FILE: 'Alan Kay.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:44:19.785Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Alan Kay on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Alan-Kay
  - Environment
author: Alan Kay
---
In the approach presented by Alan Kay, the concept of **environment** is used as the foundational **context or "surround"** that dictates how both humans and machines perceive and interact with reality\[1\]. Drawing from biological and pedagogical theories, Kay views the environment not just as a setting, but as an active **force that shapes thought patterns** and behavior\[4\].

The differentiation between the environment and the system is established across three primary domains:

• **Biology vs. Mechanism:** A system is often viewed as a **mechanistic "clockwork"** or a set of deterministic recipes\[7\]\[8\]. In contrast, an environment acts more like an **ecology**, where components (like biological cells) are autonomous, communicate via messages, and maintain equilibrium through redundancy rather than rigid control\[8\].

• **Context vs. Content:** A system consists of specific interacting parts or "content," while the environment provides the **"white space" of common-sense knowledge** and beliefs that make the system’s actions meaningful\[11\]. Kay argues that humans live in a **"waking delusional hallucinatory dream"** formed by their mental environment, which they mistake for reality\[1\]\[14\].

• **Learning Environments vs. Tools:** Traditional computing treats the user interface as a "tool" or control panel; Kay’s approach treats it as a **"learning environment"** designed for exploration\[15\]. Following Maria Montessori, he posits that a school should not just teach lessons but **be the environment** (e.g., the "20th century") that students absorb through living in it\[18\].

This distinction is critical to the approach for several reasons:

• **The Power of Perspective:** Kay’s central aphorism, **"Point of view is worth 80 IQ points,"** highlights that the context (environment) determines whether a problem is solvable or even visible\[21\]. Shifting from a linear procedural environment to an object-oriented one allows for a qualitative leap in reasoning\[24\].

• **Scaling and Robustness:** Biological environments allow for **massive scaling** (trillions of cells) and error recovery that rigid, early-bound systems cannot achieve\[9\]. By viewing the **Internet as the ultimate environment**, Kay advocates for "real" object-oriented systems that behave like peer-to-peer servers that never need to be stopped to be changed\[29\].

• **Active Literacy:** The "computer revolution" is not about the hardware (the system) but about a **new literacy** (the environment) that allows children to "read and write" simulations, leading to a qualitative change in human mentalities\[33\].

• **Late Binding:** Retaining an open, late-bound environment allows for **eternal change**, where ideas learned late in a project can be reformulated into the system with minimal effort\[36\]\[37\]. This flexibility is essential for creating **"extremely safe extreme flexibility"** in software engineering\[38\]\[39\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Alan Kay - Our human condition from space.pdf
> [4] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [7] OOP in a Nutshell From Clockwork to Biology.pdf
> [8] OOP in a Nutshell From Clockwork to Biology.pdf
> [9] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [11] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [14] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [15] A Conversation with Alan Kay.pdf
> [18] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [21] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [24] Kay - Programming and programming language.pdf
> [29] A Conversation with Alan Kay.pdf
> [33] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [36] IsSoftwareEngineeringAnOxymoron.pdf
> [37] IsSoftwareEngineeringAnOxymoron.pdf
> [38] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [39] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf


FILE: 'Alicia Juarrero.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:48:31.539Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Alicia Juarrero on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Alicia-Juarrero
  - Environment
author: Alicia Juarrero
---
Based on the provided sources, particularly the work of Alicia Juarrero and Lila Gatlin, the concept of the **environment** is redefined from a passive container to an active constituent of reality that makes complexity, meaning, and action possible.

Here is an analysis of how the environment is distinguished from the system and why this relationship is central to the approach presented.

### 1\. The Environment as Active Context, Not Passive Container

In the classical Newtonian framework, the environment (space and time) was viewed as a "passive container" or "inert background" that did not fundamentally alter the primary properties of the objects within it\[1\]\[2\]. Juarrero rejects this, arguing that the environment acts as a source of **constraints** that shape the probability of events\[3\].

• **Thermodynamic Necessity:** The approach relies on **open systems** (dissipative structures) that operate "far from equilibrium." By definition, an open system must exchange matter, energy, and information with its environment to maintain its structure\[4\]\[5\]. If a system were closed off from its environment, it would succumb to entropy and equilibrium (death/disorder)\[6\]\[7\].

• **Source of Gradients:** The environment provides **gradients** (e.g., temperature differences, energy sources). These act as **context-independent constraints** that push the system away from equilibrium, a prerequisite for any work or complex organization to occur\[8\]\[9\].

### 2\. Differentiating the System from the Environment

The distinction between system and environment is not a rigid separation of "inside" vs. "outside," but a distinction based on **organization** and **structure**.

• **Internal vs. External Structure:** Drawing on Lila Gatlin, the sources distinguish between a system's **internal structure** (relations among specific components) and its **external structure** (interactions between the components and the environment)\[10\]. A system is defined by the invariant relations among its components that give it identity (organization)\[11\].

• **Operational Closure:** A system differentiates itself from its environment through **constraint closure** or **autopoiesis** (self-organization). This occurs when a network of processes (like a metabolic cycle) folds back on itself, creating a distinct, self-maintaining unity\[4\]\[12\].

    ◦ _Example:_ In a chemical reaction like the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, the system creates its own boundary conditions through its internal dynamics, differentiating itself as a coherent "whole" from the surrounding medium\[13\].
• **Relative Autonomy:** While the system is distinct, it is not fully independent. It achieves a measure of autonomy (self-determination) by regulating its own intake of matter and energy from the environment\[14\]\[15\]. The system creates a boundary that actively filters environmental input rather than passively accepting it\[16\]\[17\].

### 3\. The "Looping" Relationship: Threading Through the Environment

A crucial innovation in this approach is the idea that the "control loop" of a system (such as a human agent) runs _through_ the environment. The system and environment are coupled via **feedback loops**.

• **Extruding into Context:** Feedback loops extend the system into the environment and back. This allows the system to "import" the environment into its own internal dynamics\[18\]\[19\].

• **The Control Loop:** In action theory, an agent does not need to internally compute every detail of an action. Instead, the agent creates a broad intention (a constraint) and lets the environment fill in the details.

    ◦ _Example:_ A fly does not need to calculate how to fly; it has a control loop connecting its feet to the surface. When the surface changes (environmental input), the wings automatically flap. The "external structure" of the fly takes care of the details\[20\]\[21\].    ◦ _Example:_ When driving home, a person intends to get there, but the specific turns and stops are dictated by the "lay of the land" (the environment) interacting with the driver's automated skills\[22\]\[23\].
### 4\. Why This Is Important to the Approach

This re-conceptualization of the environment is fundamental to solving problems in causality, biology, and philosophy of mind.

**A. Enabling Evolution and Novelty**Classical thermodynamics predicts a rundown toward disorder. However, because the environment serves as a source of gradients and perturbations, it can drive a system to a "threshold of instability." When a system is pushed far from equilibrium by its environment, it can undergo a sudden **phase transition** (bifurcation), reorganizing into a higher level of complexity\[24\]\[25\]. The environment is the engine of novelty, not just a passive stage.

**B. Explaining "Meaning" and Intentionality**Juarrero argues against the "internalist" view that meaning is a picture wholly inside the head. Instead, meaning and intentions are **embodied** in the dynamical relationship between the organism and its environment\[26\].

• **Context-Dependence:** The meaning of a stimulus (like an odor or a word) is determined by the history of the organism's interaction with its environment. The brain "recalibrates" its internal dynamics to match environmental patterns\[27\]\[28\].

• **Affordances:** The environment provides **affordances** (opportunities for action). A chair "affords" sitting; this property exists only in the relation between the observer and the environment\[29\].

**C. From Efficient Cause to Constraint**By viewing the environment as a source of **constraints** rather than just a collection of objects that bump into the system (efficient causes), the theory avoids the problems of mechanistic determinism.

• The environment does not "force" the system like a billiard ball; it alters the **probability distribution** of the system's possible behaviors\[30\]\[31\].

• This allows for **soft assembly** or **degeneracy** (multiple realizability), where the exact same function (e.g., reaching for an object) can be performed in different ways depending on the specific environmental context at that moment\[32\]\[33\].

**D. Co-Evolution**Finally, the distinction allows for **co-evolution**. The system does not just adapt to a fixed niche; the system changes the environment, which in turn changes the system. They are historically embedded\[19\]\[34\]. We "carry our history on our backs," meaning our internal structure is a record of past environmental interactions\[35\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Jarrero - Context Changes Everything.pdf
> [2] [Book] Jarrero - Context Changes Everything.pdf
> [3] [Book] Jarrero - Context Changes Everything.pdf
> [4] Juarrero - Context Changes Everything - How Constraints Create Coherence.pdf
> [5] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [6] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [7] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [8] [Book] Jarrero - Context Changes Everything.pdf
> [9] [Book] Jarrero - Context Changes Everything.pdf
> [10] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [11] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [12] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [13] Juarrero - Context Changes Everything - How Constraints Create Coherence.pdf
> [14] Juarrero - Context Changes Everything - How Constraints Create Coherence.pdf
> [15] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [16] Juarrero - intentions as complex dynamical attractors.pdf
> [17] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [18] Juarrero - Context Changes Everything - How Constraints Create Coherence.pdf
> [19] Juarrero - intentions as complex dynamical attractors.pdf
> [20] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [21] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [22] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [23] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [24] Juarrero - Context Changes Everything - How Constraints Create Coherence.pdf
> [25] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [26] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [27] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [28] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [29] [Book] Jarrero - Context Changes Everything.pdf
> [30] Juarrero - Context Changes Everything - How Constraints Create Coherence.pdf
> [31] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [32] Juarrero - intentions as complex dynamical attractors.pdf
> [33] Juarrero - intentions as complex dynamical attractors.pdf
> [34] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [35] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf


FILE: 'Barry Richmond.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:40:14.858Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Barry Richmond on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Barry-Richmond
  - Environment
author: Barry Richmond
---
The concept of **environment** is used as the **"neighboring universe"** that is constantly influenced by local policies and actions\[1\]. In systems theory, the environment is not mutually exclusive to the system; rather, living organisms and their surroundings exist as an **open system** where their energies are connected intimately\[2\]\[3\]. In the context of **Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)**, the environment is used to determine the **fitness** of individual agents, while the interactions of those same agents simultaneously form the environment in which subsequent interactions occur\[4\]. Furthermore, environments are categorized as institutional, ecological, social, economic, or political, all of which must be considered to achieve **sustainable resource use**\[5\].

The primary factor that differentiates the environment from the system is the **boundary**, which defines the system's unique identity\[3\]. While a system consists of internal agents and structures, the environment represents everything outside that defined boundary that still interacts with the system through the exchange of information, matter, and energy\[3\]\[6\]. In system dynamics modeling, these boundaries are often represented by **"clouds,"** which signal where a specific chain of conserved flows begins or ends for the purpose of the analysis\[7\]. Differentiation is also a matter of **frame of reference**; humans often get "trapped in the fray" of daily events and fail to stand back far enough to perceive the system as distinct from its environment\[10\]\[11\].

Understanding this distinction is critical to the systems thinking approach for several reasons:

• **Compensating Feedback:** When a system is treated as a closed entity, interventions often trigger **compensating feedback**, where the environment "pushes back" to maintain its own implicit goals, leading to unintended consequences\[12\]\[13\].

• **Law of Requisite Variety:** This principle states that the **complexity of a controller** must match the **complexity of the environment** it intends to manage\[14\]\[15\].

• **Sustainability and Limits:** Systems thinkers recognize that there is increasingly less **"away"** (space or time) to throw things into, meaning the environment's carrying capacity acts as a fundamental limit to exponential growth\[16\].

• **Locus of Responsibility:** Differentiating the environment allows for **system-as-cause thinking**, which avoids blaming external forces and instead looks at how internal structures generate behavior in response to environmental stimuli\[19\]\[20\].

• **Requisite Simplicity:** Because the environment is infinitely complex, modelers must choose an **extensive boundary** (how broad) and an **intensive boundary** (how deep) to create a model that is "as simple as possible, but no simpler"\[21\].

• **Social Responsibility:** Expanding the boundary of a mental model to include the environment helps to dispel the **"us versus them"** mentality, showing that stakeholders and their environments are part of the same interdependent web\[24\]\[25\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] 200RefsSystems2c.pdf
> [2] 111-116-1-PB(a).pdf
> [3] KV 277.pdf
> [4] KV 277.pdf
> [5] KV 277.pdf
> [6] 111-116-1-PB(a).pdf
> [7] Systems Archetypes II.pdf
> [10] Richmond - Systems Thinking four key questions.pdf
> [11] Richmond - Systems Thinking four key questions.pdf
> [12] 2005 Fisher - The prophet of unintended consequences.pdf
> [13] 2005 Fisher - The prophet of unintended consequences.pdf
> [14] 111-116-1-PB(a).pdf
> [15] 111-116-1-PB(a).pdf
> [16] Richmond - Systems Thinking critical thinking skills for the 1990's and beyond.pdf
> [19] Richmond - Systems Thinking critical thinking skills for the 1990's and beyond.pdf
> [20] [Book] Richmond - An Introduction to Systems Thinking - Stella guide.pdf
> [21] [Book] Richmond - An Introduction to Systems Thinking - Stella guide.pdf
> [24] Systems-Thinking-Tools-TRST01E.pdf
> [25] [Book] Richmond - An Introduction to Systems Thinking - Stella guide.pdf


FILE: 'Bob Williams.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:34:02.045Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Bob Williams on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Bob-Williams
  - Environment
author: Bob Williams
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the environment in systems thinking is fundamental to understanding how systems function, survive, and evolve. The environment is not merely a passive backdrop; it is an active constituent of the system's reality.

Here is an analysis of how the concept is used, how it is differentiated from the system, and why this distinction is critical to the systems approach.

### 1\. How the Concept of Environment is Used

In systems thinking, the environment is used to conceptualize the context in which a system operates. It is generally understood through the lens of **Open Systems Theory**, which posits that living systems (including social and organizational systems) are not self-contained but are in a constant state of exchange with their surroundings.

• **Source of Inputs and Constraints:** The environment provides the necessary energy, information, and resources a system needs to function\[1\]\[2\]. Simultaneously, it imposes constraints—such as legislation, funding limits, or cultural norms—that limit the system's activities\[3\].

• **Source of Complexity (Variety):** In cybernetic terms (specifically the Viable System Model), the environment is viewed as a generator of "variety" or complexity. The complexity found in the environment (e.g., the diverse needs of a homeless population) is always greater than the complexity of the system (e.g., a shelter's staff), requiring the system to filter or "attenuate" this information to manage it effectively\[4\].

• **Dynamic Interaction:** The relationship is circular. Systems are open to their environment, meaning they are affected by it and, in turn, affect it\[5\]. For example, a program's impact modifies the context, which then influences the program's future mechanisms\[6\].

### 2\. Differentiating the Environment from the System

The differentiation between "system" and "environment" is not a physical given, but a conceptual and methodological choice determined by **Boundaries**.

• **The Boundary Concept:** A system is defined by a boundary that delineates what is "in" (relevant, included) and what is "out" (irrelevant, excluded)\[7\]\[8\]. The environment is simply everything that lies outside this boundary\[9\].

• **Control vs. Influence:** A critical distinction used in Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is the difference between control and influence.

    ◦ **The System:** Consists of elements and activities under the control of the system's decision-makers or actors\[10\]\[11\].    ◦ **The Environment:** Consists of factors that _influence_ the system but are _not controlled_ by it\[10\]\[11\].    ◦ _Nuance:_ Practitioners are warned not to confuse "context" (a static description of a state) with "environment" (dynamic factors interacting with the system)\[12\]\[13\].
• **Subjectivity of the Distinction:** The line between system and environment is a mental construct, not an objective reality\[14\]. It is an arbitrary choice made by the observer or analyst\[15\]. Therefore, what one person considers part of the system (e.g., the funders), another might place in the environment\[16\].

### 3\. Why This Distinction is Important to the Approach

The interplay between system and environment is central to the approach presented in these texts for several reasons, ranging from practical survival to ethical accountability.

**A. Adaptation and Viability**Systems are "living organisms" that must adapt to their environment to survive\[5\].

• **Co-evolution:** Social systems and their contexts mutually influence and co-evolve\[17\]. If a system fails to adapt to changes in its environment (e.g., a business ignoring market shifts), it succumbs to entropy and declines\[18\].

• **Feedback Loops:** Understanding the environment is essential for identifying feedback loops. A system's action may trigger a reaction in the environment that feeds back to reinforce or balance the original action\[19\]\[20\]. Ignoring this leads to "unintended consequences" where interventions fail because they did not account for environmental "push back"\[21\].

**B. Complexity and "Mess management"** Traditional "reductionist" thinking treats problems as isolated events (closed systems), ignoring the environment\[22\]. Systems thinking argues that you cannot understand a problem without understanding the wider context (environment) in which it is embedded\[23\].

• **Emergence:** New properties or patterns often emerge specifically from the interaction between the system and its environment, which cannot be predicted by looking at the system in isolation\[24\].

**C. Ethics and Power (Boundary Critique)** Because the boundary between system and environment is a mental construct, it is inherently political and ethical\[14\]\[25\].

• **Marginalization:** Deciding what is "in" the system (and therefore valued) versus what is "out" in the environment (and potentially marginalized) reflects value judgments\[26\].

• **Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH):** This approach explicitly critiques these boundaries to determine whose interests are being served. It asks who determines where the boundary lies and what are the consequences of excluding certain people or factors to the "environment"\[27\]\[28\]. For instance, treating "funders" as part of the environment rather than the system might shield them from necessary scrutiny\[16\].

**D. Realistic Evaluation**For evaluators, distinguishing the environment from the system is crucial for attribution.

• Outcomes are often the result of mechanisms (the system) acting within a specific context (the environment)\[6\].

• Recognizing the environment prevents the "blame game," where individuals are blamed for failures that were actually caused by wider systemic or environmental constraints\[29\].

In summary, the concept of environment is used to define the **scope of control** versus the **scope of influence**. This differentiation is vital because it forces practitioners to acknowledge that their interventions are not isolated machines, but permeable entities that must co-evolve with a broader, often unpredictable context to be effective and ethical.

