Werner Erhard: Epistomological and Contextual Contributions of est to General Systems Theory

8/12/2019 Werner Erhard: Epistomological and Contextual Contributions of est to General Systems Theory

1/43


2/43

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT v

I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . 1A. Recent Communications . . 1B. Context o f e s t 1C. Context o f General Systems Theory 1D. Dialogue o f Epis temologies . . . . . . . 3E. Sources o f Crea t ion . . . . . . 3

I I . CONCEPTS AND EXPERIENCES . . . . . . . . 4A. In format ion about In format ion 4B. Stored Informat ion . . . . . . 4C. Concepts . . . . . . . 5D. Exper ience . . . . . . . . . . . 6E. Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

I I I . ABSTRACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 7A. F i r s t Domain 7B. Def in i t i on . . . . . . . . 8

1 . Generp. t ing pr inc ip le . 82. Heisenberg, Pla to . 83 . Formles s . . . . . . . . . . 9

C. Logica l Types . . . . . 10D. Sel f . 101 . Mind . . . 102. Language 113. Source . . . . . . . . . 12


3/43

I I I . ABSTRACTION (cont . ) E. Enables exper ience 12F. Source of Consciousness . . . . .... 12G. Nothing . . ...... . . . .... 13

IV NLIGH fENMENT OR TRANSFORMATION 13A. Defin i t ions 13

14 Observat ion 2. Se l f - r e fe ren t i a l systems 143. Einste in and re spons ib i l i ty 15

164. Abst rac t ion 5 . Context /content 17

B. Epistemology 17 1. Strangeness 17 2. Human poten t i a l 17

18. I n t e l l e c t 4. Sel f 18

a . Sel f concept 19b . Sel f experience

D Nature o f Transformation Formless

19c . Sel f abs t rac t ion 20

20... f. . . 20 202. Context of being

3. Ul t imate context 21


4/43

V TR NSFORM TION OF SELF 21 A. Everything/nothing 21

1 . New l og ic 22 2. New exper ience 22 3 . New context 22

B. Complet ion 23 1 . Mirac le 232 . Crea t ion 3:: , . 3 Abst rac t ion 24

VI e s t ND TR NSFORM TION 24 A. Se l f - t rans fo rma t ion 24

1 . Simple 24 2 . Obvious 25

Complete 253 . B. Li fe Transformat ion 25

l Sa t i s f a c t i on 25 2. Completion 26 '3. Freshness 26

C. Aliveness ' 26 1 . Radiance 26 2. Rela t ionsh ip 27 3 . Crea t i v i t y 27 4. Well .being 28


5/43

v

VII es t ND GENER L SYSTEMS THEORY 29A. References 29B. Epistemological reor ien ta t ion 29C. Research 31

1. New paradigms 312. Transformed research 323. rea t ivi ty 32

VIII CONCLUSION 33A. In te r face 33B. Dr. Gray Quotat ion 33C. Thank you . . . 33

IX BIBLIOGRAPHY


6/43

BSTR CT"Epistemological and Contextual Contributions of es t to GeneralSystems Theory"

In recent communications with members of the sc i en t i f i c community,I have become increasingly aware of para l le l s and convergencesbetween what might be called the "theory of es t ( i t s ontology,i t s epistemology, i t s psychology) and developments in cybernetics(Pask, von Foerster , Varela, e t . a l . ) , ecology (Bateson e t . a l . ) ,and. general systems theory (Bertalanffy, e t . a l . ) -The purpose of th i s paper is to point out some of these para l le l sand convergences, and to s ta te as clearly and as concisely aspossible how these may be sa id to be epistemological and contextual contr ibutions.The paper wil l do so under the following general headings:1. Self as context2. The notion of responsibi l i ty3. Cognitive homeostasis4. Abstract ion5. Systems of knowing: the re la t ion of abst rac t ion , experienceand conceptThe paper presents the view tha t experiences of se l f as contentsystems are characterized by a repet i t iveness (redundancy) whichmechanize the experience of l i fe and obscure the experience ofualiveness ," and t ha t experiences of se l f as generating contextmake it possible for selves to experience heal th , happiness, loveand complete self-expression. Self as context allows the se l fto be completE, whole, al ive . With se l f as context, l i f e is aprocess of the expression of the experience of completion ra therthan a seeking to become complete. Similarly, experiences ofre la t ionship premised on se l f as content are contrasted with .experiences of re la t ion based on se l f as context.The' epistemological basis of these views are del ineated.

s the founder of est , I recognize and welcome the opportunityto communicate about es t and to in terac t with those membersof the sc i en t i f i c community who have expressed an in teres t inknowing about est . And I recognize es t ' s responsibi l i ty tocommunicate with the ins t i tu t ions of Society which have incommon with es t the purpose of serving people and the humancommunity.


7/43

I . INTRODU TION

In recent communications with members of the sc i en t i f i ccommunity,2,7,17,2I,22 I have become increasingly aware of para l le lsand convergences between what might be cal led the theory ofe s t and developments in cybernet ics, ecology, and general systemstheory. So the purpose of th i s paper i s to point out some ofthese para l le ls and convergences,and to s t a t e as clear ly andas concisely as I can how these may be said to be contextual andepistemological contributions of e s t to general systems theory.

I have developed some sk i l l in saying some of the thingsI want to say to people,so t ha t they seem to get some value outof the experience of l i s ten ing to what I say. nd I must admittha t t is not always the case tha t tha t experience makes tpossible for them to say something about what I ve said in thesame context in which I said i t . Now some people are jus tdi f f i cu l t to discuss these things with, and some of these thingsare jus t very. di f f i cu l t to qiscuss. nd when you put the twotogether, t becomes v ~ y di f f i cu l t to ta lk about these thingsa t a l l .

