Recursivity has no need to describe embedments that
run any deeper than the largest organizational form which contains them.
Recursivity is a 'smoothed' version of the underlying fractal which even
when iterated to infinity will not completely fill its dimensional space
(ie be completely smooth). 
		I can only speak from my direct experience (the
non-mystical kind) of Stafford's coherence as a viable system and why I
believe his corpus of work will become the bedrock of viable society
(however it might take much longer than our own lifetimes - but this is
our challenge, not his).  S was not only a great thinker and scientist -
he was wise (the farthest reaches of the data / information / knowledge
/ wisdom continuum).  He never compromised his own intellectual and
ethical nature and was always therefore able to find, in his very
literary way, the best way to express what he thought was true.  Not to
invoke mystical, psychic or 'out-there' impressions, but in a rational
sense I believe we have a manifestation of transduction of pure cosmic
architecture through the fractal cns structure and continuous iterations
of self actualizing of one of the world's greatest thinkers. The
challenge for those of us who share the belief that this is needed now,
is that we have to transduce S.  This doesn't mean to me that we don't
continue to seek better ways, but it does mean we must first better
understand the invariant architectural forms that lead to  structures
that promote viability.  We see the effect of the Fibonnacci spiral in
the Nautilus shell and in a pea plant's ability to maximize surface area
to sunlight.  Any structure that exists in nature today contains design
geometry iterated not by a computer, but by millions of years of
evolution.  The transduction of pure cosmic architecture into viable
structures. 
		Geometry is the bridge between Art and Science and SB,
the polymath, was an astonishing artist and poet.  We shared some common
iconography as in the enneagram and of course the icosahedron, and had
arrived at some similar places through our separate esoteric and other
life journeys, but I cannot account for how I understood Stafford except
through a resonant coherent architecture that I miraculously grokked.
Geometry was the  bridge between Stafford's genius and my cockiness.  My
broken record refrain for modeling and designing using particular
tangible structures reflects my belief that the architecture that
defines all things, living, inanimate, mechanical, etc.  has invariants
that govern all structure, are scale independent to the quantum level,
and are manifest in every thing that has structure.
		I saw on NOVA recently that scientists are using fractal
geometry to measure the carbon uptake of forests.  They cut down a tree
and document the numbers, sizes and spacing of the branches and graph
the results.  They then measure the girth of tree trunks and their
relative distribution around the felled tree and graph these results.
Yep - the graphs are self similar.  What this means is that they can now
very accurately calculate, using fractal geometry, the uptake of a
single tree and apply it to scale to the entire forest.  Notice from
where the fractal similarities came.  The branching of a single tree
compared to the girth distribution of seemingly random growth around it.
This is the sense in which I mean recursive levels are fractal.  The
complexity 'uptake' of a single level of recursion is fractal to the
entire organization!
		We have experienced the same phenomenon you describe
above with the icosahedron. It led the many great thinkers who pondered
it to deep insight and yet there are many more who only see  the Star of
David and with the currency this symbol holds in some social contexts,
it might as well be an Egyptian hieroglyph.
		Re the word cybernetics, S fought to not have the
meaning of the word de-legitimized.  So much so that he argued against
the term 'second order cybernetics' as he felt the concept had been
included in the original term cybernetics and was therefore redundant. 
		On the other hand, the name of the fish is not the fish.

		However, since the Creationists co-opted the term
'intelligent design' it has made use of this term even by the
evolutionists who coined it, meaningless.

		 

		Joseph Truss
		Abbey North Drummers
		Open Futures
		Team Syntegrity AG

		 

		 

		
________________________________


		From: R Clemens <[log in to unmask]>
		To: [log in to unmask]
		Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 7:09:51 PM
		Subject: Re: Snowden & Cybermen

I am struggling to see the issue(s) DS brings up about systems thinking,
cybernetics and information as being pragmatically relevant to better
management and governance in general. 

I assume in some 10-15 years some smart new idea will be in full flower
that will place DS (i.e cognitive sciences) in much the same position as
he now feels SB & VSM are -- i.e. left behind. 

However, it is useful, I think, to try and delve deeper into what he is
saying -- I get the sense here that DS is to SB/VSM (community) as the
Development Directorate is to the Operations Directorate (S$-S3) --
albeit we are talking theory systems. Certainly the dynamic and tone
reflects Chap9 in Heart.

I am reading through Cognitive science in Wikipedia (I have not the time
or means to find a more academic sources at this time) -- e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science. I note there are ample
references to systems and computer sciences. e.g. 

Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field with contributors from
various fields, including psychology
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology> , neuroscience
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience> , linguistics
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics> , philosophy of mind
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind> , computer science
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science> , anthropology
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology> , biology
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology> , and physics
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics> . Cognitive science tends to view
the world outside the mind much as other sciences do. Thus it too has an
objective, observer-independent existence. The field is usually seen as
compatible with the physical sciences, and uses the scientific method
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>  as well as simulation
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation>  or modeling
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_%28abstract%29> , often comparing
the output of models with aspects of human behavior. Still, there is
much disagreement about the exact relationship between cognitive science
and other fields, and the interdisciplinary nature of cognitive science
is largely both unrealized and circumscribed.


I note that there is some reference to Functionalism that may be
somewhat relevant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(psychology)

I will have to read more but I sense that Snowden may be taking one
stream (amongst many) of the cognitive sciences field.  I still have yet
to see or understand what his issue with systems thinking etc is based
on -- apart from perhaps limited understanding or practice of it. As
someone once said in past exchanges, wisely I thought, "... he will
better appreciate the VSM when his company grows and he has to deal with
operational reality -- e.g. invoices and pay cheques ..."(or words to
that effect, Dear Luc) . 

I certainly do not want to offend Dave or anyone else here, there are
many with much to say of merit, but there seems to be something at work
in the brain/mind which makes the VSM appear as an Egyptian hieroglyph
to some -- and yet afford deep insight to others. What is this thing? It
must be more than business -- DS's reactions to VSM and systems thinking
etc are commonly found in management cohorts I work with. Hence perhaps
why we are in the mess we find today. 



--- On Thu, 30/10/08, Patrick Hoverstadt
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Patrick Hoverstadt <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Snowden & Cybermen
To: [log in to unmask]
Received: Thursday, 30 October, 2008, 9:19 AM

I suspect that one area of confusion / miscommunication between two
disciplines (if I can use that term pretty loosely) is that
"information" is being mixed up with "data". Information implies
(actually it states it) the construction / maintenance of form, so
patterns. Data in debased modern usage means just "things" often
numbers. Its proper meaning is a fixed reference point, but since in
organisations, its rarely connected to any structural reference point,
most "data" is just free-floating in a sort of managerial space, waiting
to be plucked out of the air and used for any purpose that seems
helpful, even if the data has no real relevance.

I suspect that when Dave Snowden is talking about information
processing, he doesn't mean information processing (which is the
building and maintenance / re-creation of patterns) I suspect he's
actually thinking of shoving chunks of "data" down tubes, wires or
synapses. Which of course we aren't - big assumption there, at least I'm
not. Same words, totally different meaning.


 

________________________________

From: Forum dedicated to the work of Stafford Beer
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joseph Truss
Sent: 29 October 2008 21:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Snowden & Cybermen


 

Stefan, thank you.  This is helpful.  
In terms of my own narrative (and limited understanding), when Einstein
realized that 3 Dimensions did not meet the requirements of relativity
the 4th Dimension of Time was added to the 3 'existing' Spatial
Dimensions.  The science of the day didn't need 4-Dimensional math to
calculate its perceived reality.  Time has no physical existence and
Space without Time is meaningless. Enter Spacetime.   In the Standard
Model time has no enforced or required direction. The equations all work
whether you run time forward or backward.  Information as statistical
expression, or as 'that which changes us', takes on a different physical
attribution in quantum physics.
(http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1658).  In the trinity of
inter-transformable Energy / Matter / Information, it is not only that
one can convert the entire universe into bit-carrying chunks and thus
have a quantifiable 'information space' with an information limit based
on the capacity of the cosmic hard-drive. From the attached article:
"The important new observation is that information is not independent of
the physical laws used to store and process it (see Landauer in further
reading)".
Even if the brain processes 'blends and patterns' are these not just
aggregates of information?  Is information not a fractal phenomenon?
Information is surely requisite for pattern recognition, isn't it?
Anyway my geometric intuition keeps me from accepting triadic wholes and
I would add Time to the above trinity and have four inter-transformable
aspects: E/M/I/T.


 

Joseph Truss
Abbey North Drummers
Open Futures
Team Syntegrity AG


 


 

________________________________

From: Stefan Wasilewski <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:32:01 AM
Subject: Re: Snowden & Cybermen

Harold


 

I'm reminded of 'does the tree exist if there's no-one to there to hear
it fall?'. I'm closer to Shannon and Weaver than MacKay because whilst I
agree it is the impact that proves information definitely existed it
doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that subsequent impacts weren't biased
by the availability of the information as a context when another more
key decision needs to be made (am open to debate on the philosphy of the
original information).


 

Equally if you take the meme approach it is the order of and the
presence of elements in a process that is important (3-D and Time) and
therefore if a gene is information it too relies on presence and order
in time to make an impact.


 

I've been steadily going through Dave's C-E website, papers, listening
to his podcasts, and slowly coming to the conclusion that the VSM has a
key role to play and has not 'moved on' because it didn't need to nor
did Newton as he adequately explains things to the average man's frame
of reference  to all practical purposes.