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] 118-The idea and practice of systems thinking and their rele.pdf
> [2] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [3] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [4] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [5] 118-The idea and practice of systems thinking and their rele.pdf
> [6] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [7] 2015 - Wicked solutions a systems approach to complex problems - williams.pdf
> [8] Evaluation-2011-Hummelbrunner-395-403.pdf
> [9] [Book] Williams - Systems concepts in evaluation.pdf
> [10] Bob Williams - SSM.pdf
> [11] Soft Systems Methodology.pdf
> [12] Bob Williams - SSM.pdf
> [13] Soft Systems Methodology.pdf
> [14] 118-The idea and practice of systems thinking and their rele.pdf
> [15] Bob Williams - SSM.pdf
> [16] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [17] Evaluation-2011-Hummelbrunner-395-403.pdf
> [18] 118-The idea and practice of systems thinking and their rele.pdf
> [19] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [20] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [21] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [22] 118-The idea and practice of systems thinking and their rele.pdf
> [23] CAP0901_37_ENG_DEF_LR Small.pdf
> [24] Evaluation-2011-Hummelbrunner-395-403.pdf
> [25] 2015 - Wicked solutions a systems approach to complex problems - williams.pdf
> [26] CAP0901_37_ENG_DEF_LR Small.pdf
> [27] Evaluation-2011-Hummelbrunner-395-403.pdf
> [28] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [29] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf


FILE: 'C. West Churchman.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:47:49.408Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: C. West Churchman on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - West-Churchman
author: C. West Churchman
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the **environment** in C. West Churchman’s systems approach is not merely a background setting; it is a functional and critical element of system design defined by specific logical conditions regarding control and causality.

Here is an analysis of how the concept is used, how it is differentiated from the system, and why this distinction is vital.

### 1\. How the Concept of Environment is Used

In Churchman’s "anatomy of system teleology," the environment is one of the nine necessary conditions for a teleological (goal-seeking) system to exist\[1\],\[2\].

• **Co-producer of Performance:** The environment is defined functionally. It determines, in part, how well the system performs. Churchman states that the environment "coproduces the measure of performance" of the system\[2\]. This means the success of a system (e.g., a company's profit, a school's educational quality) depends not only on internal operations but also on external factors\[3\].

• **The Realm of the "Given":** The environment represents the set of conditions "given" to the inquirer or designer\[4\]. When designing a system, the environment consists of those constraints and influences that must be accepted as fixed facts, at least for the moment\[4\],\[5\].

• **Source of Constraints and Opportunities:** It includes "exogenous" influences. For example, in a study of geothermal development, the environment involves determining what is outside the control of decision-makers but still impacts the outcome\[4\]. In a business context, this could include legal constraints, budgetary limits, or social conditions\[6\].

### 2\. Differentiation: System vs. Environment

The boundary line between the **system** (specifically its components) and the **environment** is drawn based on **control** and **agency**, specifically regarding the "Decision Maker."

• **The Control Test:** The defining difference is whether the Decision Maker can change the factor in question.

    ◦ **Components:** These are parts of the system because the Decision Maker can control them or change them via their resources to affect the measure of performance\[7\],\[8\].    ◦ **Environment:** These are factors that influence the measure of performance but are **not controlled** by the Decision Maker\[3\],\[9\].
• **Contextual Dependency:** The distinction is not absolute; it depends entirely on _who_ is identified as the Decision Maker\[8\].

    ◦ _Example:_ If an architect designs a house, the house is the system. The family's living habits are the environment (factors the architect cannot control but which affect the house's success). However, if the designer takes a broader view—perhaps designing the family's lifestyle—then the family's habits become components of the system\[10\].
• **Resources:** Resources are inside the system (components) because the decision maker has the power to allocate them. The environment consists of "resources relevant but unavailable" to the decision maker\[11\],\[12\].

### 3\. Importance to the Approach

The distinction between system and environment is central to Churchman’s philosophy because it addresses the scope of inquiry, the validity of solutions, and the ethics of planning.

• **Avoiding the "Environmental Fallacy":** Churchman warns against the "environmental fallacy," which occurs when a designer ignores the environment or fails to consider how outside systems respond to the designed system\[13\],\[14\]. A solution that looks good within narrow boundaries (e.g., maximizing factory output) may be disastrous when the environment (e.g., pollution, long-term resource depletion) is taken into account\[15\],\[14\].

• **Defining the "Whole System":** The approach forces the designer to ask, "How large is the system?"\[16\]. By identifying the environment, the designer acknowledges the limits of their control and the broader context in which they operate. Churchman argues that to understand a part, one must understand the whole system, which eventually requires "sweeping in" environmental factors to make them part of the inquiry\[17\],\[18\].

• **The Imperative of "Sweeping In":** The approach challenges designers to constantly expand the system boundaries. What is currently "environment" (uncontrollable) might need to be brought under control (made a component) to solve the problem truly. For example, to solve a transportation problem, one might need to redesign the "environment" of work habits or communication systems rather than just building faster cars\[19\].

• **Ethical Responsibility:** Recognizing the environment prevents "suboptimization," where a part is improved at the expense of the whole\[20\]. It forces the planner to consider the "victims" or "enemies" of the system—those outside the system boundaries who are affected by it but have no control over it\[21\],\[22\].

In summary, the environment distinguishes what a decision-maker **can** do from what they **must** adapt to. However, Churchman’s approach is dialectical; it demands that we constantly challenge this boundary, questioning whether the "given" constraints of the environment should actually be changed to secure true improvement in the human condition\[4\],\[23\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Checkland 1988 - Churchmans Anatomy of System Teleology revisited.pdf
> [2] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [3] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [4] Churchman - Value Distribution Assessment of Geothermal Development.pdf
> [5] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [6] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [7] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [8] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [9] Churchman and Stories of Information Systems Development.pdf
> [10] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [11] Retmolds - Churchman and Maturana enriching the notion of self organization for social design.pdf
> [12] Retmolds - Churchman and Maturana enriching the notion of self organization for social design.pdf
> [13] The systems approach and its enemies - Churchman - abstarcts.pdf
> [14] [Book] Gigch - Wisdom, Knowledge, and Management A Critique and Analysis of Churchmans Systems Approach.pdf
> [15] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [16] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [17] Assad 2011 C West Churchman.pdf
> [18] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [19] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [20] Churchman-Challenge-Reason-1-223-1968.pdf
> [21] Assad 2011 C West Churchman.pdf
> [22] Retmolds - Churchman and Maturana enriching the notion of self organization for social design.pdf
> [23] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf


FILE: 'Christopher Alexander.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-09T23:42:25.020Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: In the work of Christopher Alexander, the concept ...
tags:
  - Christopher-Alexander
  - Environment
---
In the work of Christopher Alexander, the concept of **environment** is primarily used interchangeably with **"context"** to describe the part of the world that defines a design problem and makes demands upon it\[1\]\[2\]. The **system** (often referred to as the **"form"**) represents the specific part of the world that a designer is shaping or has control over to resolve those demands\[1\]\[3\].

### **Usage of the Concept of Environment**

The environment is viewed as the fixed or background part of a design situation that is held constant while a solution is being adjusted\[3\]\[4\].

• **The Problem Definition:** Alexander asserts that "the context defines the problem"\[2\]. It is not merely physical space but a complex web of social, psychological, economic, and technical "forces" or requirements\[5\].

• **The Source of Forces:** The environment is where the "forces" originate that a design must balance\[8\]\[9\]. A successful design must put the form and the environment into "effortless contact or frictionless coexistence"\[10\].

• **The Larger Whole:** In his later work, the environment is conceptualized as a **"larger whole" (W)** or a "larger system" that is often an order of magnitude bigger than the specific element being designed\[11\].

### **Differentiating System and Environment**

The distinction between the system and its environment is defined by the **locus of control** and the **nature of the demands**:

• **Locus of Control:** The system (form) is the "part of the world over which we have control," while the environment (context) is that which "we cannot properly design" but must satisfy\[1\]\[3\].

• **The "Ensemble":** Alexander notes that the real object of design is the **ensemble**—the combined state of both the form and the context\[2\]. While some writers use "system" to refer only to the part under adjustment (the form), Alexander often uses "system" to refer to this **entire ensemble** to emphasize the mutual interaction between the two\[12\].

• **Boundaries:** Boundaries are marked where properties change, identifying the interface between the system and its environment\[13\]\[14\].

### **Importance of This Differentiation**

This distinction is fundamental to Alexander’s approach for several critical reasons:

1\. **Achieving "Fitness":** The ultimate goal of design is to achieve **"fitness,"** which is a relation of mutual acceptability between the system and its environment\[1\]\[3\]. Without a clear distinction between the two, the designer cannot measure how well a solution satisfies the demands of its context\[15\].

2\. **Neutralizing Misfits:** Alexander views design as a negative process of identifying and neutralizing **"misfits"**—specific points of failure or friction that occur precisely at the boundary where the system and environment meet\[8\].

3\. **Healing the Larger Whole:** A central principle in his later theories is that a local system should act to **"heal" or sustain the larger environment** of which it is a part\[18\]\[19\]. The "goodness" of a system is reciprocal: a successful local intervention helps the larger environment become more coherent, and the environment, in turn, helps the local system thrive\[20\]\[21\].

4\. **Generativity vs. Fabrication:** Living structures are **generated** (grown) by following rules that allow the system to differentiate and adapt to the specific "centers" and forces already present in the environment\[11\]. This is contrasted with modern "fabrication," which often wantonly bulldozes the context to impose an abstract formal order\[6\]\[24\].

5\. **Managing Complexity:** By separating the form (the variable) from the context (the fixed), the designer can use **decompositions** to break complex environmental problems into manageable, independent subsystems\[25\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Thesis - Steenseon - architectures of information  christopher alexander  cedric price.pdf
> [2] [Book] Alexander - Notes on the Synthesis of Form.pdf
> [3] [Book] Alexander - Notes on the Synthesis of Form.pdf
> [4] [Book] Alexander - Notes on the Synthesis of Form.pdf
> [5] 1106026_1_Alexander_1967_1970.pdf
> [6] Thesis - Steenseon - architectures of information  christopher alexander  cedric price.pdf
> [8] A search for beauty a struggle with complexity Alexander.pdf
> [9] Thesis - Steenseon - architectures of information  christopher alexander  cedric price.pdf
> [10] [Book] Alexander - Notes on the Synthesis of Form.pdf
> [11] Alexander - Harmony seeking computations.pdf
> [12] [Book] Alexander - Notes on the Synthesis of Form.pdf
> [13] Misfits Balance Requirements and Systems_ Thoughts on Alexande.pdf
> [14] Misfits Balance Requirements and Systems_ Thoughts on Alexande.pdf
> [15] [Book] Alexander - Notes on the Synthesis of Form.pdf
> [18] Alexander - Harmony seeking computations.pdf
> [19] Alexander - Harmony seeking computations.pdf
> [20] Alexander - New Concepts In Complexity Theory.pdf
> [21] Alexander - New Concepts In Complexity Theory.pdf
> [24] A search for beauty a struggle with complexity Alexander.pdf
> [25] [Book] Alexander - Notes on the Synthesis of Form.pdf


FILE: 'Claude Shannon.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T22:59:59.864Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Claude Shannon on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Claude-Shannon
author: Claude Shannon
---
Based on the provided sources—which heavily feature the work of Terrence Deacon (unifying Shannon, Boltzmann, and Darwin) and Integrated Information Theory (IIT)—the concept of **environment** is distinct from the **system** in fundamental ways. This distinction is the theoretical "engine" that allows for the definition of information, reference, and meaning.

Here is how the environment is used, differentiated, and why it is critical to this approach.

### 1\. How the Environment is Differentiated from the System

The distinction is defined not just spatially, but thermodynamically and causally:

• **The System (The Locus of Order):** The system is the specific entity being analyzed (e.g., a gas chamber, a signal medium, an organism, or a brain complex). It is characterized by its specific state and its internal dynamics. In the context of IIT, a system ("complex") is defined by its **intrinsic** cause-effect power—its ability to determine its own state independent of external factors\[1\],\[2\].

• **The Environment (The Source of Work/Constraint):** The environment is everything extrinsic to the system. It acts as a "reservoir" or "background" that interacts with the system. Crucially, the environment is viewed as the source of **perturbation** or **work**. If a system is in a "surprising" or ordered state (low entropy), it is because the environment has performed thermodynamic work to put it there\[3\],\[4\]. In IIT, the environment is treated as "background conditions" that mediate extrinsic interactions\[5\].

### 2\. How the Concept is Used: The "Mold" of Constraints

In this approach, the environment is used to define information **negatively**. The system represents the environment not by copying it, but by being _constrained_ by it.

• **Thermodynamic Work:** The environment is used to explain non-spontaneous changes. Since nature tends toward disorder (equilibrium), any local increase in order (reduction in entropy) within the system is evidence that the environment has intervened. The environment provides the energy to drive the system away from equilibrium\[3\],\[4\].

• **Constitutive Absence:** Deacon argues that information is defined by what is _absent_. The environment imposes "constraints" on the system, limiting its possibilities. The "shape" of the system (e.g., an adaptation in an organism) is a recording of the constraints imposed by the environment. Thus, the system embodies the environment via "constitutive absence"—the options that the environment did _not_ allow to happen\[6\],\[7\],\[8\].

### 3\. Why This Distinction is Important

The separation of system and environment is critical for three specific reasons in these texts:

A. To Ground "Reference" (How signs mean something)

Without a distinction between system and environment, "information" is just a physical pattern. The distinction allows us to say that a pattern _inside_ the system refers to something _outside_ the system.

• **The Logic:** A reduction in entropy (uncertainty) within the system cannot happen spontaneously. Therefore, if we see a signal (ordered state), it serves as evidence of an external environmental influence\[9\]. This dependence is the "ground of reference." The mud on a shoe (system) refers to the garden (environment) because the garden physically constrained the mud\[10\],\[11\].

B. To Define "Normativity" (Success vs. Failure)

In evolutionary theory, the distinction explains why information can be "good" or "bad" (useful or useless).

• **The Logic:** Living systems are "open systems" that must constantly ingest energy from the environment to avoid thermodynamic equilibrium (death)\[4\]. Because the system is separate from the environment, it can be "out of sync" with it. An adaptation is a system structure that "fits" the environmental constraints. If the environment changes and the system does not, the system fails. This creates a normative standard: information is "true" or "useful" if it helps the system maintain its precarious non-equilibrium state against the environment\[7\],\[12\].

C. To Distinguish "Processing" from "Consciousness" (IIT)

In Integrated Information Theory, the distinction is used to define consciousness.

• **The Logic:** "Shannon information" describes correlations between a system and its environment (extrinsic). However, consciousness (meaning) is defined as **intrinsic**—it is the cause-effect power the system has _over itself_, separate from the environment. While the environment may trigger an experience, the "meaning" is generated entirely within the isolated system's structure. If a system (like a computer) is purely a conduit for environmental inputs (extrinsic), it has no intrinsic meaning\[13\],\[14\],\[15\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf
> [2] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf
> [3] 2008 - Shannon -Boltzmann — Darwin Redefining information (Part I) Re-conceptualizing information - Deacon - Cognitive Semiotics.pdf
> [4] tw deacon - shanon boltzmann darwin - redefining information part II.pdf
> [5] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf
> [6] 2008 - Shannon -Boltzmann — Darwin Redefining information (Part I) Re-conceptualizing information - Deacon - Cognitive Semiotics.pdf
> [7] tw deacon - shanon boltzmann darwin - redefining information part II.pdf
> [8] tw deacon - shanon boltzmann darwin - redefining information part II.pdf
> [9] 2008 - Shannon -Boltzmann — Darwin Redefining information (Part I) Re-conceptualizing information - Deacon - Cognitive Semiotics.pdf
> [10] 2008 - Shannon -Boltzmann — Darwin Redefining information (Part I) Re-conceptualizing information - Deacon - Cognitive Semiotics.pdf
> [11] 2008 - Shannon -Boltzmann — Darwin Redefining information (Part I) Re-conceptualizing information - Deacon - Cognitive Semiotics.pdf
> [12] tw deacon - shanon boltzmann darwin - redefining information part II.pdf
> [13] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf
> [14] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf
> [15] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf


FILE: 'Colin Eden.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:45:59.656Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Colin Eden on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Colin-Eden
  - Environment
author: Colin Eden
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the environment is treated not as a fixed, objective reality, but as a subjective, malleable context that interacts dynamically with the system (the organization or problem situation). Differentiating between the system and the environment is a critical methodological step determined by the purpose of the inquiry, rather than by natural lines of demarcation.

Here is a detailed breakdown of how these concepts are used, differentiated, and why they matter to the approach presented:

### 1\. The Concept of Environment

In the context of strategy making and problem structuring, the environment is defined largely by perception and social construction rather than just physical or economic facts.

• **A Source of Meaning:** The environment is regarded as a "source of meanings" through which organizational members define their actions and make sense of the actions of others\[1\]. It acts as a "source of stimuli" or information that decision-makers process into action\[2\]\[3\].

• **Subjective and Enacted:** The sources emphasize that the environment is not purely objective. One organization’s turbulence may be another’s stability; therefore, turbulence is a subjective phenomenon\[4\]. Managers do not just react to an environment; they "enact" it through their patterns of attention and action\[5\].

• **Context Setters:** The environment contains "strategy context setters." These are independent actors (such as leaders or broad economic forces) who can fundamentally affect the context in which the organization operates but do not necessarily intend to influence the organization or respond to its strategies\[6\].

• **Infinite Variety:** The environment is theoretically infinite. Therefore, the part of the environment that a management team seeks to understand must be selectively defined based on what is relevant to the organization's strategic future\[7\].

### 2\. Differentiating the Environment from the System

The distinction between the system and the environment is established through the creation of a **boundary**. This differentiation is not inherent in nature but is a construct defined by the "intelligence" or purpose of the observer/modeler\[8\].

• **The Boundary Definition:** A system is a collection of things united by interdependence\[9\]. The boundary separates the organization (or the specific problem being modeled) from its setting\[10\]. The environment is simply that which lies outside this defined boundary\[8\].

• **Controllability vs. Uncontrollability:**

    ◦ **The System** consists of variables and elements that are potentially controllable or capable of being influenced by the decision-makers (endogenous variables)\[11\].    ◦ **The Environment** consists of "exogenous variables" or "uncontrollable variables"\[14\]\[15\]. These are regarded as acting _upon_ the system but are not acted _upon by_ the system\[15\]. However, the sources note that designating a variable as environmental is a simplification; in reality, systems often influence their environments\[16\]\[17\].
• **Variety Reduction:** Because a social system contains "incredibly large" variety (complexity), it is impossible to include everything in a model\[18\]\[19\]. The boundary defines what "variety" is included (the system) and what is excluded. The excluded variety is accounted for as "uncertainty" or "probabilism" in the environment\[20\]\[21\].