So I d l ike to see i f I can overcome some of thesedi f f i cu l t i e s today, in t ha t I do have something I d l ike to say,and I 'm pleased to have the opportunity to say t here. I 'mespecia l ly pleased to have the chance to learn to say t to


8/43

people who have d i sc ip l ines which can ge t a f i rmer grasp o ri n s igh t in to what I m say ing , so t h a t I can see whether whatI m saying has any v a l i d i t y beyond the con tex t in which Isay it. I m f a i r l y c l e a r t h a t the con tex t in which I usua l lysay what I say produces some value for some people .

ow what I d l i k e to do i s see if it s poss ib l e to sayt he se th ings in the con tex t o f genera l systems t h eo r y , i n sucha way t h a t t he context ca l l ed genera l systems theory can i n t e r a c twith these ideas and produce a g r ea t e r va lue . And, to determinewhether what I say has any value in the context ca l l ed genera lsystems theory , we cou ld look a t how genera l systems theorydetermines t ha t t h ings have va lue , and I d o n t know t ha t genera lsystems theory can determine a l l o f the t h ings t ha t might beo f value because I m no t c e r t a i n t ha t it i s able to eva lua te a l lthe th ings t h a t might be va luable to i t s e l f a t t h i s po in t ini t s development. In f a c t , I m f a i r l y c l e a r t h a t t he re are somet h ings t ha t might be o f value o f which it i s poss ib ly unawarea t t h i s p o n ~ in its development.

So one o f the th ings I d l i ke to do today i s see whetherit s p oss ible to come up with a paradigm accep tab le to t ha tsystem ca l l ed genera l systems theory to see whether it might bevaluab le to t h a t system and to the people who use t ha t systemas a way o f unders tanding th ings .


9/43

3

In other words, I want to begin a dialogue here betweenwhat we could ca l l the epistemology of es t and the epistemologyof general systems theory, and to see i f I can teach myselfsomething about the re la t ionship of those two epistemologies.And, to ant ic ipate myself a l i t t l e , I want to say tha t I f indwhat I believe i s sometimes cal led the in terface of these twoways of knowing to be an exci t ing and f ru i t fu l adventure.So l i d l ike to share some of tha t excitement with you too.

For me tha t adventure happens when I m looking clearlya t the roots or as I ca l l them the sources of those momentsof creat ion when a Newton or an Einste in or a Bertalanffyc rea te - - l i t e ra l ly create--a whole new way of understandingthings. NOw usual ly , people think tha t moments of creat ion oftha t sor t are exceedingly rare in human his tory , and in a sensethey are . At l eas t , our records of leaps of th i s sor t don tindicate tha t they re everyday occurrences. And yet , what Iwant to ta lk about i s the poss ib i l i ty tha t leaps of th i s sor tare not necessar i ly rare or unusual. In fac t , in my view,what s rare and unusual i s tha t such moments are regarded asnecessar i ly rare and unusual. You see, I think a l l of ushave the opportunity to have experiences of th i s sor t , so theproblem for me i s not in understanding why they re so rare asin confronting the way of understanding which holds they mustbe rare because they re unusual. In my view, they not only


10/43

4

do not have to be unusual, they re not unusual and they don thave to be. Now t ha t s not to say t ha t tomorrow morning we rea l l going to wake up with the theory af ter general re la t iv i tyor quantum mechanics, or the ult imate theorem of higher mathematics.Those would simply be contents in the context I want to t a lk about.I want to be very clear about th i s . What I want to ta lk abouti s the context in which breakthrough experiences of the sor twhich Einste in and others have had occur--not the theorieswhich emerged from the i r experiences of tha t context .

I I CONCEPTS ND EXPERIENCESNow to begin to t a lk about tha t context , I want to inv i te

you to take a small leap, of a re la t ive ly fami l iar sor t , byasking you to reca l l tha t there may be things in heaven or earthwhich are not dreamt of in our current epistemologies. Iwant to inv i te you to act ively enterta in the poss ib i l i ty tha tthere might be some information around (and for the moment allowme to use the word information loosely) which information a l t e r sthe way in which you know information. So the information I mnow going to ta lk about i s epis temolog ica l - - it s informationabout the way we know information. So tha t the content of theinformation i t s e l f i s of no value--and what may be of value i s wemight hold or have the information in a way other than the waywe usually hold information.

Ordinari ly , we hold information in a storage system. Forthe most par t , we don t have any information about anything tha t


11/43

can t be stored. So now l e t s look a t the poss ib i l i ty tha tthere i s information which can t be stored, which, therefore ,cannot be known by a system which notes things by s tor ing them.I f it s possible tha t there i s information which cannot bestored, you cannot know tha t information with a storagemechanism. I t wouldn t make any difference what your accesssystem or re t r ieval system was-- i t wouldn t make any differencehow sophist icated it was. I f the par t icu la r kind of informationyou are attempting to gain access to cannot be stored, tha t kindof information which does not have tpe capacity to be storedcannot be avai lable to you i f you re attempting to get it froma system which uses storage to know th ings. In fac t , i fyou re attempting to know something which cannot be known bya storage system, you re l i t e ra l ly wasting your time attemptingto know it with a storage system.

So l e t s look a t storage systems. Essent ia l ly , storagei s one of the three modes of existence of the universe. I t isone of the three ways the universe i s In human terms, th i ssystem is usually cal led memory and I include in t conceptsand organized systems of concepts, or what I ca l l be l ie fs .For example, what you and I ca l l pain and suffer ing i s in factconceptual . So you can see tha t conceptual things are very rea l .I t can be demonstrated f a i r ly c lea r ly tha t a chalk board i sa concept -- that i s , our experience of the board i s a concept-or, more accurately what w ca l l our experience of the boardi s actual ly a concept.


12/43

6

I m say ing t ha t t h ings e x i s t f i r s t as a process - -o rexper ience- -and t h a t when we f ind a success fu l process o rexper ience , t r e su l t s in a concept o r memory. And bysuccess fu l I simply mean t al lows us to go o n - - in - o th e rwords, to surv ive the p rocess in which t occur red .

The problem i s now t ha t I v e got a conceptual record o ft ha t process /exper ience , I t end to regard (or code) the nextprocess /exper ience as e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r to the f i r s t one.I bu i ld up same redundancy. I gain p r e d i c t a b i l i t y . I orde ry world by having the second experience resemble the f i r s t 6,23

o r so I th ink a t the t ime.

