~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more information go to:
Just to return to the point I was trying to make, Joe, What I was trying to do was to attempt to communicate something about our understanding of VSM rather than analysing the performance per se.
The key point being that the VSM is about observing systems rather than observed systems - it's about inclusion of the observer in the interactions, as an observer of those interactions and the observer's part in them. By this `I mean that (as I tried to explain in the context of the performance), the act of distinction or indication of the observer is critical. The emotive power of the performance hinges on this inclusion of the observer (audience) in the activity. Otherwise we would have an instance of conventional 'art' in which the observer observes a finished 'object (for instance, one of van Gogh's sunflower paintings).
Now surely the WHOLE POINT about social systems (whatsoever they are) is that they are never complete or finished or static, although a whole range of factors lead to them being treated as such (eg dominant logic).
And I am just struggling to make the case that effective usage of VSM - and indeed its successful dissemination as a theory - requires grasping this nettle. As I keep repeating - the VSM is not about systems 'out there' in the 'real-world'. It is about the braiding of internal meaning and significance to external realities (whatsoever these external realities actually are).
We don't peer out into the world seeking for 'viable systems'. We interact with social dynamics and the constituent parties of their domain of effective action (a thing is what it does), in an attempt to give rise to a consciousness of those parties as to their own areas of responsible activities in the context of recurrent coordination of actions/behaviours. And I tried to give very simple, crude example of how this might be done in the context of the YouTube video of Kseniya,