 

All who can bring light onto raw data (disintermediation is good here)
and proper reporting (disintermediation is good here) have a role to
play in getting a better understanding of the role System Theory
(whatever name you want) has to play in governing the world we see and
the way we want to see it going forward.


 

The VSM doesn't need to worry about emergence to my view as it is a map
not the real thing and a guide to what's needed, that things emerge and
are sustainable over time should be a shock what is curious is that the
all have consistent functional structures that look like the VSM (avec
autopoesis) . Equally the role of the communication network within the
VSM, with its own meta-level decision requirement, leaves a lot to be
explored especially when considering cellular automata and quantum
resonance.


 

Regards 


 

Stefan


 

On 29 Oct 2008, at 11:28, Garderen, Harold van wrote:

 

Interesting perspective Dave gives on Cybernetics. In my view the post
WW-II Macy conferences have ended in the split between the "AI" people
that believed that information had value on its own and that also
popularized the idea that human can be augmented as is/was often
popularized in SciFi.


 

To illustrate the OTHER view I copy here two para's of a forthcoming
publication that I'm currently writing:


 

	Where Shannon and Weaver [7] in their famous Information Theory
defined information as a statistical entity, in terms of what it is,
Donald Mackay [8] argued during the early stages of the Macy Conferences
that only signals that brought about a change in the recipient contained
information. Thus Mackay defined information in terms of what is does.
It is clear that Shannon and Weaver have fully convinced the
technological audience while, with hindsight, Mackay can be placed as
belonging to the realm of social studies where this view on information
had been commonly accepted already since the 19th century.

	
	 

	We, the beneficiaries of the latest "information technology
blessings", again start to realize that Mackay was right. In a world
where one is flooded with meaningless bits and pieces, it is not so hard
anymore to reverse ones' opinion and embrace the view that that whole
kluge [9] of air- controlled basements, servers, mainframes, storage
racks, cabling, switches, connections, protocols, filters, streams,
files, applications and screens are just holders, carriers and
presenters of endless tides of meaningless data that convey no
significance unless we, humans, enact it, construct and attach meaning
and find ourselves changed in the process. Then, and only then,
communication has been accomplished.

I still hold some form of hope that Mackay's view will become so popular
that it really will get some impact. If that happens the word
Cybernetics will get a whole new meaning. IF HOWEVER we should forget
about the word and adopt a new one to make it happen I suggest that we
drop the word :-)


 

Finally, I find it quite hard to point down where in the VSM way of
thinking the concept of  "emergence" that Dave is often referring to can
come forward when working with the VSM. In that sense I think Dave is
right when he says the world has moved on. Another view could be that
"emergence" was/is such in integral property of VSM inspired work that I
missed it. Anyway making that property (if it is included) more
prominent again might help bridging the "good old work" to "todays
interests".


 

So far my 2 cents.


 

Harold

	
________________________________


	From: Forum dedicated to the work of Stafford Beer
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of R Clemens
	Sent: woensdag 29 oktober 2008 11:46
	To: [log in to unmask]
	Subject: Re: Snowden & Cybermen

FYI -- see below

--- On Wed, 29/10/08, Snowden Dave <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

From: Snowden Dave <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Snowden & Cybermen
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Received: Wednesday, 29 October, 2008, 6:47 PM

The problem with the word is that stems back to information processing
models of the human brain, something common to a long of systems
dynamics (and more generally systems thinking).   Cognitive science has
moved on from that time and we now know the brain does not process
information, but instead blends and activates patterns (that is a gross
simplification but you get the point).  The irony is that this allows
for humans to be augmented by technology, but points to natural limits
in that technology.   As I have said in several of our conversations,
the agenda have moved on.  We all owe a great debt to Beer et al, as
quantum mechanics owes a debt to Newton .


 


 

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd


 

Now blogging at www.cognitive-edge.com


 


 

On 28 Oct 2008, at 12:49, R Clemens wrote:

 

Dr Snowden

The BBC series Dr Who has played an important part in forming the public
mind over the last 40 years. 

You mention not liking the word "cybernetics", and I note that one of
the evil archetypal characters in the series is known as 'Cybermen'. 

It has been suggested the head dress of these BBC characters looks
similar to Stafford Beer's VSM diagram.  In checking the Wikipedia site
I note specific mention to Norbert Weiner and also, interestingly, to a
negative St Pancras crowd reaction to a public presentation of the
character in the streets. (* see below)

Given your comment below "...and cybernetics (which I don't like as a
word)..." do you think there is a hurdle here in expecting a neutral
response from (a) people/public; (b) management; and (c) other
professionals, who, like yourself may become exposed to the management
cybernetics of Stafford Beer?