### 3\. Importance to the Approach

The distinction between system and environment, and how they interact, is central to the authors’ approach to strategic management, modeling, and problem solving for several reasons:

**A. Strategic Agency and Interaction**The approach rejects a purely passive or reactive stance. Strategy is defined as a proactive process of seeking to change not only the organization but also its context or environment\[22\]\[23\].

• **Managing vs. Reacting:** The goal is to interact with and shape the future rather than accept it passively\[24\]. By identifying specific stakeholders within the environment, managers can move them from being "context setters" (unmanageable environment) to "players" (part of the system of influence) who can be negotiated with\[25\]\[26\].

• **Open Systems:** The authors argue that social systems must be viewed as "open systems" that exist _by means of_ an environment\[8\]. Closed system thinking (ignoring environmental feedback) leads to poor strategic models\[27\]\[28\].

**B. Validity of Models**In cognitive mapping and system dynamics, the placement of the boundary determines the utility of the model.

• **Purpose-Driven Modeling:** The definition of the system (and thus the boundary) depends entirely on the _purpose_ of the study\[8\]. If the boundary is drawn incorrectly (e.g., treating a competitor's price as purely exogenous without recognizing that the organization’s own price influences it), the model will be invalid\[17\].

• **Scenario Planning:** Understanding the environment is crucial for developing "alternative futures" or scenarios. This helps the organization test the robustness of its strategies against future events it cannot control (invariants and trends)\[29\]\[30\].

**C. Managing Complexity**Distinguishing between system and environment allows managers to cope with "bounded rationality"\[31\]. By consciously selecting which environmental variables to monitor and which to ignore, managers can get a "grip on turbulence" and avoid paralysis by analysis\[4\]\[32\].

**D. Organizational Identity**Finally, drawing a boundary is essential for identity. It defines "who we are" versus "what is out there." This allows the organization to focus on its distinctive competencies and aspirations while acknowledging the external forces (mandates, markets, competitors) it must satisfy to survive\[10\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [2] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [3] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [4] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [5] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [6] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [7] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [8] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [9] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [10] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [11] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [14] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [15] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [16] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [17] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [18] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [19] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [20] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [21] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [22] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [23] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [24] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [25] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [26] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [27] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [28] [Book] Eden,Harris - 1975 - Management Decision and Decision Analysis - Macmillan London Ltd.pdf
> [29] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [30] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [31] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [32] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf


FILE: 'Dave Snowden.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:41:05.107Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Dave Snowden on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Dave-Snowden
  - Environment
author: Dave Snowden
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of **environment** is central to the Cynefin framework and complexity theory. It is used to define the context in which a system operates, and understanding the distinction between the two is critical for selecting appropriate management strategies and avoiding catastrophic failure.

### The Concept of Environment in this Approach

The term "Cynefin" itself is a Welsh word translating to "habitat," "acquainted," or "familiar," signifying the multiple factors in our environment and past experiences that influence us in ways we can never fully understand\[1\]. Consequently, the framework is fundamentally about situating oneself within a specific context or "place of multiple belongings"\[2\]\[4\].

In the context of systems theory presented in the sources, the environment is defined as the "primordial stew" of interacting and overlapping systems—such as weather, politics, economics, and society—in which a specific system resides\[5\]. It represents the "state of nature" factors that can be irregular, highly variable, and unpredictable\[6\].

### Differentiating the Environment from the System

The distinction between the system and the environment is primarily a matter of **focus** and **boundaries**:

• **The System:** A system is viewed as having a boundary (closed or fuzzy) that separates it from the environment\[7\]. Within this boundary lies a determinate number of components that interact with one another, processing inputs into outputs\[7\]. Classifying a system is an exercise in **internal examination**\[8\].

• **The Environment:** The environment consists of the external context and other systems outside that boundary\[5\]. Classifying an environment is an exercise in **external observation**\[8\].

While a system can be theoretically isolated for analysis, it inevitably resides within a "context," which is a grouping of environmental factors and other systems\[9\]. In complex systems, these boundaries become "diffuse," making it difficult to determine where the system ends and the "thicket" of the environment begins\[10\].

### The Importance of this Distinction

Differentiating between the system and the environment is vital to the approach for several reasons:

**1\. Prevention of Strategic Mismatch**A critical insight of this approach is that a system and its environment may exist in different domains of the Cynefin framework simultaneously\[8\]\[11\].

• It is possible to have a **complicated system** (one governed by orderly, standard processes, like a production line) attempting to operate within a **complex environment** (a market characterized by shifting, unpredictable patterns)\[8\]\[12\].

• If leadership fails to distinguish between the two, they may apply rigid, structured tools suited for the internal system to an external environment that demands adaptability and probing. This mismatch can cause a system to "flounder" or slip into disorder\[13\].

**2\. Managing Co-evolution and Adaptation**In complex adaptive systems (CAS), the system and the environment are not static; they **co-evolve**\[14\]\[15\].

• Fitness is defined as the correspondence between the social institution (the system) and the necessary conditions of existence of the social organism (the environment)\[16\].

• Agents within a system adapt to their environment, but in doing so, they also change the environment\[17\]\[18\].

• Because the past is integrated with the present, elements evolve with one another and the environment irreversibly\[14\]. Therefore, one cannot simply "design" a complex system; one must manage the starting conditions and interactions within the environment to allow desirable patterns to emerge\[19\]\[20\].

**3\. Countering Social Entropy**Human networks and societies have a tendency toward "social entropy," breaking down from cooperation toward conflict over time\[21\].

• Without constant attention to changes in the **external environment**—such as discontinuous innovation or geopolitical shifts—a system that is currently stable can rapidly slide into chaos\[21\]\[22\].

• Leaders must monitor the environment to ensure the organization adapts internally to avoid degradation\[23\]\[24\].

**4\. Intervention Strategy (ABIDE)**When managing in unordered (complex) domains, the approach recommends managing the "ABIDE" elements: Attractors, Barriers, Identity, Dissent, and **Environment**\[25\]. The environment is a "catch-all" category for contextual factors such as proximity and volatility\[26\]. By manipulating these environmental constraints and boundaries, managers can influence the system's trajectory without trying to control the agents directly\[20\]\[27\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Browning - The use of narrative to understand and respond to complexity a comparative analysis of the Cynefin and Weickian models - 2.pdf
> [2] Cynefin-book-SAMPLE_Ed01.pdf
> [4] snowden the new dynamics of strategy.pdf
> [5] Systems Thinking and the Cynefin Framework Final.3 Dettmer.pdf
> [6] Systems Thinking and the Cynefin Framework Final.3 Dettmer.pdf
> [7] Systems Thinking and the Cynefin Framework Final.3 Dettmer.pdf
> [8] Systems Thinking and the Cynefin Framework Final.3 Dettmer.pdf
> [9] Systems Thinking and the Cynefin Framework Final.3 Dettmer.pdf
> [10] Snowden 2011 - Naturalising sense-making.pdf
> [11] Systems Thinking and the Cynefin Framework Final.3 Dettmer.pdf
> [12] Systems Thinking and the Cynefin Framework Final.3 Dettmer.pdf
> [13] Systems Thinking and the Cynefin Framework Final.3 Dettmer.pdf
> [14] 27036324 HBR snowden leaders decision making.pdf
> [15] Snowden - Good fences make good neighbors 2011.pdf
> [16] systems-10-00007 Snowden - The Substrate-Independence Theory.pdf
> [17] Snowden - Naturalising Knowledge Management.pdf
> [18] Systems Thinking and the Cynefin Framework Final.3 Dettmer.pdf
> [19] Snowden - Anticipatory Models for Counter-Terrorism.pdf
> [20] Snowden - The landscape of management creating the context for understanding social complexity.pdf
> [21] Systems Thinking and the Cynefin Framework Final.3 Dettmer.pdf
> [22] Systems Thinking and the Cynefin Framework Final.3 Dettmer.pdf
> [23] Systems Thinking and the Cynefin Framework Final.3 Dettmer.pdf
> [24] The Cynefin Framework and the Technical Leadership - How to Handle the Complexity.pdf
> [25] snowden_archive.pdf
> [26] snowden_archive.pdf
> [27] Snowden 2011 - Naturalising sense-making.pdf


FILE: 'David L Abel.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-09T23:52:58.160Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: In David Lynn Abel’s framework, the environment re...
tags:
  - David-L-Abel
  - Environment
---
In David Lynn Abel’s framework, the **environment** represents the realm of inanimate physicality governed by blind physicodynamics, while a **system** is a formal, conceptual organization driven by purposeful steering and intent. Differentiating the two is central to his approach because it highlights the "Cybernetic Cut"—the deep ravine between material matter and the formal instructions required for life\[1\].

### **The Environment: Inanimate Context**

Abel describes the environment as a prebiotic or inanimate setting defined by **chance and necessity**\[5\].

• **Blind to Utility:** The environment does not care about function, does not have goals, and possesses no motivation to pursue "usefulness"\[6\].

• **Passive Selection:** It can only "select" via **natural selection**, which is a passive process that favors the fittest _already-living_ organisms. It cannot make the "active selections" needed to program a system from scratch\[10\].

• **Constraints vs. Controls:** The environment provides physical **constraints** (e.g., gravity, temperature, law-like regularities). These constraints just "happen" and are indifferent to formal success\[14\].

### **The System: Orchestrated Computation**

A bona fide **system** is not merely a collection of parts but an **organized assembly** specifically engineered to produce utility\[18\]\[19\].

• **Goal-Oriented:** Systems are defined by internal goals, such as maintaining **homeostatic metabolism** or achieving **computational halting**\[20\].

• **Cybernetic Control:** Unlike the environment, a system utilizes **controls**—purposeful selections that steer interactions toward a desired end. These controls are often instantiated via **configurable switches**\[17\].

• **Autonomy:** A system is autonomous because its internal rules (prescriptions) govern its responses to external environmental challenges\[26\]. Abel argues that "weather systems" are not true systems because they lack internal programming or algorithmic optimization; they are merely "physicodynamic interfaces"\[29\].

### **Why This Distinction is Important**

This separation is essential to Abel's critique of current life-origin models for several reasons:

1\. **Exposing the "Category Error":** Many scientists conflate **self-ordering** (physical patterns created by the environment, like a vortex) with **self-organization** (formal systems). Abel insists that the environment can order matter, but it cannot organize it into a functioning biosystem\[10\].

2\. **Bridging the Cybernetic Cut:** By defining the environment as purely physical and the system as purely formal, Abel identifies the gap that must be crossed for **abiogenesis** to occur. He maintains that blind physicodynamics has never been observed to traverse this cut to create formal programming\[1\].

3\. **Refuting "Assembly Theory":** He argues that models like Assembly Theory fail because they attempt to measure the "difficulty" of life using environmental scalars (like molecular complexity) while ignoring the **orchestrational difficulty** of integrating pathways into a holistic, goal-pursuing system\[37\].

4\. **The GS Principle:** The distinction clarifies that life’s origin requires **Selection for Potential Fitness** (active programming) within a system, rather than just the **Selection of Existing Fitness** provided by the environment\[12\].

Essentially, for Abel, the environment is the **scaffolding of physics**, while the system is the **orchestra of life**. Life cannot emerge from the scaffolding alone without a "composer" or agent to provide the formal orchestration\[45\].

Would you like to explore how Abel applies this distinction to specific biological structures like the ribosome or genetic "Turing tapes"?

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Abel - Constraints vs Controls.pdf
> [5] Abel - Assembly theory in life-origin models a critical review.pdf
> [6] Abel - Assembly theory in life-origin models a critical review.pdf
> [10] Abel - Assembly theory in life-origin models a critical review.pdf
> [12] Abel - The Three Fundamental Categories of Reality.pdf
> [14] Abel - Constraints vs Controls.pdf
> [17] Abel - The Three Fundamental Categories of Reality.pdf
> [18] Abel - Linear Digital Material Symbol Systems.pdf
> [19] Abel - What utility does order patter or complexity prescribe.pdf
> [20] Abel - What is life.pdf
> [26] Abel - Self organisation vs self ordering events in Life origin models.pdf
> [29] Abel - Linear Digital Material Symbol Systems.pdf
> [37] Abel - Assembly theory in life-origin models a critical review.pdf
> [45] Abel - Assembly theory in life-origin models a critical review.pdf


FILE: 'Dee Hock.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:00:26.769Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Dee Hock on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Dee-Hock
author: Dee Hock
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of **environment** and its relationship to the **system** is a pivotal distinction between traditional organizational theories (like Open Systems Thinking) and the **Chaordic Systems Thinking (CST)** approach presented here.

### 1\. The Environment in Traditional vs. Chaordic Thinking

The sources contrast two distinct ways of viewing the environment:

• **In Open Systems Thinking (OST):** The environment is viewed as an external reality—a set of "given, ever-changing environmental conditions" to which the system must adapt\[1\]. The goal of the system in this view is to maintain a dynamic balance or equilibrium _with_ this external environment\[2\].

• **In Chaordic Systems Thinking (CST):** The separation between the system and its environment is viewed as largely artificial or, at least, permeable. CST posits that the observer (part of the system) and the observed (the environment) are "mutually co-defined aspects of the same reality"\[3\]. A core property of a chaordic system is **Connectivity**, which demands the "minimization of boundaries and divisions"\[4\].

### 2\. Differentiating Environment from System

While the boundaries are blurred in chaordic philosophy, the texts make specific functional distinctions between the two to explain how organizations survive and grow:

• **The Environment as a Source of Interference:** The environment is described as a place where "multitudes of ever-changing functional configurations" exist\[5\]. When a system (like a work group) operates, its interactions with this environment produce **"interference"**—disturbances or incompatibilities that block processes\[6\]\[7\].

• **The System as a Container of Adaptive Capacity:** To survive this environmental interference, the system must possess **"Adaptive Capacity."** This is defined as the system's potential to reduce interference in its local environment\[8\]. The system differentiates itself by its ability to internalize control and organize itself to handle these external fluctuations without collapsing\[2\]\[5\].

• **The Holonic Relationship:** The sources use the concept of **"holons"** to bridge the gap. A holon is an entity that is simultaneously a whole system in itself _and_ a part of a larger system (its environment)\[9\]\[10\]. Therefore, individuals or groups are not just separate parts reacting to an external world; they are active participants embedded in multiple environments (professional, societal, private) simultaneously\[8\].

### 3\. Why This Is Important to the Approach

The distinction—and the shift in how it is perceived—is critical to the chaordic approach for several reasons:

• **From Reaction to Initiation:** In the traditional view, an organization waits for the environment to change and then reacts (active adaptation). The chaordic approach argues that because the environment is **Far-From-Equilibrium (FFE)** and fundamentally unpredictable (indeterminacy), simply reacting is too slow\[11\]\[12\]. Instead of mapping the environment to control it, chaordic systems must focus internally on their own **consciousness** and **principles**, allowing them to "initiate" change and influence the environment before it is forced upon them\[11\]\[13\].

• **Sustainability through Instability:** Traditional systems seek stability (equilibrium) with their environment. The sources argue that this leads to stagnation. A chaordic system utilizes the turbulence of the environment (the "edge of chaos") as a source of energy for **emergence** and self-organization\[14\]\[15\]. It thrives on the flux of the environment rather than trying to shut it out.

• **Risk Management (Environmental Consistency):** In the specific context of financial risk management, distinguishing the environment allows for the measure of **"Environmental Consistency Confidence."** This posits that if a system's internal activities and the external environmental factors can accurately predict losses and incidents, the system is "consistent" with its environment and its risks are manageable. If they cannot be predicted, the system is out of sync with its environment\[16\]\[17\].

In summary, the chaordic approach moves away from viewing the environment as a separate, external threat to be controlled or reacted to. Instead, it views the environment as a larger, unpredictable whole in which the system participates, utilizing internal "holonic capacity" and "consciousness" to navigate and co-evolve with the turbulence\[12\]\[18\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [2] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [3] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [4] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [5] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [6] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [7] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [8] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [9] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [10] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [11] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [12] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [13] Vaneijnatten 2004 chaordic systems thinking - learning organization.pdf
> [14] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [15] Vaneijnatten 2004 chaordic systems thinking - learning organization.pdf
> [16] Risk-case-study.md
> [17] Risk-case-study.md
> [18] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf


FILE: 'Derek Cabrera.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-04T22:38:23.880Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Derek Cabrera on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Derek-Cabrera
  - Environment
author: Derek Cabrera
---
In the approach presented in the sources, the concept of **environment** is characterised as the **surroundings or externalities** that exist outside the defined boundaries of a system\[1\]. It functions as a **channel** through which information and experience are transmitted, often subject to noise and distortions that affect how a system (or mental model) perceives reality\[4\].

### Usage and Differentiation of the Environment

The environment is differentiated from the system primarily through the act of **boundary-making**\[1\]. The key distinctions include:

• **Internalities vs Externalities:** The system consists of internal components, while the environment consists of everything left outside those boundaries\[2\].

• **Identity vs Other:** In DSRP (Distinctions, Systems, Relationships, Perspectives) theory, the system is the "identity", and the environment is the "other"\[3\]. Whenever a boundary is drawn to define a system, it simultaneously defines its environment\[10\].

• **Open System Exchange:** Unlike closed systems, **open systems** (such as living organisms) are defined by their continuous exchange of matter, energy, or information with their environment to maintain existence and adapt to changes\[13\].

• **Conceptual Environments:** For abstract thoughts, a concept’s environment is not physical but is made entirely of **other concepts** and the patterns of interconnection between them\[16\].

### Importance to the Approach

The differentiation between system and environment is fundamental to this approach for several reasons:

**1\. Alignment with Reality (Parallelism)**The primary goal of systems thinking is to increase the probability that our **mental models** align with the **material complexity of the real world** (the environment)\[17\]. This is achieved through the **ST/DSRP Loop**, where mental models are iteratively tested against environmental feedback to better approximate reality\[22\]\[23\].

**2\. Mitigation of Bias**The approach emphasises that boundaries are often **artificial or arbitrary** decisions based on a observer's perspective or purpose\[24\]. By recognising the environment as the "other" that is excluded, systems thinkers can uncover **hidden biases** and identify information or stakeholders that have been marginalised\[7\].

**3\. Feedback and Adaptivity**A system’s ability to survive depends on its capacity to **react to its environment**\[13\]. Feedback loops allow a system to restructure itself in response to environmental stimuli, a process central to **Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)**\[13\].