Now obviously , s e t t i n g up feedback in t h i s way has tsadvantages for any sys t em s su rv iva l , and obviously , we sayt has disadvan tages . And fo r t he most par t , even when w e re

us ing concepts to def ine experiences which r e s u l t in conceptswhich fu r the r def ine exper iences , we th ink w e re doing f ineand avoiding the d isadvantages because a f t e r a l l ,we did survive ,and a f t e r a l l , t h i s experience does resemble t h a t othe r onefo r t he most par t , d o e sn t i t ?

You see , j u s t about every th ing we know about we found outby a combinat ion o f those two domains - - the domains I m c a l l i ngexper ience and concept .


13/43

7

Now the problem with those domains i s tha t they don thave any source. They don t come from anywhere. They chaseeach other around in a ci rc le . As a matter of fac t , as goodsystems sc i en t i s t s , when we study something, we observe aprocess, then build a concept tha t explains the process, whichwe then t e s t against the process to see i f the concept webu i l t i s in fact val id . This seems fa i r ly c i rcu la r to me.Science observes a process, builds a conceptual theory, goesback to the process to val idate the theory, then the theoryi s used to look a t other processes,and actual ly determinesnot only what to look for ,but how to look a t other processes,which tend to reinforce the theory,and what we wind up withi s most western thought. Or, to use systems language, we tendto define such systems as open especial ly when they re closed.This i s sometimes cal led cognitive homeostasis,, ,22 or th steadys t a t e of theory, i you l l permit the pun.I I I . ABSTRACTIONS

Now I want to share with you my experience of a th i rddomain and again ask your indulgence i I use the word domainsomewhat loosely for the present . I f we were to draw threeci rc les next to one another, and number them 1 , 2, 3,

2

the f i r s t ci rc le , number I , would stand for a domain I ca l labst ract ion. I want to dist inguish abstract ion very sharplyfrom the domain I ca l l experience (c i rc le 2 j us t as I ve


14/43


15/43

9

Heisenberg saw tha t Plato had done an incredible thingin saying the basic s t ructure of the world was an idea cal leda t r iangle- - tha t Pla to s generat ing principles of :t he worldwere abst ract ions he cal led t r iang les . What fascinatedHeisenberg was precisely the idea tha t things were not theult imate building blocks of the world. Heisenberg saw tha tas a different kind of explanation, which had enormous valuefor him, even though t created formidable problems for himin the domain of explanat ion.

ow I ve got a formidable problem in th i s next part ,because I have to say t ha t abst ract ions can t be understoodas concepts or experiences. In fac t , abstract ions serve as thecontext for experiences and concepts, and in my view, areactual ly the source of experiences, j us t as experiences arethe source of concepts. And, given the way we usuallyunderstand th ings, something which can t be experienced orconceptualized can t be understood a t a l l . Concepts explain.They do not generate. And abst ract ions generate-- they don texplain.

And abstract ions , to make matters temporari ly worse, arenot only without time or place, they are without content or form.They simply a ren t things. They are the source of things. Therealm of abst ract ion i s n t a dimension-- i t ' s the context ofdimensional i ty. I t is what generates dimensions. 'And to becompletely accurate , t i s n t even a context . I t s the contextof a l l contexts , to s t re tch tha t term a bi t .


16/43

10

ow I unders tand Russe l l solved t h i s whole problem byinvent ing the theory of log ica l types , and I r e a l l y don ' t l i k eto be in c onf l i c t with Russel l , given h i s s t a t u re , but I dof ind myself in c o n f l i c t with Russe l l ,because I see h i s theoryas an a t t empt to approach t h i s mat te r of abs t rac t ion bycoming from concepts , not to them. So what we have i n h i stheory i s a conceptual handl ing of abs t r ac t ion , not an abs t rac thandl ing o f concept s . In shor t , I th ink he c losed t ha tsystem even though he thought he l e f t it open.

ow the ques t ion a r i se s , if abs t rac t ions a r e n ' t anywherein t ime o r p lace , and don ' t have any content or form, j u s twhat o r where are they?

The answer to t h a t i s , abs t rac t ion i s a qua l i ty of s e l f .Having sa id t ha t , i t ' becomes necessary fo r me to say whats e l f i s and what it i s no t , and what the a bs t r a c t q u a l i t y o fs e l f i s and what it i s no t . And the f i r s t th ing I want tosay s e l f i s no t , i s s e l f i s no t persona l i ty , o r charac te r , o rmind,or your h i s t o ry , o r t he network o f your so c i a l in te rac t ions .Sel f i s the source o f your exper ience of those c on te x t s - - s e l fis the context in which the exper ience o f those contexts occurs .You are no t your exper iences o r the records o f those exper iences .Sel f i s what we r e f e r to when we say I 'm exper ienc ing t h i s o rt ha t . t i s n ' t the t h i s o r the t ha t , and it i s n ' t the exper ienc ing


17/43

11

and it i s n ' t the I . It s the context o r genera t ing pr inc ip lewhich makes the exper ience o f those th ings poss ib le .

It s tempting a t t h i s po in t to say t h a t our languager e a l l y i s n ' t adequate to t a l k about these th ings , because wehave a th ing-o r ien ted language which divides s e l f and exper iencei n to sUbjec t and ob jec t l as if s e l f was doing o r conta in ingthe exper ience . And to a c e r t a i n ex ten t t h a t ' s t r ue .And as I ' ve a l ready sa id , concep ts c a n ' t ge t a t t h i s , andeverybody knows words are concepts . And as Wit tgens te insa id , whereof we cannot speak the reof should we be s i l e n t .S t i l l , the re are h in t s in language t ha t po in t to what languagec a n ' t conta in , and one o f those h in t s i s the express ion

the exper ience of s e l f . In language t h i s seems v ic ious lyc i rcu l a r . mean , i f s e l f i s the source o f exper ienc ing, can itexper ience i t s e l f as the source o f its own exper ience?