If so, do have any free advice to give on what might enhance
contemporary 'coupling capacity' with Stafford Beer's VSM? 

regards
Russell

(p.s. if you wish to respond, please email me & I will post it to the
Listserv for others to read -- as we seem to have certain technical
considerations in place stopping non-members submitting responses
directly at this time.)


History


Conceptual history


The name "Cyberman" comes from cybernetics
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics> , a term coined in Norbert
Wiener <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener> 's book Cybernetics
or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (MIT Press,
1948). Wiener used the term in reference to the control of complex
systems in the animal world and in mechanical networks, in particular
self-regulating control systems. By 1960, doctors were performing
research into surgically or mechanically augmenting humans or animals to
operate machinery in space, leading to the coining of the term "cyborg",
for "cybernetic organism".


 

In the 1960s, "spare-part" surgery was starting out, with the first,
gigantic heart-lung machines being developed. There were also serious
suggestions of wiring the nerve endings of amputees directly into
machines for quicker response.[5]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberman#cite_note-4>  In 1963, Kit Pedler
had a conversation with his wife (who was also a doctor) about what
would happen if a person had so many prostheses that they could no
longer distinguish themselves between man and machine. He got the
opportunity to develop this idea when, in 1966, after an appearance on
the BBC science programmes Tomorrow's World
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_World>  and Horizon
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_%28BBC_TV_series%29> , the BBC
hired him to help on the Doctor Who serial The War Machines
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Machines> . That eventually led to
him writing, with Gerry Davis's help, The Tenth Planet for Doctor Who.


 

Pedler, influenced by the logic-driven Treens
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treens>  from the Dan Dare
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Dare>  comic strip, originally
envisaged the Cybermen as "space monks", but was persuaded by Davis to
concentrate on his fears about the direction of spare-part surgery. The
original Cybermen were imagined as human, but with plastic and metal
prostheses. The Cybermen of The Tenth Planet still have human hands, and
their facial structures are visible beneath the masks they wear.
However, over time, they evolved into metallic, more robot-like designs.


 

The Cybermen attracted controversy when parents complained after a scene
in The Tomb of the Cybermen in which a dying Cyberman spurted white foam
from its innards. Another incident was initiated by Pedler himself, who
took a man in a Cyberman costume into a busy shopping area of St.
Pancras <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Pancras,_London> . The reaction
of the public was predictable, and the crowd almost blocked the street
and the police were called in. Pedler said that he "wanted to know how
people would react to something quite unusual," but also admitted that
he "wanted to be a nuisance."[6]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberman#cite_note-5>  Pedler wrote his
last Cyberman story, The Invasion, in 1968, and left Doctor Who with
Gerry Davis to develop the scientific thriller series Doomwatch
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomwatch> .

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberman)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberman%29> 


 


--- On Mon, 27/10/08, Snowden Dave <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

From: Snowden Dave <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Snowden
To: "Garderen, Harold van" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
Received: Monday, 27 October, 2008, 8:49 PM

Thanks Harold and nice to see you engaged.  I haven't got time to write
an essay but a couple of points:

- I think aspects of Beer apply to the complicated domain of cynefin

- I think the complex space needs managing, its not just leaving it
alone or assuming that a community of interest (more complicated) will
solve it.  More techniques like SNS, but also specific actions to vary
constraints and connectivity.  The difference is a solution will be
emergent and unique and will not fit in a model

- Stuart (had dinner with him a few months ago) more important the V/M I
think, his latest badly written book has some real insights in it.

- If Beer was around today he would be into (and would understand)
complexity and cybernetics (which I don't like as a word) would be a
different place

And yes, we need to do some very different things if the world is to
survive in any humane form - just blogging that


 


 

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd


 

Now blogging at www.cognitive-edge.com


 


 

On 27 Oct 2008, at 08:40, Garderen, Harold van wrote:

 

Hi Russell,


 

First of all "yes" I meant "his work".


 

What I meant to say about "nestedness" is that the Cynefin model
suggests that the "hard/intractible problems" are situated in the
complexity domain (upper left corner, forgive me Dave :-) ) and can be
treated (or at least tried to) by a group of "interested" people, a
community of interest so to say. Ofcourse these people come from their
respective parts/departments or groups in- or outside the organization
and a such they are from different "nests", but not on the sense of
"nestedness".


 

What I meant with prescribing is that Dave never/hardly? prescribes
while Beer explicitely models organizations in a nested way with the
resource bargain as part of the disussion while forming a lower
recursion. I'm not sure it will help, as Dave seems to assume that once
such a CoInterest is formed they are given the resources (f.e. time) to
work on the problem.


 

Knowing the Dave is regularly involved in treating (or at least
consulting for) problem that have to do with improving humanity, I have
copied him in with this email. As far as I know, Dave knows about the
Varela/Maturana work and about Stuart Kaufmann's work too. The latter
might be as important as the last.