**4\. Fractal and Multivalent Logic**The approach rejects simple binary "in or out" logic by showing that **boundaries occur on fractal dimensions**\[35\]. Every component _within_ a system is itself a distinct identity with its own environment, meaning that systems are nested wholes and parts simultaneously\[35\]. This allows for a **multivalent logic** that accounts for the "dark matter" of negated identities in the environment\[41\]\[42\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] 2018 Webinar Planning an Evaluation of Systems Change Slides.pdf
> [2] Balan - how to improve systems thinking in aid.pdf
> [3] Balan - how to improve systems thinking in aid.pdf
> [4] Cabrera - A Mathematical Theory of organizational DSRP as The Universal Reality Code.pdf
> [7] systems-08-00006-v2.pdf
> [10] Cabrera - Distinctions Organize Information in Mind and Nature.pdf
> [13] Balan - how to improve systems thinking in aid.pdf
> [16] calabera.pdf
> [17] Balan - how to improve systems thinking in aid.pdf
> [22] The Simple Rules of Complex Networks.pdf
> [23] What Is Systems Thinking – Derek Cabrera.pdf
> [24] 2020 A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition.pdf
> [35] Cabrera - Distinctions Organize Information in Mind and Nature.pdf
> [41] Cabrera - Distinctions Organize Information in Mind and Nature.pdf
> [42] systems-08-00006-v2.pdf


FILE: 'Donella Meadows.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:00:58.913Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Donella Meadows on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Donella-Meadows
author: Donella Meadows
---
Based on the provided sources, particularly _The Limits to Growth_ and Donella Meadows' essays, the concept of **environment** is used to represent the finite physical and biological support structure within which the human **system** operates.

Here is how the concepts are differentiated and why the relationship is critical to the systems approach presented:

### 1\. Distinction Between System and Environment

In the context of these texts, the distinction is largely between the _growing_ socio-economic elements and the _finite_ physical container.

• **The System (Human/Socio-Economic):** This includes population, industrial capital, food production, and service capital. These elements are driven by **positive feedback loops**, meaning they tend to grow exponentially\[1\]\[2\]. The system is characterized by its tendency to expand, self-reproduce (population), and accumulate (capital)\[3\]\[4\].

• **The Environment (Physical/Ecological):** This includes nonrenewable resources (fossil fuels, minerals), arable land, fresh water, and the ecological mechanisms that absorb pollutants\[5\]\[6\]. The environment is characterized by **finite limits** and **negative feedback loops** (constraints). It acts as the "carrying capacity" of the planet\[7\].

### 2\. How the Concept is Used

The environment is not treated as a passive background but as an active participant in the feedback structure. It functions in two primary ways:

• **As a Source:** It provides the necessary physical inputs for the system (food, raw materials, energy)\[5\].

• **As a Sink:** It absorbs the effluents and wastes of the system (pollution, heat, CO2)\[8\].

### 3\. Why This is Important to the Approach

The distinction and interaction between the system and the environment are central to the "System Dynamics" approach for several reasons:

• **Explaining "Overshoot and Collapse":** The fundamental tension in the model is that the system grows exponentially while the environment remains fixed (or degrades). The environment eventually provides **negative feedback** (resource depletion, pollution crises, food shortages) that forces the system to stop growing\[7\]\[9\]. Because there are **delays** in these feedback signals (e.g., pollution takes years to manifest health effects), the system often "overshoots" the environment's carrying capacity before collapsing, rather than adjusting smoothly\[10\]\[11\].

• **Defining Limits:** The approach asserts that human values typically prioritize growth, implicitly assuming the environment is infinite. By explicitly modeling the environment as finite, the approach demonstrates that "unrestricted growth" is physically impossible\[12\]\[13\].

• **Interconnectedness:** The approach highlights that you cannot treat the system and environment as independent. Changes in the system (e.g., more industrial output) directly degrade the environment (e.g., less arable land, more pollution), which in turn feeds back to strangle the system\[14\]\[15\].

• **Challenging Technological Optimism:** The analysis shows that technological attempts to extend the environment's limits (e.g., nuclear power to solve resource shortages) often just shift the burden to a different environmental limit (e.g., thermal pollution or radioactive waste), leading to a different kind of collapse rather than indefinite growth\[16\]\[17\].

In summary, the environment is the ultimate "boundary condition" for the system. Understanding this relationship moves the goal from maximizing growth (which leads to collapse) to achieving **global equilibrium**, where the system is maintained within the safe limits of the environment\[18\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [2] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [3] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [4] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [5] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [6] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [7] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [8] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [9] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [10] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [11] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [12] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [13] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [14] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [15] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [16] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [17] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [18] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf


FILE: 'Fred Emery.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:34:22.431Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Fred Emery on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Fred-Emery
author: Fred Emery
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the environment in Emery’s Open Systems Theory (OST) is not merely a background setting but an active, structural component of reality that co-determines the survival and behavior of social systems.

Here is an analysis of how the concept is used, how it differs from the system, and why this distinction is critical to the approach.

### 1\. The Concept of Environment (The "Extended Social Field")

In OST, the environment is formally defined as the **"extended social field of directive correlations"**\[1\]. Unlike other theories that might treat the environment as random or abstract, OST posits that the environment has a specific nature and structure that can be known and analyzed.

• **L22 (The Environmental Laws):** OST uses a specific notation to describe the laws governing the environment, designated as **L22**\[2\]. This refers to "processes through which parts of the environment become related to each other," independent of the system\[3\].

• **Causal Texture:** A central contribution of OST is the concept of **"causal texture"**\[4\]. This refers to the manner in which the elements of the environment are interwoven\[5\]. The environment is not static; it evolves through distinct levels of complexity, from "placid, randomized" (Type I) to "turbulent fields" (Type IV), and potentially to "vortical" environments (Type V)\[6\],\[7\],\[8\].

• **Objective Reality:** In this approach, the environment is viewed as a concrete, objective reality—a "material universal"—rather than a subjective construct\[9\],\[10\]. It consists of the changing values, expectations, and ideals of the human systems within it\[11\].

### 2\. Differentiating the Environment from the System

The distinction between the system and the environment is fundamental to OST’s rejection of "closed system" thinking.

• **System (L11) vs. Environment (L22):** The system is governed by its own internal laws (**L11**) and is defined by a **"system principle"** (or _unitas multiplex_), which expresses the unique relationship between that specific entity and its environment\[1\],\[11\]. In contrast, the environment (L22) operates under its own laws and processes that exist independently of any single system\[12\].

• **Transactional Relationship:** The system and environment are differentiated but "co-implicative," meaning they mutually determine one another over time\[13\],\[14\]. They are linked by two specific transactional functions:

    ◦ **L12 (Planning):** What the system does to affect the environment\[15\],\[16\].    ◦ **L21 (Learning):** How the environment affects the system (interpenetration) and how the system extracts knowledge from it\[15\],\[16\],\[17\].
• **Permeable Boundaries:** Unlike mechanical (closed) systems, social systems have permeable boundaries allowing for this continuous exchange. However, the laws connecting parts of the environment are often "incommensurate" with those connecting parts of the organization\[3\].

### 3\. Why This Distinction is Important

The explicit differentiation between L11 (System) and L22 (Environment) is the linchpin of the OST approach for several reasons:

**A. Adaptation and Directive Correlation**The primary goal of OST is **"active adaptation"**\[17\]. Adaptation is defined through the concept of **"directive correlation,"** which states that for a goal to be achieved, the system's behavior and the environment's causal processes must be correlated in direction\[18\],\[19\]. Without a distinct concept of the environment (L22), it is impossible to know _what_ the system is adapting to, rendering the concept of adaptation meaningless\[20\].

**B. Predicting Behavior in "Turbulent" Fields**The approach emphasizes that we currently live in a **Type IV "Turbulent Environment"**, characterized by dynamic processes arising from the field itself, creating significant uncertainty\[21\],\[8\].

• In simpler environments, organizations could survive by focusing internally or reacting tactically.

• In a turbulent environment, the "ground" itself is in motion\[22\]. Therefore, a system cannot survive solely by managing its internal efficiency (L11); it must understand the external field (L22) to avoid being overwhelmed by external changes\[23\].

**C. Critique of Closed Systems Thinking**The sources argue that many other systems approaches (such as those derived from von Bertalanffy or Russell Ackoff) effectively treat social systems as "closed" because they lack a rigorous conceptualization of the L22 environment\[23\],\[24\].

• For example, OST proponents argue that defining a system merely by the interaction of its parts (without the environment) leads to reductionism and an inability to deal with novelty or change\[25\],\[26\].

• Merrelyn Emery argues that you cannot arrive at an open system from the starting point of a closed one; the environment must be acknowledged as a distinct, causally active field\[26\].

**D. Practical Application (Search Conferences)**This theoretical distinction directly informs OST practice, specifically the **Search Conference**. This planning method is designed to establish active adaptation. It _must_ begin by exploring the L22 (the external social field) before looking at the system\[27\],\[28\]. This sequence allows the system to define a strategic future that is aligned with the realities of the changing environmental texture, rather than projecting internal fantasies onto the world\[29\].

In summary, the concept of environment in this approach is used to anchor the system in reality. By differentiating the **System (L11)** from the **Environment (L22)**, OST provides a framework for understanding how organizations can navigate complex, turbulent conditions through **active adaptation**—a feat impossible if the environment is viewed merely as a passive backdrop or a random variable\[23\],\[30\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [2] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [3] Emery - The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments.pdf
> [4] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [5] Baburoglu - The Vortical Environment  The fifth in the Emery-Trist Level of Organisational Environments.pdf
> [6] Baburoglu - The Vortical Environment  The fifth in the Emery-Trist Level of Organisational Environments.pdf
> [7] Emery - The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments.pdf
> [8] Emery - The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments.pdf
> [9] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [10] barton2000 - emery model of management.pdf
> [11] Emery 2000 - The Current Version of Emerys Open Systems Theory.pdf
> [12] Baburoglu - The Vortical Environment  The fifth in the Emery-Trist Level of Organisational Environments.pdf
> [13] Emery 2000 - The Current Version of Emerys Open Systems Theory.pdf
> [14] Emery 2000 - The Evolution of Open Systems to the 2 Stage Model.pdf
> [15] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [16] Baburoglu - The Vortical Environment  The fifth in the Emery-Trist Level of Organisational Environments.pdf
> [17] Emery 2000 - The Current Version of Emerys Open Systems Theory.pdf
> [18] Emery 2000 - The Current Version of Emerys Open Systems Theory.pdf
> [19] Emery 2000 - The Evolution of Open Systems to the 2 Stage Model.pdf
> [20] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [21] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [22] Emery - The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments.pdf
> [23] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [24] Emery 2000 - The Current Version of Emerys Open Systems Theory.pdf
> [25] Emery 2000 - The Current Version of Emerys Open Systems Theory.pdf
> [26] Emery Open or Closed Systems.pdf
> [27] Emery 2000 - The Evolution of Open Systems to the 2 Stage Model.pdf
> [28] The Search Conference - Rehm on Emery.pdf
> [29] Emery Open or Closed Systems.pdf
> [30] selsky2000 - legacy of emery open systems theory.pdf


FILE: 'Geoffrey Vickers.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:36:39.037Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Geoffrey Vickers on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Geoffrey-Vickers
author: Geoffrey Vickers
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the environment is central to Sir Geoffrey Vickers' systems thinking and his theory of "appreciative systems." The environment is not merely a passive backdrop but an active constituent in a dialectical process of regulation and relationship maintenance.

### 1\. The Concept of Environment in Open Systems

Vickers utilizes the model of **open systems** to describe human and social entities. An open system maintains itself by exchanging matter, energy, and information with its environment\[1\].

• **Metabolic and Functional Relations:** The environment is the source of resources necessary for the system's survival. Vickers uses the analogy of an organization maintaining itself by appropriating money, men, and materials from its "surround," much like a cow appropriates grass, air, and water\[2\]. These are termed "metabolic relations"\[2\].

• **The "Flux":** The environment is often described as a "flux of interacting events and ideas"\[3\],\[4\]. It is a dynamic process rather than a static state, containing a history of events that develop according to their own logic and time-scale\[5\].

• **Physical vs. Social Environment:** Vickers distinguishes between the physical milieu (modified by energy) and the social milieu (modified by information and communication)\[6\]. Modern environments are increasingly "man-made" or institutional, meaning the environment consists largely of other people, organizations, and the expectations they hold\[7\],\[8\].

### 2\. Differentiating the System from the Environment

The distinction between the system and its environment is defined by **regulation**, **boundaries**, and **observer perspective**.

• **Regulation and Control:** The primary differentiator is the capacity for regulation. A system is defined as a "regulated set of relationships"\[9\]. While a snake’s internal temperature fluctuates with the environment, a human’s temperature is regulated to remain constant despite environmental changes; this internal regulative mechanism distinguishes the system from the environment\[9\].

• **The Boundary of Convenience:** The boundary between a system and its environment is not always absolute; it is often a matter of convenience decided by the observer based on what relations they wish to study\[10\]. For example, a river catchment area is a product of history and context, not just a fixed datum\[11\].

• **Internal vs. External Relations:** Systems are composed of inner relations (which maintain coherence) and outer relations (which regulate the system's interaction with the milieu)\[12\],\[1\]. The system must match its internal needs/resources with external demands/opportunities to survive\[1\].

### 3\. Importance to the Appreciative Approach

The differentiation between system and environment is critical to the "appreciative" approach because it shifts the focus from linear "goal-seeking" to cyclical **relationship maintenance**.

A. Appreciation as a Filter

The environment is not perceived directly as raw data; it is filtered through the system's **appreciative settings**\[13\],\[14\].

• **Reality Judgments:** The system selects specific aspects of the environmental "flux" to notice and classify. Facts are "mental artifacts" abstracted from the environment through a screen of readinesses\[14\].

• **Value Judgments:** The system compares these perceived environmental facts against internal norms or standards\[15\].

• **Implication:** This means no organization or individual can ever know the "real" environment, only an interpretation of it based on their current interests and expectations\[16\].

B. Maintenance of Relationships (Stability)

Vickers argues that the primary activity of human systems is not seeking a final goal, but maintaining relationships with the environment over time\[17\],\[18\].

• **Stability:** The system seeks to keep essential relations with the environment within acceptable limits (stability)\[12\].

• **Mismatch Signals:** When the perception of the environment (what _is_) deviates from the system's internal standards (what _ought to be_), a "mismatch signal" is generated\[19\]. This signal triggers action to either alter the environment, alter the system's behavior, or alter the internal standard\[20\].

C. Constraints and Enablements

The environment is the source of both **constraints** and **enablements**\[21\].

• **Interdependence:** As systems (e.g., organizations or societies) grow, they become more interdependent with their environment. The "outer world" becomes largely a social construct of other organizations\[6\].

• **Feedback Loops:** Actions taken by the system to modify the environment feed back into the system, often creating unintended consequences because the environment is a dynamic system itself\[22\],\[23\].

In summary, in Vickers' approach, the **system** is the entity attempting to maintain coherence and identity through time, while the **environment** is the dynamic, often social context that provides the resources, constraints, and disturbances that the system must interpret and navigate through the continuous process of **appreciation**\[24\],\[25\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [2] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf
> [3] Brocklesby 2007 - The Theoretical Underpinnings of Soft Systems Methodology - Comparing the work of Geoffrey Vickers and Humberto Maturana.pdf
> [4] Lewis 1991 - The decision making basis for information systems the contribution of Vickers appreciation.pdf
> [5] Lewis 1991 - The decision making basis for information systems the contribution of Vickers appreciation.pdf
> [6] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf
> [7] [Book] Vickers - Making Institutions Work.pdf
> [8] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf
> [9] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [10] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf
> [11] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [12] Vickers The Problem of Problem Solving in [Book] Mayon-White - Planning and Managing Change.pdf
> [13] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf
> [14] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [15] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf
> [16] Lewis 1991 - The decision making basis for information systems the contribution of Vickers appreciation.pdf
> [17] Vickers 1963 - Appreciative Behaviour.pdf
> [18] Vickers - relationship maintenance as an alternative to goal seeking.pdf
> [19] Vickers 1973 - Values Norms and Policies.pdf
> [20] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf
> [21] Blunden 2000 - Enablements and constraints geoffrey vickers and the politics of stability.pdf
> [22] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf
> [23] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [24] Appreciative systems.pdf
> [25] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf


FILE: 'George Lakoff.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:52:27.423Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: George Lakoff on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - George-Lakoff
author: George Lakoff
---
Based on the provided texts, George Lakoff uses the concepts of **environment** and **system** to challenge traditional "Objectivist" philosophy and "Old Enlightenment" reason. The differentiation between the two—and more importantly, the refusal to view them as entirely separate—is central to his theories on embodied cognition, semantics, and political framing.

### The Concept of Environment vs. The System

In Lakoff's approach, the distinction between the environment and the system depends heavily on whether one is viewing them through the lens of traditional Objectivism or Lakoff’s "Experientialism."

1\. The Objectivist View: Separation

In the traditional Objectivist paradigm (which Lakoff opposes), the "system" (the mind or reason) is viewed as distinct from the "environment" (the world).

• **The Separation:** This view posits that "man is separate from his environment"\[1\]. The environment is seen as an external, objective reality consisting of entities with fixed properties\[2\],\[3\].

• **The System's Role:** The mind acts as a "mirror of nature," creating internal representations of that external reality\[4\]. Reason is seen as abstract, disembodied symbol manipulation that attempts to "fit" the external world\[5\],\[6\].

• **Goal:** Successful functioning is conceived as "mastery over the environment"\[1\].

2\. The Experientialist View: Interaction and Coupling

Lakoff proposes an alternative view called "Experientialism" or "Experiential Realism," where the sharp differentiation between the internal system and the external environment is dissolved in favor of **interaction**.

• **Part, Not Apart:** This myth posits that "man is part of his environment, not separate from it"\[7\].

• **Coupling:** The system (conceptual structure) and the environment are structurally coupled. Meaning and understanding emerge from "constant interaction with the physical environment and with other people"\[7\]. You cannot function within an environment without changing it or being changed by it\[7\].

• **Interactional Properties:** Properties of things (like color or "hot" and "cold") are not inherent solely in the environment nor solely in the mind; they are **interactional properties**. They arise from the interaction between our bodies/brains and the physical environment\[8\],\[9\]. For instance, a "chair" is defined not just by its objective physical traits, but by how a human body interacts with it (sitting)\[10\],\[11\].

### Differentiating Causation: Direct vs. Systemic

A critical differentiation in Lakoff’s political and cognitive work is how we perceive causation _within_ the environment. This distinguishes the environment as a collection of discrete actors from the environment as a complex system.