The problem i s , a s soon as we have an exper ience o f acon tex t , we tu rn it i n t o a concept and regard it as j u s t anothername for j u s t another t h ing , an i t . ow t h i s i s n ' t necessa r i lya t rap , providing we remember to remember t ha t a s e l f i s not ani t - - and t h a t the exper ience of s e l f i s not an e xpe r i e nc e - - i t ' swhat c a l l the be ing o f t h a t experience. In other words s e l fi s the source of abs t rac t ion , not exper ience and not concept .


18/43

12

I m saying t ha t s e l f i s the ac tua l source o f humanexper ience , inc luding the source o f most t heor i es of humanexper ience .

Abst rac t ion , then , would be an exper ience t ha t did notcome from exper ience but to exper ience . I t would i l lumina teexper ience and make poss ib l e the s o r t s o f exper ience t ha t donot der ive from the redundant c i r c u l a r su rv iva l system wc a l l exper ience . Abst rac t ion , then , makes it poss ib le to haveunique exper iences wi thout t h rea t to the survival of these l f -exper ience ca l l ed abs t rac t ion . It r evea l s the ways inwhich concepts have pre f igured exper ience and, in orde r tobu i ld up probab i l i ty and redundancy, have obscured or cloudedthe exper ience of abs t rac t ion , which i s e s sen t i a l l y unique,non-redundant , and non-repeatable .

Abst rac t ion i s t h a t 'kind o f consciousness which r e su l t sin the exper ience o f brand new t he o re t i c a l l eaps lp rec i se lybecause t h a t consciousness has no need to agree with the systemo f previous exper iences and concepts . (Paradoxical ly, t h i s s o r tof exper ience- - the c rea t ive so lu t ion to what seemed aninsoluble problem--adds su rv iva l value by subs t rac t ing from it.


19/43


20/43

14

i s a l te r and transfarm yaur experience af time and place.Actually, it a l te r s the qual i ty af yaur experience by revealingar discavering haw yau experience everything - includingtime and place. And t ransfarmatian, in my view, i s preciselythe revelat ian ar dis-cavering a f the damain - ar pass ibi l i ty af thase "experiences" peo.ple ca l l enlightenment experiences the "experiences" I am cal l ing abstract ians . Trans farmati ani s the discavery of the pass ibi l i ty af abstract ian as thesaurce af experience.

Naw I want yau to. knaw tha t I 'm ful ly aware tha t ane afthe implicatians af what I ve jus t said i s t ha t t h i s bardersan sc ient i f ic heresy in same ci rc les . Because I ve jus t saidtha t unless there has been a t ransfarmatian - - (and mind yau t ransfarmatian s nat an event - mare af tha t l a te r an)the pass ibi l i ty af including the se l f in experience remainsclased. Yau see, .I 'm cal l ing far including the abserver in the actaf abservatian. To me t ha t s "abviaus",and I knaw t ha t s notalways abviaus to. everyane.

There are s t i l l l a t s af sc i en t i s t s who s t i l l think it s asc ient i f ic heresy to. include the abserver in the abserved. Butincluding the abserver in the abserved i s naw a requirement incantemparary physics and, a f caurse, it i s nat fareign to. thase afyau here who are c l in ic ians . 'There are even cantemparary lagicianswho have bui l t whale lagics an se l f - r e fe ren t i a l aXiams20 ,2 l andpremises.


21/43


22/43

16

I t i s not commonly real ized tha t th i s so cal led rea l i s t i cepistemology carr ies with t the premise tha t I ve got to ber igh t to survive, so the be t te r the picture I get of what 's outthere, the be t te r off I am. The resu l t i s tha t I decide toshut off my experience of se l f so tha t I can maintain thei l lus ion of accuracy, when in fact my experience of se l fas the source of my experience i s the only way I can be responsiblefor my observation of what 's out there, without becoming anautomatic mechanical recording of what 's out there .

That ' s why I use the word abst ract ion. In the ordinarydict ionary meaning of the word, abstract means removed fromthe sensorium. This i s not without i t s paradoxes, however,because I would maintain tha t precisely insofar as you are the

-effect of the world 's impact on your experience which yourecord as concept, jus t so far you removed from accuratelyobserving or abst ract ing what 's actual ly so in your experienceof what 's out there .

So most of us, most of the time, are stuck in our concepts.Rarely, on occasion, w move to experience, which also has alogic a l l i t s own almost never used. And even more rare ly ,w move to abstract ion, the source of experiencing which hasanother kind of logic; therefore , incomprehensible to thelogics of experience and concept fu l l of paradoxes andapparent contradict ions which give r i se to the kind of statementstha t people think you're strange for making.


23/43

17

I am saying tha t the experience of se l f i san abstract experience, which se l f can have as the context ofa l l other experiences tha t se l f can have as content: and tha twhen a context considers i t se l f to be i t s content , what we valuemost is thrown away. You see what a mess we've made. So perhapst would be valuable to look a t how tha t mess happened.

I think t happened because t he re s never been a system ofholding t a l l . There's never been an epistemological systemin science which allowed people who knew the experience ofabstraction to express what was rea l ly going on. nd I thinkt i s possible to generate a system which allows or enables

the experience of abs t rac t . experiences in a very systematicway. I t s the system I ve been describing. I t s the system

8tha t allows Bucky Ful ler to say - - look, I 'm strange.

Without a system of th is kind, a l l we can ever get i scontroversy and argument over who's r igh t and who's wrong,and tha t i s n t the point . The point is to enable the kindof experience which re su l t s i r t enormous incredible leaps ofcontext - - not jus t o n t e n t ~

The whole growth movement or human potent ial movementargues for the va l id i ty of experience as the basis of exis tence.They argued tha t we ought to sh i f t the basis of experience away


24/43

18

from our in te l l ec t - or what they thought was our in te l l ec t which they located in the head. They said we've got to getout of our heads to survive. What they rea l ly meant was out ofour concepts. What happened was there ensued a big argumentabout whether people ought to be in te l lec tual or exper ien t ia l .What nonsense. They haven' t been in te l lec tual yet . The quest ioni s should people be explanatory - conceptual - symbolic or should they be genuinely exper ient ia l .

You see, a t th i s point the controversy becomes meaningless.Of course people should be genuinely exper ient ia l - but a l l the

hip people thought tha t means we're supposed to be intouch wi th our feelings and w should be honest about where we'rea t , and w should move f reely , and a l l stay out of our heads.

