Thanks for those thoughts -- they have stimulated my thinking further.
(I note you appeal to Allenna at the end and yet only emailed the reply to me personally -- ? I'm getting a few of these and I've had a few troubles as well with rejections from the Listser because of embedded graphics or something which came through from replies from others So, I'm assuming that it is the way the 'reply' function works ... ? In any case the purpose, I assume of this forum is to share thoughts etc, so ...)
I have no problem with the label -- it is just a convenient way of handling a difficult topic. Nelson Mandella spent many years labeled by a regime (and state) and yet has proven to be become one if the worlds most respected elders.
And I live in a country that was once the toxic dumping ground for many types -- including Irish freedom fighters. That was not my point.
However, you mention GW Bush, and by extension his 'haves' and 'have mores' etc. It is perhaps close to what I'm seeking -- an understanding of plutocracy and kleptocracy and how these seem just too cozy at times. And of course the cynical would perhaps say that kings with their 'mandates from heaven' simply emerged from a successful protection racket business. One only needs to consider Zimbabwe to see a certain madness at work today.
In respect to Stafford -- interesting that you say he could not use such a simple concept and yet the destruction of the work of himself and others in Chile must have qualified for this type label. However, in the end it is personal preference I guess.
In any case, having committed it to the public ether (Listserv = risk) and having now slept on it over night I think the essence of what I was struggling with is in the recursion idea. Put simply, that in some cases the so called System 1 is in fact a 'hollow man' (we have a TV show here called Hollow Men) -- i.e. more perhaps a 'system zero' where the centre of gravity is in the recursion below the system in focus. I'm not really saying anything new here I know -- and it still does not address the core issue of disconnect from a governance perspective -- but it must be cybernetics surely. At the macro level why so much investment in police and military? I guess the closest direct link to another manifestation would be to cancer cells in the body. They live, they grow, but they are not connected to the whole like the rest of the 'normal' cells.
In a similar way, we could perhaps, using the case in point, say the Italian Mafia, was originally a secret society that seems to have had some origin in the Islamic period of that area and has since descended into a self serving agent within the greater society. And I'm not suggesting it has anything to do with Islamic issues -- rather the remnant effects of a withdrawal or decay of a major system (say at n+1).
The question then is not so much how it comes about, or how it works (it is viable of course with its own S5 -to-S1) -- rather how the greater whole is impotent in dealing with it -- be it a cancer in the body or a hit squad of assassins taking out high court judges.
It seems some of this identity must be culture. The body is a collection of interoperative organs etc and yet it can also support a brain tumor that eventually kills it. Now some may say that every system has the seeds of its own death within it -- an perhaps that is what I'm looking at . Where are these seeds? ... by way of origin, maintenance, governance, and perpetuation?
OK -- I've left the save zones ... and thinking aloud is dangerous ... but it seems a little naive if management cybernetics cannot comment on this area -- perhaps that is why it is dismissed by the management classes? In fact this has reminded me of something I did in my Masters thesis on sustainable governance.
There is a small field I came across in my Masters research into 'sustainable governance' it related to management fraud risk assessment. The Fraud Risk Triangle (e.g. see Ramos 2003) cites three factors: incentive/pressure + opportunity + rationalization/attitude. (1)
It was the third factor, the capacity to rationalise as a hidden variable (2), that the forensic auditor has to determine. A very interesting area of System 3*. There is also a very strong emphasis on the role of risk synthesis in audit test design (3). It is about the 'tone at the top' and at that time it was ENRON etc -- but the story is the same.
So perhaps it is not a separate 'entity' per se -- rather a tonal relationship between the three factors of the fraud triangle that allows poor governance outcomes?
References (1, 2 & 3) if anyone is interested: I have uploaded my thesis Appendix J (5 short summary pages) on this topic and the associated Reference for these pages at: http://cybernetics-society.wikispaces.com/Forensic+Audit
If anyone was to look to take action in response to these interesting times then the lead-in on Appendix J covers the Lima Declaration of Guidelines on Auditing Precepts (1998) and International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) (2004) which might be good places the G30 could start writing to.
--- On Tue, 14/10/08, Roger Harnden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Roger Harnden <[log in to unmask]>