• **Direct Causation (The Actor):** This mode of thought focuses on individual actors and individual responsibility. It views the environment as a backdrop where discrete entities act. This is the dominant mode of thinking in conservative politics (e.g., bad people cause crime) and is reflected in the "rational actor model" of economics\[12\],\[13\],\[14\].

• **Systemic Causation (The System):** This views the environment as a web of connections. Causation is the result of the "structure of whole systems, whether cultural or natural"\[12\]. In this view, outcomes are not just the result of individual moral discipline, but of systemic structures (e.g., a culture of poverty or discrimination causing crime)\[13\].

### Importance to the Approach

This re-conceptualization of the environment and the system is foundational to Lakoff’s arguments in three key areas:

1\. Epistemology and Mathematics

Lakoff argues that because our conceptual system is grounded in our bodily interaction with the environment, there is no "absolute truth" or "God's eye view" available to us\[15\],\[16\]. Even mathematics is not a transcendent entity existing in the universe; it is a product of the human mind interacting with the physical world (e.g., using a measuring stick or forming collections of objects)\[17\],\[18\]. We create mathematical systems to fit the regularities we observe in our environment\[19\].

2\. Cognitive Science and Linguistics

Rejecting the separation of mind and environment allows Lakoff to argue against the "mind-as-machine" paradigm\[20\]. Concepts are not arbitrary symbols; they are "embodied." They are meaningful because they are tied to our physical survival and functioning within the environment\[8\],\[15\]. For example, J.J. Gibson's ecological psychology suggests the environment is defined by "affordances"—how beings can interact with it—rather than just physical reality\[21\].

3\. Politics and Policy

The distinction is politically vital because "systemic causes are everywhere in the environment" yet are often invisible to the public\[22\].

• **Global Warming:** This is a "star example" of systemic causation. Because the human brain evolved to detect direct causation (a predator attacking), it struggles to process the indirect, systemic threat of climate change\[13\].

• **Economics:** The "rational actor model" fails because it treats the environment as a resource to be exploited and ignores "externalized costs" (like pollution) that fall outside the frame of the specific transaction\[23\],\[24\].

• **Ecological Consciousness:** Lakoff argues for a "New Enlightenment" based on "ecological consciousness." This requires shifting from a view of extracting profit from the environment to asking how we sustain the life and natural systems we are connected to\[25\],\[23\]. It acknowledges that "the very idea of economic man is based on metaphors that don't fit reality very well" because they ignore these systemic connections\[26\],\[27\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Lakoff - Metaphors We Live By.pdf
> [2] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [3] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [4] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [5] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [6] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [7] [Book] Lakoff - Metaphors We Live By.pdf
> [8] [Book] Lakoff - Metaphors We Live By.pdf
> [9] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [10] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [11] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [12] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [13] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [14] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [15] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [16] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [17] [Book] Lakoff - Where Mathematics Come From How The Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being.pdf
> [18] [Book] Lakoff - Where Mathematics Come From How The Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being.pdf
> [19] [Book] Lakoff - Where Mathematics Come From How The Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being.pdf
> [20] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [21] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [22] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [23] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [24] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [25] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [26] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [27] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf


FILE: 'Gregory Bateson.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:37:10.029Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Gregory Bateson on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
author: Gregory Bateson
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the environment in Gregory Bateson’s work is not treated as a mere backdrop or a container of resources, but as an active, informational constituent of a larger, unified mental process. The differentiation between "system" and "environment" is fundamentally a matter of how an observer draws boundaries around circuits of information, rather than an objective separation existing in nature.

Here is a detailed breakdown of how these concepts are used, differentiated, and why this distinction is critical to the approach presented.

### 1\. The Concept of "Environment" vs. "System"

In the Batesonian framework, the definitions of system and environment are fluid and defined by communicational pathways rather than physical borders like skin or membranes.

**The Environment as Part of the Mental System**Bateson argues that the "mind" is not contained solely within the body or the brain. Instead, mind is immanent in the larger system of "man plus environment"\[1\]. Consequently, the environment is viewed as a component of a larger "thinking" system. The environment acts as a repository of information and constraints that the organism must process to survive\[2\].

**Differentiation through Boundaries and Pathways**The differentiation between system and environment is often an artificial distinction made by the observer for the purpose of analysis.

• **Arbitrary Lines:** Bateson asserts that the lines drawn between man, computer, and environment are "purely artificial, fictitious lines"\[3\]. These lines cut across pathways along which information travels.

• **Enclosing Pathways:** To properly define a system, one must draw the limiting line in a way that does not cut these informational pathways, leaving things inexplicable. For example, to explain a blind man's locomotion, the system must include the man, the stick, and the street\[4\],\[5\].

• **Contextual Definitions:** The distinction is often hierarchical. A system (e.g., an individual) exists within a larger system (the environment/society), which acts as a meta-system or context\[6\]. The environment provides the "context of context" or the constraints that shape the probabilities of events within the smaller system\[7\].

**Pleroma vs. Creatura**Bateson differentiates the physical world (_Pleroma_) from the world of living systems (_Creatura_).

• **Pleroma:** The non-living environment (stones, galaxies) operates on forces and impacts. It does not respond to information or difference\[8\],\[9\].

• **Creatura:** The living system (and its relationship with the environment) operates on "difference." A living system creates a boundary where it distinguishes "self" from "not-self" based on its ability to sense differences\[10\].

• **The Interface:** The boundary between system and environment is an "interface" characterized by differences in kind. It is a "gap" in a continuum that allows for the perception of difference\[11\].

### 2\. The Relationship: Information and Feedback

The relationship between the system and the environment is defined by the flow of information, specifically "a difference that makes a difference"\[12\],\[13\].

• **Information vs. Energy:** While organisms exchange matter and energy with their environment, the _cybernetic_ relationship is based on information. The system responds to "news of difference" derived from the environment\[14\],\[15\].

• **Feedback Loops:** Systems are self-regulating through feedback loops that extend into the environment. The system takes action, the environment reacts, and that reaction is fed back into the system as new information\[16\],\[17\].

• **Structural Coupling:** Living systems are "structurally coupled" with their environment. The environment triggers changes within the system, but does not strictly determine them; the system responds according to its own internal organization\[18\].

### 3\. Why This Approach is Important

The redefinition of the environment-system relationship is the cornerstone of Bateson’s "ecological epistemology" and has profound ethical and practical implications.

**A. The Unit of Survival**Bateson argues that the gravest error in evolutionary theory and ecology is misidentifying the unit of survival.

• **The Error:** Darwinian theory often focuses on the family line or species against the environment. This leads to a "man against nature" ideology\[19\].

• **The Correction:** The true unit of evolutionary survival is the **"organism plus environment"**\[20\].

• **The Consequence:** An organism that destroys its environment inevitably destroys itself. Therefore, the survival of the system (organism) is inextricably linked to the survival of its context (environment)\[21\],\[22\].

**B. Preventing Ecological Crisis**The distinction is vital for analyzing the roots of ecological crises.

• **Hubris and Control:** Western civilization’s crisis stems from the delusion that the "self" is separate from the environment and can control it unilaterally\[23\],\[24\]. This "conscious purpose" ignores the systemic feedback loops that connect the controller to the controlled\[25\],\[26\].

• **Addiction and Flexibility:** Bateson uses the metaphor of addiction to describe humanity's relationship with the environment. We deplete the "budget of flexibility" in the environment by trying to maximize specific variables (like power or yield) rather than optimizing the health of the total system\[27\],\[28\].

**C. The Epistemology of the Sacred**Finally, this approach leads to a new form of ethics or "sacredness."

• **Immanent Mind:** By recognizing that mind is immanent in the larger ecosystem, the environment becomes entitled to moral and ethical consideration, not just exploitation\[29\].

• **Connectedness:** Acknowledging the "pattern that connects" the crab, the lobster, and the human to the environment fosters a sense of unity and humility (the Sacred) which is necessary to avoid the "insanity" of ecological destruction\[30\],\[31\].

In summary, Bateson dissolves the rigid barrier between system and environment, redefining them as nested pathways of information. This differentiation is important because maintaining the illusion of separation allows for the destructive behavior that threatens the survival of the total ecological mind\[19\],\[22\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] (Biosemiotics 2) Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (auth.), Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (eds.) - A Legacy for Living Systems_ Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics-Springer Netherla.pdf
> [2] Bateson_Gregory_Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind.pdf
> [3] Bateson_Gregory_Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind.pdf
> [4] Bateson - Form Substance and Difference.pdf
> [5] Bateson_Gregory_Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind.pdf
> [6] Gregory Batesons Theory of Mind - Learning I-II-III.pdf
> [7] [Book] Bateson - Steps to an Ecology of Mind_ Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology.pdf
> [8] A Legacy for Living Systems - Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics.pdf
> [9] bothcybernet.pdf
> [10] (Biosemiotics 2) Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (auth.), Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (eds.) - A Legacy for Living Systems_ Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics-Springer Netherla.pdf
> [11] (Biosemiotics 2) Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (auth.), Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (eds.) - A Legacy for Living Systems_ Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics-Springer Netherla.pdf
> [12] (Biosemiotics 2) Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (auth.), Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (eds.) - A Legacy for Living Systems_ Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics-Springer Netherla.pdf
> [13] Bateson and Ramage.pdf
> [14] A Legacy for Living Systems - Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics.pdf
> [15] bothcybernet.pdf
> [16] Gregory Batesons Theory of Mind - Learning I-II-III.pdf
> [17] bothcybernet.pdf
> [18] Gregory Bateson Systems Theory and Autopoiesis.pdf
> [19] Bateson_Gregory_Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind.pdf
> [20] [Book] Bateson - Steps to an Ecology of Mind_ Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology.pdf
> [21] Bateson_Gregory_Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind.pdf
> [22] [Book] Bateson - Steps to an Ecology of Mind_ Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology.pdf
> [23] Bateson_Gregory_Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind.pdf
> [24] Harries-Jones Peter - A Recursive Vision Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson 1995.pdf
> [25] 656342.pdf
> [26] Bateson_Gregory_Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind.pdf
> [27] Bioentropy aesthetics and meta-dualism the transdisciplinary ecology of Gregory Bateson.pdf
> [28] Harries-Jones Peter - A Recursive Vision Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson 1995.pdf
> [29] Hawkins A centennial tribute to Gregory Bateson.pdf
> [30] A Legacy for Living Systems - Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics.pdf
> [31] Palmer - Think differently to avoid extinction.pdf


FILE: 'Harish Jose.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-09T20:52:35.361Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: In the cybernetic and systems approach presented h...
tags:
  - Harish-Jose
  - Environment
---
In the cybernetic and systems approach presented here, the **environment** is defined functionally as the set of variables whose changes affect a system and are, in turn, changed by the system's behavior\[1\]. While a **system** is a selection of variables chosen by an observer to make sense of a phenomenon, the environment consists of the variables and disturbances that remain "outside" the boundary drawn by that observer\[2\].

### **What Differentiates the System from the Environment?**

The distinction between the two is not an objective feature of the world but is created by an observer’s act of "drawing a distinction"\[3\]. Key differences include:

• **Informational Closure**: Systems are viewed as informationally closed, meaning they do not "receive" information as a commodity from the environment\[8\]. Instead, they are **perturbed** by the environment and interpret these disturbances as "informative" based on their own internal history and structure\[11\].

• **Variety Mismatch**: A fundamental difference is that the environment always possesses vastly more **variety** (possible states or complexity) than the system can ever match internally\[15\].

• **Structural Coupling**: While the system is operationally closed (determining its own internal changes), it is **structurally open**\[20\]. This means it exists in a state of "structural coupling" where the system and environment act as mutual sources of perturbation for one another\[23\].

### **Why This Distinction is Important**

Understanding the boundary between system and environment is vital for several reasons:

• **Viability and Adaptation**: For an organism or organization to stay viable, it must maintain its "essential variables" (such as health or profit) within a safe range, even when environmental disturbances threaten to push them outside those limits\[25\].

• **Variety Engineering**: To manage complexity, a system must perform "variety engineering"\[31\]\[32\]. It must **attenuate** (filter out) the overwhelming variety of the environment so it can focus on what matters, while **amplifying** its own internal variety to respond effectively to disturbances\[31\].

• **Ethical Responsibility**: Where we draw the boundary is an ethical choice\[37\]. A boundary drawn too narrowly may exclude critical human values or stakeholders (like patients in a healthcare system), pushing them into the "environment" where their needs are ignored\[40\].

• **Learning and Innovation**: Indirect regulation—the ability to learn—allows a system to use environmental disturbances as a "dictionary" to develop new, more complex behaviors that exceed its initial programming\[45\].

When you look at your own work or organization, where do you usually draw the boundary between "the system" and its "environment"? Does that boundary ever feel too narrow?

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Harish Jose.md
> [2] Harish Jose.md
> [3] Harish Jose.md
> [8] Harish Jose.md
> [11] Harish Jose.md
> [15] Harish Jose.md
> [20] Harish Jose.md
> [23] Harish Jose.md
> [25] Harish Jose.md
> [31] Harish Jose.md
> [32] Harish Jose.md
> [37] Harish Jose.md
> [40] Harish Jose.md
> [45] Harish Jose.md


FILE: 'Harold Nelson.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:29:10.232Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Harold Nelson on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Harold-Nelson
author: Harold Nelson
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of **environment** is central to systemic design and systems thinking. It is defined not just as a physical setting, but as a conceptual and functional boundary that differentiates what is under the designer's control (the system) from what influences the system from the outside.

Here is a detailed breakdown of how these concepts are used, differentiated, and why this distinction is critical to the approach.

### 1\. Differentiating the Environment from the System

The fundamental difference between the system and the environment lies in **control** and **boundaries**.

• **The System:** This consists of interacting parts, components, and relationships that are organized to achieve a specific purpose or function\[1\],\[2\]. It is the entity being designed or analyzed. A system subdivides the universe into the system itself (microcosm) and everything outside it (macrocosm/environment)\[3\].

• **The Environment:** The environment consists of elements that are _not_ part of the system but can produce a change in the state of the system if they change\[4\]. According to C. West Churchman, the environment "coproduces the measure of performance" of the system but is outside the system's direct control\[5\].

The Distinction Between "Context" and "Environment"

A critical nuance in the approach presented by Nelson and Stolterman (_The Design Way_) is the distinction between **context** and **environment**. While often used interchangeably in general conversation, in systemic design they represent different types of constraints:

• **The Context:** Consists of things that _could_ be changed by the designer but which the designer chooses to leave unchanged to serve as a background for the design\[6\]. It is a selected frame.

• **The Environment:** Consists of external factors that _cannot_ be changed by the design but must be taken into account\[6\],\[7\]. These are the immutable constraints—such as natural laws, strict regulations, or fixed physical conditions—that the design must survive within.

### 2\. How the Concept of Environment is Used

The environment is used as a functional component in the design process, serving several specific roles:

**A. As a Source of Constraints and Requirements**The environment sets the conditions for the system. In the "Systemic Model of the Design Situation" proposed by Lurås, the environment is conceptualized as the **"System We Design Within."** This includes industry regulations, culture, project scope, and resources\[8\]. It limits what is possible but also provides the framework and resources that enable the design to exist\[9\].

**B. As the Measure of "Fitness" (Apposition)**Design is fundamentally about creating a "good fit" between a form (the solution/system) and its context (the problem/environment)\[10\].

• **Apposition:** This is the process of "looking around" to see how a system fits into its environment and context\[11\]. A system is assessed not just on its internal efficiency, but on how well it fits its external environment in both place and time\[11\].

• **Survival:** An organization or artifact must maintain a balance with its environment to survive. Design is seen as a means of keeping social systems in balance with their environments\[12\].

**C. As a Dynamic Feedback Loop**The relationship is not static; the system and environment influence each other.

• **Perturbation:** Every design is an intervention that changes the environment. When a new design is introduced, the initial state of reality changes, meaning the environment itself evolves\[13\],\[14\].

• **Co-production:** The environment coproduces the system's performance. For example, a ship's bridge (system) must be designed for the moving environment of the sea (environment); the ship's motion defines the performance requirements of the chair and controls\[15\].

### 3\. Why This Differentiation is Important

The distinction between system and environment is vital for several reasons:

**A. Managing Complexity via Boundary Setting**Systems are not "given" in nature; they are defined by intelligence and judgment\[16\],\[17\].

• **Boundary Judgments:** Determining what is "system" (controllable) and what is "environment" (uncontrollable) is a design choice, not an objective fact\[18\].

• **Avoiding Paralysis:** If a designer tries to control everything, they face overwhelming complexity. By defining the environment, the designer accepts certain limits, allowing them to focus their agency on the system where they can effective change\[19\].

**B. Ethical Responsibility and the "Environmental Fallacy"**C. West Churchman warns against the "environmental fallacy"—the error of isolating a system from its environment during assessment\[20\].

• **Scope of Accountability:** A service relationship in design requires the designer to be responsible not just to the client, but to the larger "inclusive" environment, which includes future generations, stakeholders, and the natural world\[21\],\[22\].

• **Unintended Consequences:** Designs often have aberrant effects on the environment. Understanding the causal entanglements between a design and its environment is necessary to mitigate negative systemic consequences\[23\].

**C. Innovation and Leverage**Understanding the environment allows designers to identify **leverage points**—places where a small shift can produce big changes\[24\].

• **Expanding Scope:** By understanding the "System We Design Within" (the environment of the project), designers can proactively challenge boundaries. For example, rather than just designing a product to fit a regulation, a designer might influence the regulation itself, thereby changing the environment to better support the design\[25\],\[26\].

**D. Survival and "The Good Life"**Ultimately, the approach argues that we live in a world where digital and artificial artifacts _become_ our environment\[27\]. If we fail to distinguish and design these environments thoughtfully, we risk creating a reality that is alienating or "soulless"\[28\]. The goal is to design environments that support human potential and "the good life," rather than merely functioning as efficient machines\[29\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Jones - Systemic Design Systems Handbook.pdf
> [2] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [3] Collaborating for Comprehensivity by CJ Fearnley.pdf
> [4] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [5] Nelson 2003 - The Legacy of C West Churchman.pdf
> [6] [Book] Nelson - The Design Way intentional change in an unpredictable world.pdf
> [7] [Book] Nelson - The Design Way intentional change in an unpredictable world.pdf
> [8] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [9] Luras - Systems Intertwined a systemic view of the design situation.pdf
> [10] Wakkary - unselfconscious.pdf
> [11] [Book] Nelson - The Design Way intentional change in an unpredictable world.pdf
> [12] Friedman - Foundations for the future.pdf
> [13] The Challenge of Improving Design.pdf
> [14] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [15] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [16] Luras - Systems Intertwined a systemic view of the design situation.pdf
> [17] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [18] Nelson - Systemic Design as Born from the Berkeley Bubble Matrix.pdf
> [19] [Book] Nelson - The Design Way intentional change in an unpredictable world.pdf
> [20] Nelson - Systemic Design as Born from the Berkeley Bubble Matrix.pdf
> [21] Design as Being in Service.pdf
> [22] Nelson - Design as Being in Service.pdf
> [23] [Book] Nelson - The Design Way intentional change in an unpredictable world.pdf
> [24] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [25] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [26] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [27] [Book] Stolterman - Thoughtful Interaction Design.pdf
> [28] [Book] Nelson - The Design Way intentional change in an unpredictable world.pdf
> [29] Information Technology and the good life.pdf


FILE: 'Herb Simon.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:01:23.700Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Herb Simon on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Herb-Simon
author: Herb Simon
---
Based on the provided sources, principally _The Sciences of the Artificial_, Herbert A. Simon uses the concept of the environment to define the nature of "artificial" (goal-oriented) systems. The distinction between the system and its environment is fundamental to his approach to psychology, economics, and design.