So most people mistake es t for a growth experience andthey think e s t means staying out of your head. Absolutely not.The essense of e s t i s in te l l ec t . That i s what e s t i s Butdon t define i n t e l l ec t as concept or as experience. I sayi n t e l l ec t i s the experience of abstract ion,which generatesexperience, and i s not the r esu l t of it

You see, you can t get to abst ract ion from symbols andconcepts. You can only reach back to abst ract ion by reachingthe se l f as the source of experience. Self doesn ' t explainexperience - it enables i t . Experience comes from abstract ions ,


25/43

19

and concept comes from experience, and abst ract ions comefrom nothing. They are not resul ts you see they simply are .They a ren t doing anything. They are being or in humanterms being aware. They are awareness a t the beginning ofawareness. Except tha t the words beginning and awareness areconcepts, so they don t rea l ly f i t , they only point .

Another way of saying t h i s i s that . there are rea l ly threeways to ta lk about se l f . Therets the se l f as concept-the system of stored experiences, the point ofview tha t resul ts from a l l i t s previous experiences and concepts.e usual ly ca l l tha t personal i ty in the sense tha t Alice has a

pleasing personal i ty .

Then t he re s se l f as experience the- direc t experience -r igh t now of the se l f by the se l f . These are usual ly cal ledpeak experiences,and I have no wish to be l i t t l e or demean them.They are t ruly . beaut i ful experiences and are usual ly rememberedas the high points in the graphs we a l l keep of beaut i fulexperiences. That i s what the human potent ia l peoplegenerate, and I t o t a l ly support them in doing tha t . I vehad experiences of tha t kind myself ,and I want to t e l l youthey are rea l ly magnificent experiences to have. Incredible,beaut i ful experiences, rea l ly .


26/43


27/43

21

occurs , o r to put it another way - it i s the be ing o f abs t rac t ionor the context which the being o f abs t rac t ion i s .

Am I beginning to sound funny? Good. You see , the\ reason for t h a t i s t ha t s e l f as abs t rac t ion has another kind

of l og ic , i n which it i s poss ib le to say th ings l i ke - ift ransformat ion happened it d i d n t happen because th ings t h a thappen in t ime a r e n t a t rans ' format ion, t he y r e th ings t ha thappen in t ime. J us t as the sound of one hand clapping i s thesound of one hand clapping and t ha t s the u l t imate s tatementabout t ha t , so s e l f giv ing r i s e to se l f i s what gives r i s e tos e l f . That s the complete s tatement on t ha t .

So s e l f i s the ul t imate context . Immediately on makings e l f an event , you re no t t a lk ing about t ransformat ion . Assoon as you s t a r t t a lk ing about t ransformat ion as event you renot t a lk ing about t ransformat ion . Transformation i s the contextof t ransformat ion . I f something happened,. that i s not t r ans -formation. What did you_get out o f i t ? Nothing. I f I got anythingout o f it t h a t s not it anyway. Th a t s a r e su l t o f it Wheredid it happen? Nowhere. When did it happen? Never. That st ransformat ion .

v. TRANSFORMATION OF SELFNOW people who are t ransformed can hear t ha t .

That c a n t be heard with a content system. I f you l i s t e n asyou usual ly l i s t e n you won' t hear what I v e sa id . So whatac tua l ly happens i s nothing - o r everything. So if it occurs ,it doesn t .occur. And i f it occurs , then it always was.


28/43

22

Does t ha t offend your system of understanding. t doesmine. t offends the system of unders tanding which i sdesigned to handle t h ings you can perceive , which i s a systemdesigned to handle par t s , not wholes. The systems of log icdesigned to handle par t s c a n t handle wholes.

N.ow as genera l systems people I know you th ink youknow t ha t , and you do - - as a system o f unders tanding.

Then what 11m saying i s not about systems o f understandingo r exper ienc ing events . What I m t a lk ing about i s the

exper ience of your a b i l i t y to be t ransformed in t he qua l i ty o fyour l i fe , because the d e f i n i t i o n s of t ransformat ion i s t heexper ience o f your a b i l i t y to be t ransformed. I f you know youhave the ab i l i t y to t rans fo rm the qua l i t y of your l i f e , youare t ransformed.

T r a n s f o r m ~ t i o n t h e n i s the context in which t ransformat ioncan occur . The exper iepce o f t ha t t ransformat ion i s o n e o fwholeness and completeness , of s e l f as t o t a l ly fu l f i l l ed andcompletely sa t i s f i ed to be. Transformation i s not a peakexper ience . Transformation i s not the exper ience o f s e l f .Transformation i s the s e l f i t s e l f . I f you l i s t e n ca re fu l ly towhat I j u s t sa id , not with your unders tanding, but with yours e l f , you wi l l hear t ha t what I j u s t sa id i s t ha t t ransformat ioni s complet ion. Transformation i s being complete . What i s the


29/43

23

cha i r as cha i r? It S complete . What i s the room as room? It scomplete . What i s the s e l f as s e l f ? It s complete . It i sthe complete s e l f , simply being s e l f .

,'-The d ic t ionary has a be a u t i fu l l y a bs t r a c t de f in i t i on ofcomplete. It s be a u t i fu l l y contextual . I t says

complete impl ies the inc lus ion o f a l l t ha t i s needed fo r thei n t eg r i t y , per fec t ion or fu l f i l lmen t of something.

That cap tu res y meaning exac t ly . When s e l f i s s e l f , t ha ti s the exper ience o f being complete . That i s the exper ienceof i n t eg r i t y , or being t rue to yourse l f .

The pa in t i s t ha t s e l f i s the context of a l l contexts ,so t ransformat ion i s a miracle a mirac le being def ined asa t ranscend ing o f the laws of the medium in which it occurs .Transformation t ranscends the laws of t ime and place, anda l lows or c rea tes being.

So it t ransforms your his tory . It t ransforms you frombe ing a p layer in your drama to you as the space in which thedrama occurs . It i s you as t ha t which con ta ins the universe .Ins t ead o f being in the universe , the universe i s your c rea t ion .There ' s no longer any content to it. It simply i s , and it i s ,completely .