 

Harold


 

	
________________________________


	From: Forum dedicated to the work of Stafford Beer [mailto:] On
Behalf Of R Clemens
	Sent: zondag 26 oktober 2008 23:54
	To: [log in to unmask]
	Subject: Re: Snowden

Dear Harold,

Thank you for this positive view. I think you are right about the
potential here -- for both sides of the coin (and for humanity as well,
without trying to save the world!). I will pass on the very nice term
"Beer proof" (with attribution) to Dave --  I'm sure it will enter the
lexicon down the track.  ;-)

With Dave, on this matter, I have used the idea of "conceptual coupling"
(as per Maturana & Varela) as a reconciling of certain S5 issues in
operation -- and I hypothesis, if both models/approaches are real, from
real identities, then it is accord with the VSM , and polite society, to
follow this route.

Question: how do you think "prescribing nested forms of organization" in
Dave's work would help (a) his work; and (b) coupling?  I'm thinking of
how to broach the topic with him. At the moment I've just used the term
"Black box" to describe my interpretation of his way of dealing with the
issue. 

regards
Russell 

p.s. I assume your "I would really encourage he work to be integrated in
these discussions." should read "I would really encourage his work to be
integrated in these discussions."-- is this correct?

--- On Mon, 27/10/08, Garderen, Harold van <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

From: Garderen, Harold van <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Snowden
To: [log in to unmask]
Received: Monday, 27 October, 2008, 6:45 AM

Friends,


 

That is right, Dave's view is in no aspect at odds with Staffords'. That
is a rare thing today. I think Dave is one of the few contemporary
management thinkers that can be regarded as "Beer-proof" today. In
particular his Cynefin model (see paper section of mentioned website)
can be seen as covering most of the dynamic features Beer has put into
the VSM.


 

On the other hand Dave's work is not so structured as Beers' VSM.
Cynefin isn't prescribing nested forms of organization. In fact is
doesn't say anything about organizational form whatsoever.


 

I would really encourage he work to be integrated in these discussions.
Not only contentwise, but also because Dave is succesful and booming. An
"integration" (hope the word doesn't convey to many wrong meanings here)
could speed up the broadening of interest for the VSM in my view.


 

With kind regards,


 

Harold


 

	
________________________________


	From: Forum dedicated to the work of Stafford Beer
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of R Clemens
	Sent: zondag 26 oktober 2008 14:17
	To: [log in to unmask]
	Subject: Re: Snowden

Roger

If you are interested this link is Snowden speaking in Melbourne before
he came through Perth recently. Careful listening will show that he
covers many of the VSM aspects -- at least I cannot find any conflict
with it.

http://www.cognitive-edge.com/podcasts/WS330063.mp3



--- On Sat, 25/10/08, R Clemens <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: R Clemens <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Snowden
To: " Forum dedicated to the work of Stafford Beer "
<[log in to unmask]>
Received: Saturday, 25 October, 2008, 10:00 AM

Roger: 

It is discursive and digressive and as the Irish would say (I assume):
to be sure to be sure, I'd have to tell a longish story about the truth
as I see it myself. 

However, in summary:

Dave Snowden is a very well informed Welshman I came across in my
studies of scenarios etc some years ago because of his writings on the
use of narrative while he worked in IBM (through a company merger). 

He is now one of the originators of the new field of Knowledge
Management. He is an expert in complexity science and its application to
management practice. We are trialling his approach Cynefin framework
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin) and software called SenseMaker at
my department. (see http://www.sensemaker-suite.com/)
<http://www.sensemaker-suite.com/%29>  -- e.g.

"It is a pre-hypothesis based research tool, a knowledge repository and
a decision support system in one coherent package."


 

The approach emerges from a foundation in complex adaptive systems
theory, cognitive sciences and narrative & anthropology.
(http://www.sensemaker-suite.com/concept.htm)


He was in Perth for a day en-route Melbourne-Singapore, and I was host. 

He appears both as academic and businessman. He has strong opinions on
many things -- one of which is that Stafford Beer's model of the brain
and the VSM are wrong -- or at least out of date. [There are strong S5
issues at work here] 

He does not have a cybernetic or systems orientation although I need to
be careful here. Ralph D Stacey (Complexity & Creativity in
Organizations) would appear to be someone Snowden is aligned with. He
did degrees in Philosophy & Physics. 

Don't lose sleep over it. I find it interesting and useful to synergise
both SB & DS views (and one or two others). I mentioned at Metaphoruim
2008 (last slide) that I/we were planning to trial SenseMaker as a
follow-on from our scenario work.  After some extended email discussions
(you think these are long!) - I tortured him enough to consider it
theoretically possible to use his SenseMaker approach to verify the VSM
hypothesis. 