### **1\. The Artifact as an Interface**

Simon conceptualizes an adaptive system (an artifact) as a meeting point, or "interface," between two distinct environments:

• **The Inner Environment:** This is the substance and organization of the artifact itself (the system). It represents the mechanisms and components that make up the system\[1\]\[2\].

• **The Outer Environment:** These are the surroundings in which the artifact operates. It defines the conditions, constraints, and goals the system must meet to be successful\[1\]\[3\].

**Differentiation:** The inner environment is the "tool" used to adapt, while the outer environment is the set of conditions to which the tool must adapt. For example, in a clock, the gears and springs constitute the _inner_ environment; the concept of time and the physical location of the clock constitute the _outer_ environment\[4\].

### **2\. The Hypothesis of Simplicity (The Ant Metaphor)**

The differentiation between system and environment allows Simon to propose the hypothesis that complex behavior does not necessarily imply a complex underlying system. He uses the parable of an ant walking along a beach: the path of the ant is complex, twisting and turning to avoid obstacles. However, the ant itself may be a simple system with very few rules. The complexity of the path is actually a reflection of the complexity of the **environment** (the beach), not the **system** (the ant)\[5\]\[6\].

Simon extends this hypothesis to human cognition:

"Human beings, viewed as behaving systems, are quite simple. The apparent complexity of our behavior over time is largely a reflection of the complexity of the environment in which we find ourselves"\[7\]\[8\].

### **3\. Memory as Environment**

A critical and perhaps counterintuitive aspect of this approach is the classification of memory. Simon argues that for a thinking human, the **inner environment** consists of a few simple processing capabilities (serial processing, limited short-term memory)\[9\]\[10\]. He views the vast store of knowledge in **long-term memory** as part of the **outer environment**, alongside the external world\[11\]\[12\]. This distinction is vital because it allows the "processor" to remain simple while explaining complex behavior through the richness of the data (environment) on which it operates\[13\].

### **4\. Why This Distinction is Important**

Separating the inner and outer environments is crucial to Simon's methodology for several reasons:

• **Prediction without Micro-Analysis (Substantive Rationality):** If a system is well-adapted to its environment, its behavior will be determined by the requirements of the **outer environment** (the goal), not the details of the **inner environment**\[3\]. For example, we can predict a business will maximize profit (adapt to the market) without knowing the details of its internal management structure\[14\]. We can predict the shape of a bird's wing by understanding the aerodynamics of the air (outer environment) without knowing the bird's physiology\[15\].

• **Identifying Limits (Bounded Rationality):** The inner environment becomes important primarily when the system _fails_ to adapt perfectly. The "limiting properties" of the inner system (e.g., limited attention or computational speed) "show through" when the outer environment is too complex for the system to handle\[16\]\[17\]. This leads to **bounded rationality**: the behavior is a result of the interaction between the constraints of the environment and the cognitive limits of the system\[18\]\[19\].

• **Simplification of Design and Simulation:** This distinction allows scientists to simulate complex systems by modeling only the critical interface properties. One does not need to reproduce the complex internal physics of a system to simulate its behavior; one only needs to simulate the functional relationship between its inner and outer environments\[20\]\[21\].

In summary, the environment is used as the primary determinant of behavior for adaptive systems. Differentiating it from the system allows the observer to explain complex behavior as the result of simple rules acting upon a complex world\[6\]\[10\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [2] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [3] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [4] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [5] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [6] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [7] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [8] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [9] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [10] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [11] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [12] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [13] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [14] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [15] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [16] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [17] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [18] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [19] simon on bounded rationality.pdf
> [20] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf
> [21] [Book] Simon - The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition.pdf


FILE: 'Horst Rittel.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:53:06.227Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Horst Rittel on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Horst-Rittel
author: Horst Rittel
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of environment and its differentiation from the system are central to Krippendorff's constructivist and second-order cybernetic approach.

### **Usage of the Concept of Environment**

In Krippendorff's framework, the environment is used in three primary ways:

1\. **As the Context for Data:** In the context of content analysis and social research, the environment is referred to as the **context**. Data are considered vicarious; they inform the analyst about phenomena not directly observed\[1\]. While data are made available to the analyst, their context (environment) is not; it must be constructed by the analyst to include surrounding conditions, such as "antecedent, coexisting, or consequent" factors\[2\].

2\. **As a Source of Constraints (Viability):** The environment is viewed as an "unknowable" medium that constrains human understanding and action\[3\]. It is not a passive backdrop but an active medium that can "object" to how it is treated\[4\]. The environment communicates primarily by negation; it says "NO" to constructions that fail (non-viability) or remains silent when constructions work (viability)\[5\].

3\. **As a Realm of Affordances:** In design and ecology, the environment is conceptualized in terms of **affordances**—what it offers or furnishes the user, either for "good or ill"\[6\]. It is the background against which users perceive usability and meaning\[7\].

### **Differentiation Between System and Environment**

The distinction between system and environment is not ontological (existing in nature) but epistemological (created by the observer).

• **Distinctions Create Systems:** A system is not a physical entity waiting to be found but a "conceptual device to describe a portion of reality"\[8\]. A system comes into being only when an observer draws a **distinction** within the environment\[9\].

• **The Undifferentiated Environment:** Before a distinction is drawn, the environment appears as an "undifferentiated mass lacking a handle"\[10\]. The act of drawing a distinction divides this space into parts (the system and its environment), intervening in the domain of observation\[9\].

• **Relations vs. Distinctions:** While distinctions separate the system from the environment, **relations** are conceptual inventions designed by the observer to "reconcile the violence that the drawing of distinctions inflicts on the environment as a whole"\[11\].

• **Accessibility:** In content analysis, the data (system) are available to the analyst, but the context (environment) is not; the analyst must construct the context to make valid inferences\[2\].

### **Importance to the Approach**

This differentiation is critical to Krippendorff's approach for the following reasons:

1\. **Challenges Objectivity:** It shifts the focus from finding "real" systems in nature to recognizing that systems are observer-dependent constructions. This creates a "cybernetic epistemology" where the observer participates in creating the observed\[12\],\[13\].

2\. **Replaces Truth with Viability:** Because the environment is logically independent of the systems constructed to describe it, we cannot know the environment directly\[7\]. We can only know if our constructions (systems) are **viable**. If a system fails (e.g., a prediction fails or a design breaks), it is because the environment (medium) has objected to the construction\[14\],\[5\].

3\. **Enables Reconstructability:** By recognizing that systems are models created by removing interactions from a complex whole, analysts can use "reconstructability analysis" to test which distinctions (models) violate the data (environment) the least\[15\]. This allows researchers to find "hidden simplicities" without assuming they are objective facts\[16\].

4\. **Foundations of Meaning:** In design, understanding the environment as a set of **affordances** rather than physical properties allows designers to create artifacts that fit the user's perception and action\[17\],\[18\]. The fit between an organism and its environment (Umwelt) is what constitutes meaning\[19\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Krippendorff - Content Analysis an introduction to its methodology.pdf
> [2] [Book] Krippendorff - Content Analysis an introduction to its methodology.pdf
> [3] Krippendorff - The Dialogic Reality of Meaning.pdf
> [4] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [5] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [6] [Book] Krippendorff - The Semantic Turn a new foundation for design.pdf
> [7] [Book] Krippendorff - The Semantic Turn a new foundation for design.pdf
> [8] [Book] Krippendorff - Content Analysis an introduction to its methodology.pdf
> [9] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [10] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [11] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [12] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [13] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [14] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [15] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [16] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [17] [Book] Krippendorff - The Semantic Turn a new foundation for design.pdf
> [18] [Book] Krippendorff - The Semantic Turn a new foundation for design.pdf
> [19] [Book] Krippendorff - The Semantic Turn a new foundation for design.pdf


FILE: 'Humberto Maturana.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:01:53.378Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Humberto Maturana on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Humberto-Matruana
author: Humberto Maturana
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the environment in the work of Maturana, Varela, and their commentators is radically different from the traditional view of an external world that provides "inputs" or instructions to a system.

Here is an analysis of how the environment is used, how it is differentiated from the system, and why this distinction is critical to their theoretical framework.

### **1\. The Nature of the Environment: Trigger, Not Instructor**

In this approach, the environment is not a source of "information" that the system processes. Instead, the environment is viewed as a source of **perturbations**.

• **The Perturbing Agent:** The environment acts as an agent that impinges upon the system. However, it does not determine what happens within the system. It can only **trigger** or **perturb** changes\[1\]\[2\].

• **No Instructional Interaction:** A central tenet is that there is no "instructional interaction." The environment cannot tell the system what to do or transfer a "message" into it. The changes a system undergoes are determined solely by its own internal structure, not by the external agent\[3\]\[4\].

• **The Observer's Domain:** The environment, as a distinct entity containing the system, exists **only for the observer**\[5\]. The system itself (e.g., a nervous system) operates as a closed network and has no operational mechanism to distinguish "inside" from "outside"\[6\]. The distinction between the system and its environment is a distinction made by an observer standing outside the system\[7\].

### **2\. Differentiating the Environment from the System**

The differentiation between system and environment is based on the concepts of **Organizational Closure** and **Structural Determinism**.

**A. The System (Structure-Determined)**

• **Operational Closure:** Living systems (and the nervous system) are operationally closed. They do not have "inputs" and "outputs" in the engineering sense. They interact only with their own internal states\[8\]\[9\].

• **Structural Determinism:** The system is defined by its structure (its components and their relations). Any change the system undergoes is determined by this structure. If you press a gas pedal and a car moves, the movement is determined by the structure of the car, not by your foot. Your foot (the environment) only triggered the reaction\[10\].

• **The Domain of Components:** The system operates in the domain of its components (anatomy/physiology), where autopoiesis (self-production) takes place\[11\].

**B. The Environment (The Medium)**

• **The Domain of the Whole:** The environment is the domain where the system exists as a totality or unity (e.g., where an organism acts as a whole entity)\[11\]\[12\].

• **The Niche:** The sources distinguish between the general environment and the **niche**. The niche is the specific part of the environment that acts as the domain of existence for a specific class of organism. The niche and the organism arise together; the niche does not exist without the organism\[13\]\[14\].

• **Structural Independence:** The environment has its own structural dynamics independent of the system. While they interact, the environment does not specify the system's changes, nor does the system specify the environment's changes\[15\].

### **3\. The Mechanism of Interaction: Structural Coupling**

If the system is closed and the environment is separate, how do they interact? They interact through **Structural Coupling**.

• **Co-evolution:** When a system and its environment interact recurrently (repetitively) over time, they undergo congruent structural changes. They "drift" together\[2\].

• **Adaptation:** As long as the system remains alive (maintains autopoiesis), it conserves its adaptation to the environment. If the fit (structural coupling) is lost, the system disintegrates (dies)\[16\]\[17\].

• **History of Interactions:** The structure of the system at any given moment constitutes a record of its history of interactions with the environment. The environment has "selected" certain structural paths over others, much like wind and terrain select the path of a water droplet, without "instructing" the droplet where to go\[18\]\[19\].

### **4\. Why is this Distinction Important?**

This redefinition of the system-environment relationship has profound implications for epistemology, management, and social theory.

**A. It Refutes "Representation" (The Cognitive Implication)**

• **No Internal Map:** Because the system is closed and the environment cannot "instruct" it, the brain cannot contain a "representation" or "map" of the outside world. Cognition is not the processing of information from the outside; it is **effective action** within a specific domain\[2\].

• **Illusion vs. Perception:** Because we are determined by our structure and not by the environment, we cannot distinguish in the immediate experience between a perception (triggered by the environment) and an illusion (triggered internally). We only distinguish them later by comparing experiences\[22\]\[23\].

**B. It Changes How We Intervene in Systems (The Social Implication)**

• **Impossibility of Control:** In management and social policy (such as Soft Systems Methodology), this view implies that you cannot simply "manage" or "control" a human system. You cannot force a person or group to understand something by simply transmitting information\[3\].

• **Triggering Change:** To change a social system, you must understand its internal structure (its Worldviews or _Weltanschauungen_) and provide the specific perturbations (triggers) that will lead to the desired structural change\[24\]\[25\].

• **Responsibility:** Since the environment (reality) is not an objective fact we simply report on, but a domain we bring forth through our distinctions, we are responsible for the realities we create and validate with our actions\[26\]\[27\].

**C. It Redefines Problems**

• **Problems as Breakdowns:** A "problem" is not an objective feature of the environment. It is a breakdown in the structural coupling between an organism and its medium. It is an emotional conflict arising from a desire to lead contradictory actions\[28\]\[29\].

In summary, the distinction is vital because it shifts the focus from an **objective universe** (where the environment dictates reality to the system) to a **multiversa** (where systems bring forth their own realities through their specific history of structural coupling with their environment)\[30\]\[31\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] A bridge for 2 views checklnds ssm maturana ontology of the observer.pdf
> [2] A bridge for 2 views checklnds ssm maturana ontology of the observer.pdf
> [3] A bridge SSM and Maturanas Ontology of the Observer 12March2019.pdf
> [4] [Book] Maturana - Tree of knowledge.pdf
> [5] Matura-CognitiveStrategies.pdf
> [6] Matura-CognitiveStrategies.pdf
> [7] A bridge for 2 views checklnds ssm maturana ontology of the observer.pdf
> [8] A bridge for 2 views checklnds ssm maturana ontology of the observer.pdf
> [9] cognitive theories of maturana.pdf
> [10] [Book] Maturana - Tree of knowledge.pdf
> [11] Maturana - Metadesign.pdf
> [12] Maturana_SystemicLaws.pdf
> [13] Maturana_SystemicLaws.pdf
> [14] [Book] Maturana - Autopoesis and cognition.pdf
> [15] Maturana - Metadesign.pdf
> [16] Maturana_SystemicLaws.pdf
> [17] Maturana_SystemicLaws.pdf
> [18] [Book] Maturana - Tree of knowledge.pdf
> [19] [Book] Maturana - Tree of knowledge.pdf
> [22] A bridge SSM and Maturanas Ontology of the Observer 12March2019.pdf
> [23] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf
> [24] A bridge SSM and Maturanas Ontology of the Observer 12March2019.pdf
> [25] A bridge SSM and Maturanas Ontology of the Observer 12March2019.pdf
> [26] Distinguishing the Observer - Maturana.pdf
> [27] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf
> [28] Bond Maturana Technology and Art Is a Biology of Technology Possible.pdf
> [29] cognitive theories of maturana.pdf
> [30] A bridge SSM and Maturanas Ontology of the Observer 12March2019.pdf
> [31] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf


FILE: 'Hylton Boothroyd.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:42:54.129Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Hylton Boothroyd on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Hylton-Boothroyd
author: Hylton Boothroyd
---
In the approach presented by Hylton Boothroyd and further examined in the sources, the concept of **environment** is used to describe the complex, dynamic context of other "action programmes" that interact with or impinge upon the specific programme being studied\[1\].

### Usage of the Concept of Environment

In this framework, the environment is not a passive or empty background. Instead, it is:

• **Theory and Proposal-Saturated:** The environment consists of a host of other action programmes—ranging from individuals to civilizations—each carrying its own set of latent theories (beliefs about reality) and proposals (values and intentions)\[4\].

• **A Source of Stimuli:** Any change in the environment may lead an action programme to notice and scrutinize content that was previously "latent" or unexamined\[7\].

• **An Arena of Conflict and Cooperation:** The environment is characterized by a balance of conflict and cooperation between various programmes, making human affairs a "messy" object of study\[8\]\[9\].

• **A Measure of Consistency:** In the context of risk management, the environment provides the activities and factors against which outcomes are correlated to determine "Environmental Consistency Confidence"—a measure of how well an organization understands its surroundings\[10\]\[11\].

### Differentiation Between System and Environment

The sources differentiate the system (the active "action programme") from the environment based on **influence and organization**:

• **Traditional vs. Articulate Views:** Traditional "hard" systems analysis assumes a rigid demarcation where the system is an organized "enclave" within a relatively underorganized environment, and that separating the two has no effect on the environment’s organization\[12\]\[13\].

• **Action Programme View:** Boothroyd’s approach views the boundary as fluid. A system is defined by its "core" theories and proposals that actors are reluctant to relinquish\[4\]\[14\]. The environment is simply the collection of **other autonomous programmes** whose internal dynamics the focal programme cannot directly control\[15\]\[16\].

• **Organizational Closure:** Some environments exhibit "organizational closure," meaning they possess their own self-maintaining identities that resist external partitioning by an analyst\[17\].

### Importance to the Approach

The distinction between the system and its environment is critical for several reasons:

• **Limits to Prediction:** Because the environment contains other programmes capable of conceiving **novel actions**, the future course of an action programme is inherently unpredictable\[18\]\[19\]. Analysts must abandon the claim to certainty because the environment will eventually "rock" the system, rendering existing models obsolete\[20\].

• **Necessary Adaptability:** Complexity arises because action programmes must constantly adapt to unforeseen changes in the environment to survive\[18\]\[21\].

• **Intervention as a "Third" Programme:** When a consultant enters a client's programme, they do not just observe; they create a **new intervention programme** that must negotiate its own language and rules to interact with both the client and the wider environment\[22\]\[23\].

• **Diagnostic Necessity:** Effective intervention requires "diagnostics"—the ability to estimate complex, ultra-dynamic situations in the environment to determine the correct decision agenda\[24\]\[25\].