30/43


31/43

25

But I guarantee you - if you g e t what I m saying wi th whoyou are - you wi l l recognize what I m saying i s abso lu te lyobvious and not understandable in the normal sense ofthe word unders tanding.

You see , I m saying you are complete and you d o n t under -s tand it. To which I reply so what. You see , we th ink ifwe unders tand it then w e l l be complete and what I m saying i syou a re complete and you d o n t unders tand it but t h a t s OK yousee , because you are complete so you d o n t have to unders tandit to be complete.

You see , the re i s no way to become complete . Completion i snot something which begins , because if it was incomplete beforeit was complete it wouldn t have been complete it would havebegun to be complete and t ha t . i s not complet ion t h a t s j u s tbecoming complete .

And becoming never ends . There s always more. More todo. More to have. More to become.

When the con tex t of your l i f e s h i f t s from becoming s a t i s -f i ed to bein g sa t i s f i ed , an e s s e n t i a l s h i f t has occurred . Youno longer seek s a t i s f a c t i o n - you are s a t i s f i e d . You no longerseek complet ion - you are complete . You s h i f t from chasing s a t -i s f a c t i o n and comple teness to express ing o r manifes t ing s a t i s -f ac t ion and completeness .


32/43

26

Life sh i f t s from a process of becoming complete to a pro-cess of being complete. The process o f l i f e doesn ' t s top , o r

And, from the space o f com-end ,o r f i n i ~ h Life goes on.p le t ion , in s tead of l i f e seeking i t s e l f , l i f e begins to giveo f i t s e l f . I t shares i t s e l f . It causes l i f e . It br ings s a t -i s f a c t i on to l i f e . It crea tes l i f e and shares the l exper ience lo f l i f e .

In t ha t sense , t ransformat ion reveals i t s e l f as a cont inuousbeginning. Each exper ience i s a f re sh beginning and a completeending,because it expresses s a t i s f a c t i on .

ow I know t h i s sounds d i f f i c u l t and "abs t rac t , " but ac tua l lyt h r ~ s nothing s impler than recogniz ing someone who comes fromsa t i s f ac t i on and complet ion as compared with someone who i sanxious ly seeking it We can a l l spot somebody who i s fu l lya l ive , exper iences s e l f a s ' a genera t ing r a t h e r than a con-t a in ing context . There i s a mani fes t hea l th ines s about suchpeople a v ivac i ty an exper ience o f love and fu l l se lexpress ion . We usua l ly say such people a re in rad ian t hea l th ,to descr ibe t ha t qua l i ty they have of shar ing it o r making it


33/43

27

r e a l so o ther s can pa r t i c ipa t e in it with them. Theyd o n t seem to t h ink it s t he i r s they seem to know i t s ours .We have the experience t ha t t h e y r e home t h a t t he y r e the re -t ha t they fu l l y are .

I c a l l t h a t the experience of a l iveness , and I th ink youcan recognize what I m t a lk ing about as having one fu r the rqua l i ty t h a t I want to t a l k about before I complete t h i sessay and t h a t i s , such people seem to have a t ransformedexperience of re l a t ionsh ip .

ow I can show you why t ha t must be so from what I v esa id above. It fo l lows l i ke nigh t fo l lows day t ha t peoplewho exper ience themselves as complete d o n t dea l with o therpeople as oppor tun i t i e s to have t h e i r own needs f i l l e d . Insh o r t , t h e y d o n t regard o th e r people as ob jec t s o f g r a t i f i -ca t ion , but as sub jec t s with whom to share the experience ofcompleteness and s a t i s f a c t i o n .

This i s ano ther one of those q u a l i t i e s t h a t our sys temo f unders tand ing regards as necessa r i ly r a r e and unusualbecause almost nobody has ever ca re fu l ly s tud ied how peoplewho a re complete and s a t i s f i e d r e l a t e . Our ordinary way of under-s tand ing holds t h a t completely s a t i s f i e d people w i l l sit aroundn a r c i s s i s t i c a l l y wallowing in t he i r s a t i s f a c t i on l i ke pigs inwarm mud; when i n f a c t nothing could be fu r the r from the t r u th .


34/43

28

t i s a p e r fe c t l y observable f a c t t ha t people who experiencethemselves as complete a r e the very same people who c rea tewhole new ways of l i v i n g and "seeing" prec i se ly becausethey don ' t need to , so they a re n ' t r i sk ing anything by c re a t ing something new. The Buddhists say such people are no t

a t t ached to t h e i r crea t ions , and we say, Hell , he can af fo rdto c rea te I ' v e got to earn a l i v ing .

o you see how backwards we've got i t ? Sel f as contexta l lows the s e l f to be complete , whole, a l ive . With s e l f ascon tex t , l i f e i s a process of the express ion of the experienceo f complet ion r a t h e r than a seek ing to become complete . S imi-l a r l y , experiences of r e l a t i o n premised on s e l f as con ten thave got to r e s u l t in compet i t ion fo r scarce peak exper iences , whi les e l f as con tex t r e s u l t s in experiences o f r e l a t i o n which a re s a t i s fy ing- -se l f - revea l ing ra t h e r than se l f - seek ing . In w! language,I say t ransformed people IIcreate space" fo r othe rs to be inre l a t ionsh ip with them, because they don ' t experience themselvesbeing t h e i r poin t o f v ~ e w but as the con tex t in which they havea po in t o f view. Rela t ionships o f t h i s so r t surv ive p r ec i s e lybecause they don ' t have t o . Rela t ionsh ips o f t h i s s o r t crea tere l a t ionsh ips o f t h i s so r t - - t h e y d o n ' t s tand the re wai t ing fo r oneto come along. Or, in c l i n i c a l terms, re l a t ionsh ips of t h i s s o r tare made by people who a r e n ' t t r y n ~ to ge t b e t t e r , they a repeople be ing wel l .


35/43

29And of course , as we a l l know t h e y r e ra re . But perhaps

not so r a r e as we o rd i n a r i l y th ink , and c e r t a in ly , in my viewnot necessa r i ly r a r e o r unusual .