To try this I now need to develop the right set of signifiers (a term he
uses that is more than tagging) to show there are five interwoven
systems and cultures at work (i.e. S1 thru S5). I would hope for some
help from people here when the time comes (and it is coming very soon
now). I have an organisation of N=1,000 approx. It is most likely to be
chopped into three. 

p.s. I'm not selling his approach or methods or theory -- I'm testing it
(a) in practice at work; and (b) in theory here with the VSM. Whereas
VSM is a 'dead duck' in respect to local  management interest Snowden's
approach is rapidly gaining traction. I see his SenseMaker primarily as
a S3* tool -- but it also has wider application I think. I have just had
two university schools (one business management/leadership and the other
Sustainability policy and practice) become quite interested in his
SenseMaker as a research tool. 

Oh, I should add, he has a following as well! ... ;-)

If you want some samples of him speaking then try here:
http://www.cognitive-edge.com/podcasts.php

--- end of discursive field notes -----



--- On Sat, 25/10/08, Roger Harnden <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

From: Roger Harnden <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth
To: [log in to unmask]
Received: Saturday, 25 October, 2008, 2:59 AM

Russell.


 

I'm missing out somewhere. What is the 'Dave Snowden' stuff??


 

Roger

On 24 Oct 2008, at 14:24, R Clemens wrote:

 

Yes, I am still writing out my 10,000 lines on the blackboard:
"Discursive is bad!" ... Not sure it's going to work though ... ;-)p


 

What Frank wrote, I responded to. What he meant, I can only surmise.
Whether it reflects Bloor, I can only take his opinion.


 


 


 

--- WARNING: Do Not Read Further If You Wish To Avoid Discursiveness ---


 


 


 


 

*	Reliable Knowledge: "Statements about truth must be viewed
skeptically. Rather than state something as "true," the following phrase
should be used: "On the evidence available today the balance of
probability favors the view that..."." ( V. Gordon Childe, Man Makes
Himself, 1936) 


 

*	Religious meaning of knowledge: "The Old Testament's Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil contained the knowledge that separated Man
from God: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of
us, to know good and evil... " (Genesis 3:22)" 


 

(Source: both in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge)


 

Why am I there in the Wiki? Well it's a story for another time perhaps,
but, in short, well medium-long, I've just spent a busy day studying a
strange complex species called "Dave Snowden" at work in the field -
hence arriving at "Knowledge Management" is the same Wiki-reference area
to quotes above (while I read this email from Frank).


 

In my opinion, what Snowden is doing is 100% cybernetics (as per
autopoietic definition explained to me by Luc) and his approach -
including SenseMaker - is one very powerful tool to use. Watch this
space!


 

I believe it can cover audit/feedback, boundaries (or lack of them),
algedonic links (which he calls disintermediation), homeostatic balance,
and inter-recursive level communications issues. In fact, where as VSM
gives an x-ray view, Snowden's complexity approach is very much a
'Blackbox' paradigm - and management are getting very excited about it.
Ultimately it is second order cybernetics applied to governance praxis.
In short, he claims to synergise quantitative and qualitative methods
and data - I think effectively.


 

In a note to Angela I said: "There are some identity issues between SB [
Stafford ] & DS which are natural and expected (and explained in VSM and
other models/frameworks).  But this should be celebrated, not seen as a
problem. If SB was the "most viable system" someone knew -- then I'd say
DS must be one of the most 'SB' characters I know (without actually
knowing SB -- rather by sensing from reading and Metaphorum derived
insight).


 

If, I'm wrong then shoot me. Now back to the blackboard....


 

-- End of Discursiveness --- 




--- On Fri, 24/10/08, Roger Harnden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Roger Harnden <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth
To: [log in to unmask]
Received: Friday, 24 October, 2008, 10:45 PM

Frank, take no notice of Russell - he lives  down under - probably in
the outback  - so all he understands are 'walkabouts' (including those
to the pub, if my memory is correct!).


 

Serious point. If you look below, I don't think Frank actually said such
an  absolute statement. IHe is summarising his understanding of a thesis
- indeed, from the look of it (I don't know the book) quite a sensible
one.


 

It is interesting how many of these discussions circle round (without
explicitly acknowledging that they do  the objectivist/relativist
debates.


 

The thing I keep trying to say - albeit clumsily - is that I feel that
insights of cybernetic thinking and analysis overcomes many of the
problems that can dog so-called 'post-modernist' discourse. 


 

Roger 


 

PS Russell, in the light of one or two previous irritated comments, I
have to say I feel we are both behaving quite well about keeping stuff
terse!


 

On 24 Oct 2008, at 11:46, Frank wrote:

 

Ha ha point taken! Sloppy thinking on my part. Nonetheless Bloor makes
some interesting points.