• **Impermanence of Advice:** Discoveries about a programme are only temporarily valid because the programme continues to evolve within its environment, necessitating a cycle of "articulate reflection before action"\[26\]\[27\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [4] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [7] Boothroyd Scanned.pdf
> [8] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [9] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [10] Risk-case-study.md
> [11] Risk-case-study.md
> [12] [Book] Tomlinson - Rethinking the Process of Operational Research  Systems Analysis.pdf
> [13] [Book] Tomlinson - Rethinking the Process of Operational Research  Systems Analysis.pdf
> [14] Boothroyd Scanned.pdf
> [15] Boothroyd Scanned.pdf
> [16] Boothroyd Scanned.pdf
> [17] [Book] Tomlinson - Rethinking the Process of Operational Research  Systems Analysis.pdf
> [18] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [19] Boothroyd Scanned.pdf
> [20] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [21] Boothroyd Scanned.pdf
> [22] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [23] Boothroyd Scanned.pdf
> [24] [Book] Tomlinson - Rethinking the Process of Operational Research  Systems Analysis.pdf
> [25] [Book] Tomlinson - Rethinking the Process of Operational Research  Systems Analysis.pdf
> [26] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [27] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf


FILE: 'Ian Mitroff.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:02:16.705Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Ian Mitroff on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Ian-Mitroff
author: Ian Mitroff
---
In the approach presented by the authors (Ackoff, Mitroff, Linstone, and collaborators), the concept of the environment is not merely a background setting but a dynamic, active participant in the creation of reality and problems.

### Differentiating the Environment from the System

The distinction between a system and its environment is rigorous but relative to the intent of the researcher or decision-maker.

**1\. Interaction vs. Control**The primary differentiator is the degree of **control** the decision-maker has over the elements in question.

• **The System:** Consists of variables and elements that the decision-maker can **control** or manipulate to achieve an objective\[1\]. It is a set of interrelated elements where each part affects the whole, and no part has an independent effect\[2\],\[3\].

• **The Environment:** Consists of variables and elements that **affect** the system's state or performance but are **not controlled** by the decision-maker\[4\],\[1\].

**2\. The Criteria of Influence**For an element to be part of the environment, it must satisfy two conditions:

• It must be external to the system (not part of the system's internal functional division of labor)\[4\].

• A change in the element must be capable of producing a change in the state of the system\[4\]. If an external element changes but does not affect the system's relevant properties, it is not considered part of the environment for that specific inquiry\[1\].

**3\. Subjectivity and Relativity**The boundary between system and environment is not absolute or fixed in nature. It is **subjective** and "dictated by the interests of the researcher"\[1\]. What one observer considers a system (e.g., a specific department), another might view as a mere component of the environment for a larger system (e.g., the corporation)\[1\]. This conceptual flexibility is termed "systems separability"\[1\],\[5\].

### How the Concept of Environment is Used

The authors utilize the concept of environment to explain causality, problem-solving, and system behavior.

**1\. Co-production of Outcomes (Producer-Product Relationship)**The environment is used to replace the traditional concept of deterministic "cause and effect" with the concept of **"producer-product" relationships**. A producer (e.g., an acorn) is necessary for a product (an oak tree) but is insufficient on its own\[6\],\[7\]. The environment provides the sufficiency; it is a **coproducer** of the outcome\[7\]. Therefore, one cannot explain a system's behavior solely by analyzing its parts; one must understand how the environment co-produces the results\[8\].

**2\. Dissolving Problems**The environment is used strategically to handle conflicts. The authors distinguish between "solving" a problem (changing the system's behavior) and **"dissolving"** a problem (changing the environment)\[9\]. For example, if two children are fighting (a conflict), separating them physically modifies the environment so that the conflict ceases, without necessarily changing the children's nature\[9\].

**3\. Source of Stimuli and Feedback**The environment is the source of **stimuli** to which a system must respond\[10\]. A system's "sensitivity" is defined by its probability of responding to environmental changes\[11\]. For a system to be "adaptive," it must modify itself or its environment in response to changes that reduce its efficiency\[12\].

### Importance to the Approach

This distinction is foundational to **Unbounded Systems Thinking (UST)** and the critique of traditional "Machine Age" thinking.

**1\. Avoiding the Error of the Third Kind (E3)**The "Error of the Third Kind" is defined as solving the **wrong problem precisely**\[13\],\[14\]. A primary cause of E3 is **"bounded thinking"**—drawing the boundaries of a problem too narrowly and excluding critical environmental factors (e.g., social, political, or ethical context)\[15\],\[16\]. Correctly identifying the environment prevents the analyst from treating a complex "mess" as a simple, isolated "exercise"\[17\],\[18\].

**2\. The "Sweeping In" Process**The approach utilizes a "Singerian" inquiry system, which postulates that "everything interacts with everything"\[19\]. To solve complex problems, the analyst must **"sweep in"** variables from the environment—such as ethics, psychology, and aesthetics—that traditional technical analysis excludes as "externalities"\[20\],\[21\]. This process relies on the understanding that no problem exists in isolation from the environmental "mess"\[17\],\[22\].

**3\. Open vs. Closed Systems**Traditional thinking treated systems as "closed" (independent of their environment), which works for simple machines but fails for social systems\[23\]. The authors argue that modern systems (factories, organizations) are **"unbounded, open systems"**\[23\]. They must be extremely sensitive to environmental feedback to survive\[23\]. Ignoring the environment leads to invalid models and failed policies because it ignores the variables that—while uncontrollable—determine the system's success or failure\[4\],\[1\].

**4\. Understanding Paradoxes**In complex systems, interactions with the environment often generate **paradoxes**. For instance, an organization attempting to expand (internal goal) may trigger environmental resistance that leads to a loss of market share, illustrating that "more leads to less"\[24\]. Understanding the environment prevents linear thinking (e.g., "bigger is always better") that fails in complex realities\[25\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Ackoff - On Purposeful Systems An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Individual and Social Behavior as a System of Purposeful Events.pdf
> [2] [Book] Ackoff - On Purposeful Systems An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Individual and Social Behavior as a System of Purposeful Events.pdf
> [3] [Book] Mitroff - Business Strategies for a Messy World Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving.pdf
> [4] [Book] Ackoff - On Purposeful Systems An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Individual and Social Behavior as a System of Purposeful Events.pdf
> [5] [Book] Mitroff,Linstone - 1993 - The unbounded mind - Oxford University Press.pdf
> [6] [Book] Ackoff - On Purposeful Systems An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Individual and Social Behavior as a System of Purposeful Events.pdf
> [7] [Book] Ackoff - On Purposeful Systems An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Individual and Social Behavior as a System of Purposeful Events.pdf
> [8] [Book] Mitroff - Business Strategies for a Messy World Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving.pdf
> [9] [Book] Ackoff - On Purposeful Systems An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Individual and Social Behavior as a System of Purposeful Events.pdf
> [10] [Book] Ackoff - On Purposeful Systems An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Individual and Social Behavior as a System of Purposeful Events.pdf
> [11] [Book] Ackoff - On Purposeful Systems An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Individual and Social Behavior as a System of Purposeful Events.pdf
> [12] [Book] Ackoff - On Purposeful Systems An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Individual and Social Behavior as a System of Purposeful Events.pdf
> [13] Mitroff - Crises as Ill Structured Messes.pdf
> [14] [Book] Mitroff - Smart Thinking for Crazy Times.pdf
> [15] [Book] Mitroff - Smart Thinking for Crazy Times.pdf
> [16] [Book] Mitroff - Smart Thinking for Crazy Times.pdf
> [17] [Book] Mitroff - Dirty Rotten Strategies How We Trick Ourselves and Others into Solving the Wrong Problems Precisely.pdf
> [18] [Book] Mitroff - Dirty Rotten Strategies How We Trick Ourselves and Others into Solving the Wrong Problems Precisely.pdf
> [19] [Book] Mitroff,Linstone - 1993 - The unbounded mind - Oxford University Press.pdf
> [20] [Book] Mitroff,Linstone - 1993 - The unbounded mind - Oxford University Press.pdf
> [21] [Book] Mitroff,Linstone - 1993 - The unbounded mind - Oxford University Press.pdf
> [22] [Book] Mitroff,Linstone - 1993 - The unbounded mind - Oxford University Press.pdf
> [23] [Book] Mitroff,Linstone - 1993 - The unbounded mind - Oxford University Press.pdf
> [24] [Book] Mitroff - Technology Run Amok Crisis Management in the Digital Age.pdf
> [25] [Book] Mitroff - Smart Thinking for Crazy Times.pdf


FILE: 'James Ladyman.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:26:06.724Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: James Ladyman on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - James-Ladyman
author: James Ladyman
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the environment is fundamental to the definition and understanding of complex systems. The approach presented here, particularly by Ladyman, Wiesner, and Vitale, posits that complexity does not exist in isolation; rather, it arises specifically from the dynamic relationship between a system and its environment.

Here is an analysis of how the environment is used, how it is differentiated from the system, and why this distinction is critical.

### 1\. The Environment as a Condition for Complexity

In the framework provided by Ladyman and Wiesner, the relationship with the environment is not passive; it is a necessary **condition** for a system to be considered complex.

• **Thermodynamic Openness (Non-equilibrium):** A defining feature of complex systems is that they are "out of thermodynamic equilibrium with the environment"\[1\],\[2\],\[3\]. Complex systems are **open systems**, meaning they are driven by an external flux of energy, matter, or information across their boundaries\[4\],\[5\].

• **The Source of Order:** The environment acts as a reservoir that allows the system to generate internal order. The system maintains its structure (low entropy) by exporting disorder (high entropy) into the environment\[6\],\[7\]. For example, a living cell repairs itself by breaking down malfunctioning components and releasing them into the surrounding medium; unlike a closed system (like gas in a box) where perturbations disperse internally, a complex system has a "one-way direction" for dispersing errors out to the environment\[8\],\[6\].

• **Source of Interaction:** According to the relational philosophy presented by Vitale, nothing emerges on its own; everything emerges from a context or ground. Emergence requires a relation to an environment (or "more") that provides the potential for change and interaction\[9\],\[10\].

### 2\. Differentiating the System from the Environment

The differentiation between system and environment is established through **boundaries**, though the sources note that these boundaries can be porous, dynamic, or observer-dependent.

• **Physical and Informational Boundaries:** Boundaries are defined by the exchange of "energy, momentum, material, or information"\[4\],\[11\]. In biological systems, this might be a physical membrane (like a cell wall) that distinguishes "inside" from "outside"\[12\].

• **Regrouping and Hierarchy:** In physical systems, boundaries are often defined by the clustering of interactions. Systems are organized into hierarchies where levels are made up of regroupings of lower levels, essentially a "redefining of the system’s boundaries"\[13\],\[14\].

• **Operational Closure:** While systems are open thermodynamically, they may possess "operational closure" or distinct internal dynamics (such as the metabolic networks in cells) that differentiate them from the external world\[15\].

• **Deconstructible Boundaries:** Vitale notes that these distinctions can be philosophical challenges. For instance, an organism requires air to live; is the air part of the system or the environment? While membranes divide cells from the outside, if the boundary is too firm, the system dies; if too porous, it dissolves. Therefore, the differentiation is a "middle path" of selective permeability\[12\],\[16\].

### 3\. Importance to the Approach

The system-environment distinction is central to the approach for several reasons:

**A. It Explains Adaptive Behaviour**Complexity is often associated with adaptation. Adaptive behavior is defined as the ability of a system to modify its behavior "depending on the state of the environment and the predictions they make about it"\[17\],\[18\].

• Systems use internal degrees of freedom to **represent** the environment\[19\].

• Effective complexity measures the length of a concise description of the regularities of a system, often involving its relation to the environment\[20\].

• Organisms evolve to "understand" or work with their environment (e.g., a fish's body plan is an understanding of water)\[21\].

**B. It Enables Robustness and Homeostasis**Robustness is the ability of a system to maintain its structure or function under perturbations, which usually come from the environment\[22\],\[23\].

• **Homeostasis** is described as a dynamic equilibrium where a system maintains a steady internal state (e.g., temperature) despite environmental fluctuations\[24\].

• Feedback loops allow the system to correct errors caused by environmental noise\[25\],\[26\].

**C. It Drives Emergence and Self-Organisation**New structures and behaviors (emergence) arise specifically because systems are driven by environmental gradients (such as solar radiation driving the climate)\[5\].

• **Self-Organised Criticality:** Systems like sandpiles self-organize to a critical state through constant driving (adding sand) from the environment\[27\].

• **Modification of the Environment:** Complex systems do not just react to the environment; they modify it. For example, ants build nests and cultivate fungi, altering their surroundings to suit their needs, creating a feedback loop between the system and the environment\[4\],\[28\].

**D. It Prevents Reduction to "Just Physics"**By emphasizing the system's relation to the environment, the approach avoids reducing complex systems to merely the sum of their physical parts. The "history" of a system—how it interacted with its environment over time—is essential to its current state. A complex system carries information about its history (e.g., genetic inheritance or galactic formation) which resulted from environmental interactions\[29\],\[30\].

In summary, the concept of environment is used as the **source of energy and information** that drives the system away from equilibrium, and as the **selective pressure** that shapes adaptation. The differentiation is important because it establishes the boundary across which entropy is exported and information is imported, allowing the system to maintain organization and memory in a disordered world\[31\],\[32\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Ladyman - On Complexity.pdf
> [2] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [3] wiesner - measuring complexity.pdf
> [4] Ladyman - What is a Complex System.pdf
> [5] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [6] Ladyman 2012 - What is a complex system.pdf
> [7] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [8] Ladyman - What is a Complex System.pdf
> [9] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [10] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [11] what is a complex system.pdf
> [12] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [13] Ladyman - What is a Complex System.pdf
> [14] Ladyman 2012 - What is a complex system.pdf
> [15] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [16] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [17] Ladyman - On Complexity.pdf
> [18] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [19] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [20] Ladyman 2012 - What is a complex system.pdf
> [21] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [22] Ladyman - What is a Complex System.pdf
> [23] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [24] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [25] Ladyman - What is a Complex System.pdf
> [26] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [27] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [28] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [29] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [30] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [31] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [32] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf


FILE: 'James Wilk.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:02:45.823Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: James Wilk on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - James-Wilk
author: James Wilk
---
In the approach presented by James Wilk and his colleagues, the concept of the **environment** is radically redefined from the "Official View" (traditional science/E1 epistemology) to the "New View" (E2 epistemology/Metamorphology).

### **How the Environment is Conceptualized**

**1\. Environment as Context and Constraint**In this framework, the environment is not viewed as a passive container or a separate stage upon which events play out. Instead, it is understood primarily as a **context** composed of constraints and communicational signals\[1\],\[2\].

• **Context-Markers:** The environment consists of "context-markers"—specific signals or aspects of communication (like a stop sign, a tone of voice, or a room layout) that tell an organism or an organization what "mode" or context they are in\[3\],\[4\].

• **Flux and Constraint:** The environment is the source of "flux" (continuous random variation). Stability within a system is maintained by **constraints**—many of which are located in the environment—that prevent the system from behaving in any other way\[5\],\[6\].

**2\. Environment as "Territory-as-Mapped"**The approach rejects the idea of an objective environment that exists entirely independently of the observer. Instead, the "environment" an agent deals with is the **"territory-as-mapped"**\[7\].

• The environment is not a "given" external reality but is mutually constructed by the agent. Agents (people or organizations) actively select and filter aspects of the objective world to create their own "subjective" environment\[8\].

• For example, a "situation" is not a fixed environmental fact but "how we currently situate ourselves" in relation to resources and goals\[9\].

### **Differentiation: System vs. Environment**

**1\. Autonomy vs. Perturbation (Control Theory)**The approach differentiates the system (often referred to as the "agent assembly" or "living thing") from the environment based on **autonomy** and **control**:

• **The System (Agent):** Living systems are autonomous units that actively **cancel out** influences from the environment to maintain their own internal standards (reference conditions)\[10\],\[11\]. They are not "caused" to act by the environment; they act to _oppose_ environmental disturbances\[12\].

• **The Environment:** This is the source of **perturbations** (disturbances) that buffet the system. The system treats the environment as a source of "flux" that must be managed to maintain stability\[13\],\[10\].

**2\. Soft Boundaries (The Whirlpool Metaphor)**Unlike the traditional view which sees systems as "blocks of ice" (fixed solids), this approach views systems (like organizations) as **whirlpools** or eddies in a river\[14\].

• **The System:** The whirlpool has an identity and a pattern, but it is made of the same "stuff" (water/people/energy) as the environment.

• **The Environment:** The river flow and the riverbed. The system is in constant "interchange" with the environment; boundaries are fluid, not rigid\[14\].

**3\. Agent vs. Patient**In the science of _metamorphology_, the distinction is formalized as **Agent** (that which acts) and **Patient** (that which is acted upon).

• The "system" being analyzed is the **Agent Assembly**.

• The "environment" into which it intervenes is the **Patient Assembly** (or "free fall"). Crucially, the Patient is part of the Agent's "territory-as-mapped," not a separate universal system\[15\],\[16\].

### **Why This Distinction is Important to the Approach**

This reconceptualization is critical for **Minimalist Intervention** because it dictates _how_ change is achieved:

**1\. Change the Environment to Change the System**Because systems are autonomous and resist direct force (they cancel out perturbations), you cannot force a system to change directly (e.g., by "motivating" employees)\[17\],\[11\].

• **Intervention Strategy:** You must instead alter the **environment** (the constraints or context). By changing the constraints (e.g., removing a "rock" upstream in the river), the system (the whirlpool) naturally and effortlessly shifts its shape to adapt\[14\].

• **Context Manipulation:** By changing "context-markers" in the environment (e.g., using blue paper for memos instead of white), you change the meaning of the situation. The system then spontaneously reorganizes its behavior to fit the new context\[18\],\[19\].

**2\. Filter Complexity via Constraints**Understanding the environment as a set of constraints allows the interventionist to **filter complexity** rather than model it\[20\].

• Instead of analyzing every internal detail of the system, the interventionist looks for the specific **idiosyncratic constraints** in the local environment that make the current problematic behavior the _only_ possibility\[21\],\[22\].

• Lifting these environmental constraints allows the system to "flip" instantly to a new state\[23\].

**3\. Avoiding "Resistance"**Because the system is viewed as reacting to its _map_ of the environment, attempting to change the system without changing its environment creates "resistance" (the system trying to maintain stability)\[24\].