VII. e s t ND GENER L SYSTEMS THEORYNow I t h ink its t ime I got around to t a lk ing about what

I was i n v i t e d here to t a l k about and thankful ly , when itcomes to the mat te r of genera l sys tems theory and cyberne t icsand family therapy and th ings of t ha t so r t , I m a completeamateur. I d o n t say t h a t to be humble its j u s t the god-awfu l t r u th .

You kno\v among my f r i e nds , I have a r epu ta t ion fo r neverreading beyond the f i r s t t en pages o f the books I read . Nowt h a t i s n t exac t ly accura te ,bu t i t s close . I have to be honestand t e l l you t ha t I have not read widely in your f i e lds . Someo f you have been kind enough to send me copies o f your workand I want to thank you fo r them and t e l l you t ha t I apprec ia tethe oppor tuni ty t o share your experience of your work and yourc re a t iv i t y . And I have to t e l l you t h a t when I read over t hebib l iography fo r t h i s essay it looked very impress ive, but nowt h a t you know I v e only shopped around in them to f ami l i a r izemyself somewhat with your f i e ld , I know you won t be temptedto be impressed by them.

As I see it genera l systems theory i s r e a l l y an e p i s -temological r e o r i e n t a t i o n an at tempt to dea l with the prope r t i e s of whole systems not p r ~ d i c t b l e from the proper t i e s o f


36/43

30

par t s t ha t comprise the system; and t ha t , a t l e a s t to someex ten t , the genera l systems po in t of view developed to handletwo d i f f e r e n t but r e l a t e d problems: t he problem o f overspec ia l i za t ion ,wi th each spec ia l ty pour ing out mi l l i ons o f da tapo in t s every year , and t he re l a t ed problem o f dea l ing with t heproper t i e s of organisms as whole organisms, not as a sum o f organsand o ther b io log ica l par t s . And as I understand it

3 4 5 14 15 6 9 10Ber ta l an f fy , L a z l o , Buckley, Mennlnger ,6 Gray ando ther s , a l l shared t h i s o r i e n t a t i o n to see ing whole as wholes ,not as sums, but as wholes, each with its own i n t eg r i t y .

And c l e a r ly , from what I v e a l ready sa id , you must knowt h a t I can have nothing but admirat ion and r espec t fo r ano r i e n t a t i o n t h a t in tends to r espec t t he i n t e g r i t y of th ingsas they are , not as t he y r e thought to be.- I r e a l l y want toemphasize t ha t - I have a grea t dea l of admirat ion fo r yourwork because it seems to me t ha t you a re not what I v e ca l l ednaive r ea l i s t s , conf in ing yourselves to sense-amenable r ea l i t i e s ,but are wi l l ing to be re spons ib l e fo r grapp l ing with what hasgot to be the ~ f f l i n g complexity. of t h ings taken apar t , whenyou know the re i s a s imple orde r to be found if you look a tth ings in t he i r genuine i n t e r re l a t edness . And t h i s l eads some of youto look to the community and family sources fo r i n s i g h t i n t o t hepeople who seek your ass i s t ance , o r i n to the s t ru c t u re o f themessage systems which have more noise in them than you th inki s hea l thy for them. I admire t ha t wi l l ingness and I thank you


37/43

31

fo r inc lud ing me in your conference to discuss these ma.t ters ,which I th ink a re important and va luab le .

So, coming from t h a t s p i r i t o f admirat ion and r espec t fo ryour work, I want to say t h a t I d o n t regard what I m about tosay as a comment o r eva lua t ion of your work because as an ama-t ue r admirer , I m no t qua l i f i ed to do t ha t .

But the re i s something I would l i ke to say about the per -spec t ive t ha t genera l systems theory br ings to the many d i sc ip l inest touches on, and t h a t i s an i s sue which came up fo r us a t

a recent research conference which was convened by the e s tFounda t ion .

The purpose o f the conference was to examine para -digms fo r re sea rch i n to e nl ightenment or t ransformat ion . I dl i k e to share wi th you the exci tement I experienced a t t ha tconference a t the p o s s i b i l i t y of genera t ing a whole new pa ra -digm fo r doing research i n to t ransformat ion . I was r e a l l ys t ruck by t ha t poss i b i l i t y because I t h ink t t r u ly could pro-duce some value in the world. Ju s t t he recogn i t ion by thes c i e n t i f i c community t h a t some contemporary and some notso contemporary ) resea rch s t r a t e g i e s may not be the bes t wayto approach re sea rch i n to t ran format ion was something I foundvery ex c i t i n g . Ju s t the prospec t o f saying - well - ~ y b e the rea re o th e r ways - maybe t h i s i s not the only way - s t ruck me


38/43

33VIII . ON LUSION

Now j u s t to document t ha t m not e n t i r e l y out on a l imbra i s ing t h i s ques t ion o f t ransformat ion among a group of genera lsystems t h e o r i s t s , l I d l i ke to c lose by c i t i ng a shor t paragraphwri t t en by one of the people in t h i s room who was kind andgenerous enough to extend the i nv i t a t i on to me to come here andbe with you and have the oppor tuni ty to par t i c i pa t e with you.

hope it s not too f l a t t e r i n g to s ing le you ou t , Dr. Gray,and don ' t do it in the s p i r i t o f f l a t t e ry . want to readt h i s quote because th ink it l i e s exac t ly a t the i n t e r f a c eof the epistemology t h a t enables general systems theory and theepis temology t h a t der ives from s t ~ th ink it focuses t ha ti s sue r e a l l y superbly and it makes it makes it poss ib l e tosee our commonali t ies and our d i f fe rences in a very c l e a r l i gh t .

The paragraph reads :(Thus) anamorphosis, o r the spontaneous t r ans i t i ontoward higher order , i s now recognized as a pr inc ip leapp l i cab le to a l l l i v ing organisms and t o c e r t a inoth 'er open systems not in the b io log ica l area . Genera lsystems t h o ~ y means the l i v ing organism as an opensystem with autonomous a c t i v i t y and anamorphosis.This type o f model makes more c l e a r the i n t r i n s i cpo te n t i a l o f l i v ing systems for growth and deve lop-ment and for c rea t i v i t y . The or ig in o f anamorphosisremains one of t h ~ major problems fac ing genera lsystems theory .