 

Regards


 

Frank Wood

	----- Original Message -----

	From: R Clemens <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 

	To: [log in to unmask]

	Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 11:34 AM

	Subject: Re: Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth

	
	 

Re: David Bloor 

The problem I have with these absolutist statements "... there is no
such thing as absolute truth .. " is they are self contradictory.

I once sat through 20 minutes of indoctrination (1:1) by a supposed
policy expert who's thesis was "there are no facts" -- when she'd
finished I simple asked the obvious question -- "Is that a fact?"
Session ended rather soon afterwards.

 

--- On Fri, 24/10/08, Frank <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Frank <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth
To: [log in to unmask]
Received: Friday, 24 October, 2008, 8:58 PM

Just seen the error that Barry made so don't have to make the correction
now :-)


 

Kenneth Patchen said in his novel The Journal of Albion Moonlight "I do
not choose my truths." I disagree. I think we choose our truths in the
light of our culture and the paradigm of our times.


 

This is the point David Bloor made in his book "Knowledge and Social
Imagery". My interpretation of what he said is that there is no such
thing as absolute truth and that truth is dependent on the ongoing
paradigm and nothing changes until the paradigm is broken and then the
paradigm breakers set up the new paradigm.


 

His section The Popper-Kuhn Debate  is an interesting discussion on
truth and the nature of facts.


 

This is a good overview of Bloor's stance.


 

http://www.iit.edu/~schmaus/Science_and_Values/notes/sociologists/social
.pdf
<http://www.iit.edu/%7Eschmaus/Science_and_Values/notes/sociologists/soc
ial.pdf> 


 

Regards


 

Frank Wood

	----- Original Message -----

	From: BARRY A CLEMSON <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 

	To: [log in to unmask]

	Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 6:27 PM

	Subject: Re: Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth

	
	 

	Stefan,

	
	 

	Thank  you. It is no wonder I was confused, I didn't see the
article by Simson L Garfinkel and I thought you were talking about
Frank.

	
	 

	Barry

	On Oct 23, 2008, at 1:01 PM, Stefan Wasilewski wrote:

	 

	Barry (and Frank)

	
	 

	I was addressing the article of Simson L. Garfinkel itself and
not Frank at all, having read the whole thing and the result was my
thoughts as below.

	
	 

	I believe Roger replied and I agree with him (and Frank) but to
reply to your thought, we should always go into something with the idea
of verifying what we read.

	
	 

	Garfinkel is Navy and framed by his environment and this was my
thrust in your point 3. I'm old enough to remember being behind the
'Wall' for long periods and talking to those of my age that sought
'truth' but who were open enough to question what was said all along the
way: This attitude stayed with me.

	
	 

	Of the times I've had discussion with Frank it was always clear,
interesting and thought provoking, I seldom now respond to anything
other.

	
	 

	Hope this helps

	
	 

	Stefan

	
	 

	
	 

	On 23 Oct 2008, at 16:46, BARRY A CLEMSON wrote:

	 

	Stefan,

	
	 

	I find your comments puzzling and would like clarification. 

	
	 

	1) It seems to me that you are saying that Frank has a grudge --
is this correct? I found his piece to be a thoughtful critique that also
was quite supportive of Wikipedia.

	
	 

	2) You say (and I agree) it is up to each of us to verify the
facts we seek. What Frank pointed out very nicely is that we might be
blindsided by our unexamined assumptions. And if we are not even aware
of our assumptions (which is often the case) we are quite thoroughly
trapped by them and unable to check our facts.

	
	 

	3) i saw no hint of a suggestion to prefer "the current
filtering of information and the writing of history by the winners".
Rather I saw support for Wikipedia. Where did this come from?

	
	 

	4) Perhaps I am merely clueless but I don't see how his specific
profession provides any clue to his viewpoint.

	
	 

	Please help me out here.

	
	 

	Barry

	
	 

	
	 

	On Oct 23, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Stefan Wasilewski wrote:

	 

	I generally find that people who criticise but don't offer an
alternative have a grudge and therefore to be put in one box to be
balanced as others are likewise accessed.

	
	 

	Surely it's up to each and every one of us to verify the facts
we seek and in doing so learn accordingly: Nothing should be taken on
face value.

	
	 

	Would he prefer the current filtering of information and the
writing of history by the winners to remain as our only sources?

	
	 

	His profession should give a clue to viewpoint.

	
	 

	Stefan

	  

	On 23 Oct 2008, at 13:24, Frank wrote:

	 

	Dear Listm

	http://www.technologyreview.com/web/21558/?nlid=1452&a=f

	
	 

	Any comments?