And, would add, fac ing a l l o f us .

Thank you.


39/43

32

as very ex c i t i n g . I r e a l l y c a n t imagine anything more exc i t i n g than t ha t .

And I ll tell you why. It seems to me t ha t what befuddIes a l o t o f contemporary r e se a rc h i - - fo r example, in par t i c l ephysics i s t h a t the people doing p a r t i c l e h Y S ~ S re sea rchwith a brand new t ransformed epis temology of pa r t i c l e s are simplyunable to come from a brand new t rans formed epistemology of thes e l f they now r equ i re to be included in t h e i r equa t ions . I th inkt h a t s very fa r - reach ing .

So I t h ink the p o t e n t i a l fo r t ransformed research i s veryfa r - reach ing and c e r t a i n l y not l imi ted to the s tudy of t r a n s format ion. I th ink it has fundamental impl ica t ions forsc iences across the spect rum o f contemporary research .

In o ther words, some research i s now, coming around-to the view t ha t the re sea rche r who crea tes h i s research i snot somebody who s making s t u f f up you know imagining th ingsand c a l l i ng it da ta bu t i s ac tua l ly somebody whose experienceo f s e l f i s t ransformed so he i s r e a l l y respons ib le for whathe crea tes . That p o s s i b i l i t y i s something I see as enormouslyva luable for the research community, and for the r e s t o f us .

You see , in y view, u n t i l you experience yourse l f as thec re a t o r o f what ,you know,you can only know symbol ical ly . Toknow it d i rec t l y , you have to c re a t e it.


40/43

33VIII . ON LUSION

Now j u s t to document t ha t m not e n t i r e l y out on a l imbra i s ing t h i s ques t ion o f t ransformat ion among a group of genera lsystems t h e o r i s t s , l I d l i ke to c lose by c i t i ng a shor t paragraphwri t t en by one of the people in t h i s room who was kind andgenerous enough to extend the i nv i t a t i on to me to come here andbe with you and have the oppor tuni ty to par t i c i pa t e with you.

hope it s not too f l a t t e r i n g to s ing le you ou t , Dr. Gray,and don ' t do it in the s p i r i t o f f l a t t e ry . want to readt h i s quote because th ink it l i e s exac t ly a t the i n t e r f a c eof the epistemology t h a t enables general systems theory and theepis temology t h a t der ives from s t ~ th ink it focuses t ha ti s sue r e a l l y superbly and it makes it makes it poss ib l e tosee our commonali t ies and our d i f fe rences in a very c l e a r l i gh t .

The paragraph reads :(Thus) anamorphosis, o r the spontaneous t r ans i t i ontoward higher order , i s now recognized as a pr inc ip leapp l i cab le to a l l l i v ing organisms and t o c e r t a inoth 'er open systems not in the b io log ica l area . Genera lsystems t h o ~ y means the l i v ing organism as an opensystem with autonomous a c t i v i t y and anamorphosis.This type o f model makes more c l e a r the i n t r i n s i cpo te n t i a l o f l i v ing systems for growth and deve lop-ment and for c rea t i v i t y . The or ig in o f anamorphosisremains one of t h ~ major problems fac ing genera lsystems theory .

And, would add, fac ing a l l o f us .

Thank you.


41/43

IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY1. Bandler , R. and Grinder , J .The Structure of MagicScience & Behavior Books

Palo Alto , 19762. Bateson, GregorySteps to an Ecology of MindChandler Publ ishing Co. and Ballant ine Books Inc .

New York, 19723. Ber ta lan f fy , Ludwig vanRobots, Men and MindsGeorge Brog i l l e r

New York, 19674. Ber ta lan f fy , Ludwig vanGeneral System TheoryGeorge Brog i l l e r

New York, 19685. Ber ta lan f fy , Ludwig vanGeneral Systems YearbookVol. 5 .Socie ty for General Systems ResearchWashington, 19706. Buckley, Walter (ed)Modern Systems Research for the Behaviora l Sc i en t i s t

Aldine Publ i sh ing Co.Chicago, 19687. Ful l e r , Buckminster Ideas and In t eg r i t i e sColl ier -MacMillanToronto, 19698. Ful le r , Buckminster Utopia o r OblivianBantom

New York, 19699. Gray, Will iam, Duhl, Freder ick , and Rizzo, Nicholas General Systems Theory and Psychia t ryL i t t l e Brown & Co.Boston, 1969

10. Gray, Will iam, and Rizzo, Nicholas (eds)Uni ty th rough Divers i ty , Volumes I and I IGordon & BreachNew York, 1973


42/43

11. Guerin, Phi l ipFamily Therapy - Theory and Prac t iceGardner PressNew York, 1976

12. Heisenberg, WernerPhysics and PhilosophyHarperNew York, 1958

13. Heisenberg, WernerPhysics and BeyondHarper RowNew York, 1971

14. Laz10, ErvinSystem, St ruc tu re and ExperienceGordon BreachNew York, 1969

15. Laz10, ErvinIn t roduc t ion to Systems PhilosophyGordon breachNew York, 197216. Menninger , KarlThe Vi ta l BalanceViking Pre ssNew York, 196317. Pask, Gordonpersona l communication18. Reusch, Jurgen and Bateson, GregoryCommunication < The Socia l Matrix o f Psychia t ryW W; Norton

New York, 196819. Rose, J .

Progress in Cybernet ics (3 vo1s. )Gordon BreachNew York, 1970

20. G. Spencer BrownThe Laws o f FormAllen and unwinLondon, 196921. Vare la Franc i scopersona l communication


43/43

22. von Foers te r Hpersonal communication

23. Wiener, NCybernet icsWileyew York, 1948

24. Wiener, NThe Human Use o f Human BeingsAvon Books (Discus Edit ion)ew York, 1967

Werner Erhard: Epistomological and Contextual Contributions of est to General Systems Theory

Documents