	
	 

	Regards

	
	 

	Frank Wood

	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum
Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:www.platformforchange.org
METAPHORUM eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at -
http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	
	 

	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.orgFor the Metaphorum
Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:
www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at -http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	
	 

	

	
	 

	===================================================

	
	 

	BARRY A CLEMSON

	[log in to unmask]

	
	 

	757-692-6673

	
	 

	Cybernetica Press at www.cyberneticapress.com

	
	 

	
	 

	
	 

	"It's not how much you do - it's how much love you put in it....
Do small things with great love."

	            --- Mother Teresa ---

	
	 

	The true warrior may be killed, but he can not be defeated. 

	   --- my paraphrase of Sensei Hamada ---

	
	 

	And peace rolled down like a mighty river.

	       -- Inspired by the prophet Amos 5:24--

	
	 

	 

	
	 

	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.orgFor the Metaphorum
Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:
www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at -http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	
	 

	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum
Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:
www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at -http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	
	 

	

	
	 

	===================================================

	
	 

	BARRY A CLEMSON

	[log in to unmask]

	
	 

	757-692-6673

	
	 

	Cybernetica Press at www.cyberneticapress.com

	
	 

	
	 

	
	 

	"It's not how much you do - it's how much love you put in it....
Do small things with great love."

	            --- Mother Teresa ---

	
	 

	The true warrior may be killed, but he can not be defeated. 

	   --- my paraphrase of Sensei Hamada ---

	
	 

	And peace rolled down like a mighty river.

	       -- Inspired by the prophet Amos 5:24--

	
	 

	 

	
	 

	
	 

	
________________________________


	avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com> : Inbound message clean.

	Virus Database (VPS): 081023-0, 23/10/2008
	Tested on: 24/10/2008 10:35:50
	avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.


 

	
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum
Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:
www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at -http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at
-https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM
eList available at -
http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	
	 

	
________________________________


	Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/au/mail/default/*http:/au.yahoo.co
m/y7mail> .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.orgMETAPHORUM
eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at -http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at
-https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM
eList available at -
http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 

________________________________

Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/au/mail/default/*http:/au.yahoo.co
m/y7mail> .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to:www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at
-https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM
eList available at -
http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 

________________________________

Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/au/mail/default/*http:/au.yahoo.co
m/y7mail> .

	
	 

	
________________________________


	Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/au/mail/default/*http:/au.yahoo.co
m/y7mail> .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to:www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at
-https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM
eList available at -
http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


This message and attachment(s) are intended solely for use by the
addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential
or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not
the intended recipient or agent thereof responsible for delivering this
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender immediately by telephone and with a 'reply' message.
Thank you for your co-operation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to:www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at
-https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM
eList available at -
http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	
	 

	
________________________________


	Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/au/mail/default/*http:/au.yahoo.co
m/y7mail> .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to:www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at
-https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM
eList available at -
http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


This message and attachment(s) are intended solely for use by the
addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential
or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not
the intended recipient or agent thereof responsible for delivering this
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender immediately by telephone and with a 'reply' message.
Thank you for your co-operation.


 


 

________________________________

Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/au/mail/default/*http:/au.yahoo.co
m/y7mail> .


 

	
	 

	
________________________________


	Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new
Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/dating/mail/tagline1/*http:/au.dating.yahoo.com/
?cid=53151&pid=1011> .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at -
http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


This message and attachment(s) are intended solely for use by the
addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential
or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not
the intended recipient or agent thereof responsible for delivering this
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender immediately by telephone and with a 'reply' message.
Thank you for your co-operation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 

________________________________

All new Yahoo! Mail -  <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.orgMETAPHORUM
eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at -
http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at -http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

		 

		
________________________________


		Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the
new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/dating/mail/tagline1/*http:/au.dating.yahoo.com/
?cid=53151&pid=1011> .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at
-https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM
eList available at -
http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

		 

		
________________________________


		Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
<http://www.flickr.com/gift/>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at -http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

		 

		

		 

		===================================================

		 

		BARRY A CLEMSON

		[log in to unmask]

		 

		757-692-6673

		 

		Cybernetica Press at www.cyberneticapress.com

		 

		 

		 

		"It's not how much you do - it's how much love you put
in it.... Do small things with great love."

		            --- Mother Teresa ---

		 

		The true warrior may be killed, but he can not be
defeated. 

		   --- my paraphrase of Sensei Hamada ---

		 

		And peace rolled down like a mighty river.

		       -- Inspired by the prophet Amos 5:24--

		 

		
		
		

		 

		 

		
________________________________


		avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com> : Inbound
message clean.

		Virus Database (VPS): 081029-0, 29/10/2008
		Tested on: 30/10/2008 22:25:41
		avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.

 

		
	
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum
Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:
www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	 

	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum
Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:
www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
eList Archive available at -
https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



This message and attachment(s) are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law.

If you are not the intended recipient or agent thereof responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and with a 'reply' message.

Thank you for your co-operation.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org

For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:  www.platformforchange.org

METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html

Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~