• By altering the environment (the "territory-as-mapped"), the system's old behavior becomes impossible or irrelevant, and the new desired behavior becomes the only natural option\[25\]. The system changes itself to fit the new environmental reality\[26\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] James Wilk.pdf
> [2] [Book] Wilk - Shifting Contexts.pdf
> [3] James Wilk.pdf
> [4] James Wilk.pdf
> [5] James Wilk.pdf
> [6] James Wilk.pdf
> [7] James Wilk.pdf
> [8] James Wilk.pdf
> [9] James Wilk.pdf
> [10] James Wilk.pdf
> [11] James Wilk.pdf
> [12] James Wilk.pdf
> [13] James Wilk.pdf
> [14] James Wilk.pdf
> [15] James Wilk.pdf
> [16] James Wilk.pdf
> [17] James Wilk.pdf
> [18] James Wilk.pdf
> [19] James Wilk.pdf
> [20] James Wilk.pdf
> [21] James Wilk.pdf
> [22] James Wilk.pdf
> [23] James Wilk.pdf
> [24] James Wilk.pdf
> [25] James Wilk.pdf
> [26] James Wilk.pdf


FILE: 'John Flach.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:30:37.717Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: John Flach on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - John-Flach
author: John Flach
---
Based on the sources provided, the concept of the "environment" (often referred to as **ecology**, **context**, or **work domain**) is central to the Systems Thinking and Cognitive Systems Engineering (CSE) approaches presented.

The environment is not treated as a passive background, but as an active partner in a coupled dynamic. Here is how the concepts are used, differentiated, and why they are critical to this approach.

### 1\. System vs. Environment: A Choice, Not a Fact

The sources emphasize that the distinction between "system" and "environment" is not an objective reality, but a subjective choice made by an observer.

• **The System is a Mental Model:** A system is defined as "a way of looking at the world"\[1\]\[2\]. It is a mental model or representation created by an observer to make sense of complexity\[3\]\[4\]. The system does not exist independently of the observer; it is a choice regarding what to include and what to exclude\[4\]\[5\].

• **The Boundary is Arbitrary:** The differentiator between the system and the environment is the **boundary** drawn by the observer\[6\]. This boundary is determined by the observer's goals, analytical tools, and the specific problem they are trying to solve\[7\]\[8\].

• **The Environment (Ecology):** The environment consists of everything outside that chosen boundary that interacts with or constrains the system\[8\]\[9\]. In this approach, the term **ecology** is often preferred over "environment" because ecology implies a relationship defined _relative_ to the organism or system (e.g., the "Umwelt"), spanning physical, social, and cultural constraints\[10\]\[11\].

### 2\. Open vs. Closed Systems

The nature of the relationship between the system and the environment is differentiated by whether the system is treated as **open** or **closed**.

• **Closed Systems:** These are isolated from their environment. In physics, a truly closed system follows the Second Law of Thermodynamics, moving toward maximum entropy (disorder) and "thermodynamic death"\[12\]. Conventional laboratory experiments often attempt to create closed systems to isolate variables, which limits their applicability to real-world complexities\[15\]\[16\].

• **Open Systems:** Biological organisms and human organizations are **open systems** (or dissipative structures). They are **not** isolated; they connect deeply with the environment to exchange energy, matter, and information\[17\]. This exchange allows them to self-organize and maintain order (resist entropy) by adapting to environmental changes\[20\]\[21\].

### 3\. Why This Distinction is Important to the Approach

The approach presented here (Cognitive Systems Engineering/Ecological Psychology) relies on the **triadic semiotic system** (Agent, Interface/Representation, and Ecology/World)\[22\]. Understanding the environment is critical for several specific reasons:

A. Explaining Complexity (The Ant on the Beach)

The sources frequently cite Herbert Simon's parable of the "ant on the beach." The complex path of an ant is not a result of a complex internal program (the "system"), but rather the result of the ant adapting to the complex structure of the sand dunes (the "environment")\[6\].

• **Implication:** You cannot understand behavior by looking only at the agent (the system); you must understand the **constraints** of the environment\[26\]\[27\]. Behavior is an emergent property of the coupling between the two\[28\]\[29\].

B. Circular Causality and Self-Organization

In this approach, the environment and the system are locked in a **circular dynamic**\[30\].

• **Reciprocal Shaping:** The system acts on the environment, changing it, while the environment simultaneously shapes the system's possibilities\[30\]\[33\].

• **Example:** Termites build nests not because of a master plan (internal program), but through a self-organizing process where they respond to pheromones (environmental structure) that they themselves deposited\[34\]\[35\]. This "circular causality" means neither the system nor the environment is the sole "cause" of behavior\[36\].

C. Designing for Meaning and "Deep Structure"

For design and engineering, the environment represents the **problem space** or **work domain**\[37\]\[38\].

• **What Matters:** Meaning is not created solely in the head (the system); it is discovered in the relationship between the agent's capabilities and the environment's **affordances** (possibilities for action)\[10\].

• **Deep Structure:** To design effective technology, one must analyze the "deep structure" of the environment (e.g., physical laws, thermodynamics, social rules)\[41\]\[42\]. This is formalized using the **Abstraction Hierarchy**, which maps the constraints of the environment from functional purposes down to physical forms\[43\].

• **Goal:** The goal is to make these environmental constraints visible to the user (the system) so they can "muddle through" (adapt) skillfully\[46\]\[47\].

D. Overcoming the "Dyadic" Flaw

Traditional approaches (the "dyadic" model) focus only on the Agent and the Interface, treating the Environment as an arbitrary input\[48\]\[49\].

• **The Ecological Alternative:** This approach argues that ignoring the environment leads to "cargo cult science"—forms that look scientific but fail to capture the reality of experience\[50\]. By including the environment (the third part of the triad), researchers can understand **"what matters"**: the functional constraints that determine success or failure in the real world\[51\]\[52\].

In summary, the concept of environment is used here as the **source of constraints and affordances** that shape behavior. It is differentiated from the system by the observer's boundary but is inextricably linked to it through information and energy flow. This relationship is vital because intelligence and successful performance are viewed not as attributes of the system alone, but as emergent properties of the **system-environment fit**\[53\]\[54\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Do Conversations Exist.pdf
> [2] Do Systems Exist - a Conversation.pdf
> [3] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [4] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [5] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [6] Do Conversations Exist.pdf
> [7] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [8] Naikar - Work Domain Analysis.pdf
> [9] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [10] Flach - Playing twenty questions with nature the surprise version.pdf
> [11] [Book] Flach - Control theory for humans quantitative approaches to modeling performance.pdf
> [12] Do Conversations Exist.pdf
> [15] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [16] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [17] Do Conversations Exist.pdf
> [20] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [21] [Book] Walls - Do systems exist - A conversation Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [22] Flach 2015 - The Semiotic contxt for Systems Engineering.pdf
> [26] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [27] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [28] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [29] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [30] Flach - Playing twenty questions with nature the surprise version.pdf
> [33] [Book] Walls - Do systems exist - A conversation Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [34] Do Conversations Exist.pdf
> [35] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [36] [Book] Flach - What Matters 2017.pdf
> [37] Flach 2015 - The Semiotic contxt for Systems Engineering.pdf
> [38] [Book] Flach - What Matters 2017.pdf
> [41] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [42] [Book] Flach - Display and Interface Design.pdf
> [43] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [46] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [47] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [48] Flach 2015 - The Semiotic contxt for Systems Engineering.pdf
> [49] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [50] [Book] Flach - What Matters 2017.pdf
> [51] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [52] [Book] Flach - What Matters 2017.pdf
> [53] Flach 2015 - The Semiotic contxt for Systems Engineering.pdf
> [54] [Book] Walls - Do systems exist - A conversation Adam Walls John Flach.pdf


FILE: 'John Warfield.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:03:14.111Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: John Warfield on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - John-Warfield
author: John Warfield
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the **environment** is treated as a fundamental, yet mentally constructed, boundary that is essential for managing complexity and engineering systems. The distinction between "system" and "environment" is not inherent in nature, but is a deliberate choice made by the observer or designer to enable analysis and design.

Here is a detailed breakdown of how these concepts are used, differentiated, and why they matter to the approach presented:

### 1\. Differentiating System and Environment

The approach relies on the rigorous definition provided by J. Willard Gibbs, which establishes that the separation between system and environment is an act of **mental choice** rather than physical reality.

• **Arbitrary Separation:** A system is defined as "any portion of the material universe which we choose to separate in thought from the rest of the universe for the purpose of considering and discussing the various changes which may occur within it under various conditions"\[1\].

• **Symmetry:** Because this separation is arbitrary, the distinction is symmetrical. The Environment is itself a system, and the "System" is the environment of the "Environment"\[2\].

• **The Boundary:** The distinction is formalized by the **system boundary**. A system is defined as a non-empty set of objects and relationships; the boundary implies what is "inside" (the system) versus what is "outside" (the context/environment)\[3\]. The context is outwardly looking from the boundary (external forces), while the concept is inward looking (internal relationships)\[4\].

### 2\. How the Concept of Environment is Used

In the context of Systems Science and Interactive Management, the environment is operationalized in several specific frameworks to ensure comprehensive design and analysis.

**A. The Three System Minimum Pattern**In systems engineering, one never deals with just one system. At a minimum, three systems are always involved in any activity\[5\],\[6\],\[7\]:

1\. **The Product System:** The item being designed or analyzed.

2\. **The Process System:** The organization or set of activities used to produce the product.

3\. **The Environment System:** This is further subdivided into:

    ◦ _Operating Environment:_ Normal and abnormal operating conditions (start-up, shut-down).    ◦ _Program Environment:_ Regulators, investors, competition, and the "rest of the world"\[6\].
**B. Streams of Change (Dynamic Context)**The environment is not static; it is a "dynamic context" often beyond the control of the system designer\[8\]. It is modeled as "Streams of Change" that flow through time, affecting the system. These streams include\[9\],\[10\]:

• Science Stream

• Technology Stream

• Application Stream

• Product Stream

• Organizational Stream

**C. The Meta-System**The environment is sometimes conceptualized as a **meta-system**. Definitions include "the field within which the system arises and within which it interacts with other systems"\[11\] or "a set of integrated complementarities... that defines the environment or ecosystem that the system finds itself within"\[12\].

### 3\. Why This Distinction is Important

The clear separation of system and environment is critical for **complexity reduction** and **failure avoidance**.

**A. Understanding Relations**A comprehensive theory of systems requires studying two sets of relations: those _among_ the parts of the system, and those _between_ the system and its environment\[2\]. Complexity often resides in the interaction between the two\[13\].

**B. Adaptation and Survival**Systems fail when they cannot adapt to uncertain future environmental conditions\[14\].

• **Constraint on Variation:** A system is defined as a "constraint on variation"\[15\]. The environment imposes constraints (values, physical laws, regulations) that determine the feasible behavior of the system\[4\].

• **Connection Decisions:** In a System of Systems (SoS), a component system must be able to "sense" the environment and decide if maintaining a connection to the larger system (environment) provides more benefits than costs\[16\].

**C. Problem vs. Solution Separation**The distinction supports the **Problem vs. Solution pattern**. The "problem" usually lies in the environment or context (the "Exterior"), while the "solution" is the system designed to address it (the "Interior")\[17\],\[18\]. Failing to separate the environmental problem from the proposed system solution leads to "preconceived notions that fail to resolve issues"\[19\].

**D. Cognitive Complexity Reduction**By separating the "System" from the "Rest of the Universe," the observer reduces the number of variables to a manageable level (satisfying the _Law of Triadic Compatibility_ and _Miller's Limit_). This allows the observer to focus on "considering and discussing the various changes" within the bounded system without being overwhelmed by the infinite interactions of the total universe\[1\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Warfield 2003 - A Proposal for Systems Science.pdf
> [2] Warfield 1987 - Dimensionality.pdf
> [3] Simpson - Formal Systems Concepts.pdf
> [4] Simpson - Foundation Systems Engineering Patterns.pdf
> [5] Simpson - Foundation Systems Engineering Patterns.pdf
> [6] Simpson - Foundation Systems Engineering Patterns.pdf
> [7] Simpson - Systems Engineering Patterns and Pattern Language.pdf
> [8] Simpson 2008 - System of systems Power and Paradox.pdf
> [9] Simpson 2008 - System of systems Power and Paradox.pdf
> [10] Simpson 2008 - System of systems Power and Paradox.pdf
> [11] Simpson - System Integration Frameworks.pdf
> [12] Simpson - Formal Systems Concepts.pdf
> [13] Simpson - Complexity reduction A pragmatic approach.pdf
> [14] Simpson 2008 - System of systems Power and Paradox.pdf
> [15] Simpson - System Concepts and Theories.pdf
> [16] Simpson 2008 - System of systems Power and Paradox.pdf
> [17] Simpson - Foundation Systems Engineering Patterns.pdf
> [18] Simpson - Systems Engineering Patterns and Pattern Language.pdf
> [19] Simpson - Foundation Systems Engineering Patterns.pdf


FILE: 'MC Jackson.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:04:14.221Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: MC Jackson on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - MC-Jackson
author: MC Jackson
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the environment and its differentiation from the system is a foundational pillar of Systems Thinking. The distinction is not merely physical; it is a conceptual tool used to manage complexity, define survival strategies, and expose ethical implications in decision-making.

Here is an analysis of how these concepts are used and why the distinction is vital to the approach presented.

### **1\. Differentiating the System from the Environment**

The fundamental differentiator between a system and its environment is the **boundary**.

• **Definition:** A system consists of interacting elements separated from those in which few or weak interactions occur. This separation is achieved by drawing a boundary. Elements inside the boundary are "the system"; elements outside are "the environment"\[1\].

• **Permeability (Open vs. Closed):**

    ◦ **Closed Systems:** Traditional physics viewed systems as isolated from their environment. These systems inevitably move toward disorder (entropy)\[2\],\[3\].    ◦ **Open Systems:** In modern systems thinking (rooted in biology), organizations are viewed as **open systems**. They have permeable boundaries that allow the exchange of matter, energy, and information with the environment\[4\],\[5\].
• **Subjectivity of the Boundary:** A crucial insight in this approach is that boundaries are not fixed in the "real world." In social systems, the boundary is a mental construct determined by the observer's purpose or worldview\[6\],\[7\]. For example, in **Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)**, the environment is defined specifically as those constraints outside the system that are taken as "given"\[8\].

### **2\. How the Concept of Environment is Used**

The environment is utilized not just as a background, but as an active force that dictates the system's structure, behavior, and survival.

**A. To Explain Survival (Negative Entropy)**Unlike closed systems that run down, open systems can survive and grow by importing energy and information from the environment (negative entropy)\[9\],\[10\]. To maintain a steady state (homeostasis) or evolve, the system must constantly adapt to environmental changes\[11\],\[12\].

**B. To Manage Complexity (Variety Engineering)**In **Organizational Cybernetics** and the **Viable System Model (VSM)**, the environment is defined as having massive "variety" (complexity/number of possible states). The system always has less variety than its environment.

• **The Law of Requisite Variety:** To survive, a system must be able to match the variety of the environment. It does this through "variety engineering"—attenuating (filtering) the incoming complexity from the environment and amplifying the system's own variety (capabilities) to handle it\[13\],\[14\].

• **System 4 (Intelligence):** The VSM explicitly dedicates a specific function (System 4) to monitoring the total environment to capture future threats and opportunities, ensuring the organization doesn't just react to the present but adapts to the future\[15\],\[16\].

**C. To Understand Turbulence (Causal Texture)**The approach uses the concept of "causal texture" to describe the degree of interconnectedness within the environment itself.

• In **Turbulent Fields**, dynamic properties arise from the environment itself, not just the system's interaction with it. The environment takes on its own momentum (e.g., market instability), requiring organizations to be highly adaptive and flexible\[17\],\[18\].

**D. To Explain Evolution (Co-evolution)**In **Complexity Theory**, the system and environment are not separate entities where one reacts to the other; they **co-evolve**. A change in the system changes the "fitness landscape" of the environment for everyone else\[19\],\[20\].

### **3\. Why This Distinction is Important to the Approach**

The differentiation between system and environment is central to **Critical Systems Practice (CSP)** and the methodology of intervention for three specific reasons:

**1\. Methodological Selection (The SOSM)**The nature of the environment helps determine which systems methodology to use.

• If the environment is simple and stable, "Hard" systems approaches (like Systems Engineering) work because they can assume fixed boundaries and predictable inputs\[21\],\[22\].

• If the environment is turbulent and complex, "Soft" or "Cybernetic" approaches are required to handle the unpredictability and the need for rapid adaptation\[23\],\[24\].

**2\. Diagnosing Organizational Failure**Many organizational failures are attributed to a misunderstanding of the environment/system distinction.

• **Closed System Thinking:** Managers often treat organizations as closed systems (machines), ignoring environmental feedback. This leads to a failure to adapt and eventual collapse\[25\],\[23\].

• **Imbalanced Focus:** Using the VSM, a diagnostic check might reveal that an organization is too focused on the "inside and now" (System 3) and ignores the environmental "outside and future" (System 4), endangering its long-term viability\[26\],\[27\].

**3\. Critical Awareness and Ethics (Boundary Judgments)**In **Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH)**, the distinction is used to expose power dynamics.

• Because boundaries are social constructs, deciding what is "system" (involved/beneficiary) and what is "environment" (marginalized/affected) is an ethical act\[28\].

• The approach asks: "What resources and conditions _ought_ to be part of the system's environment (i.e., not controlled by the decision maker)?"\[29\]. By questioning these boundaries, the approach empowers those who are affected by the system but currently excluded from it\[30\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [2] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [3] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [4] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [5] [Book] Jackson - Systems Approaches to Management.pdf
> [6] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [7] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [8] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [9] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [10] [Book] Jackson - Systems Approaches to Management.pdf
> [11] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [12] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [13] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [14] [Book] Jackson - Systems Approaches to Management.pdf
> [15] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [16] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [17] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [18] [Book] Jackson - Systems Approaches to Management.pdf
> [19] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [20] [Book] Jackson - Systems Approaches to Management.pdf
> [21] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [22] [Book] Jackson - Systems Approaches to Management.pdf
> [23] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [24] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [25] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [26] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [27] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking - A practitioners guide.pdf
> [28] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [29] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [30] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf


FILE: 'MOM.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:05:55.709Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: MOM on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - MOM
author: MOM
---
In the "Meeting of Minds" (MoM) approach, the concept of **environment** is not a passive backdrop but a critical, active component of systems theory. It is defined by its relationship to the observer and the system's boundary, and it is central to their critique of reductionist management methods.

### **Differentiation: The System vs. The Environment**

The differentiation between the system and the environment is determined entirely by the **observer** through the act of drawing a boundary.

• **Observer Dependency:** The environment is defined by what the observer chooses to exclude from their model. As Roger James notes, approaches often focus on "inclusion" (what goes into the mix/system), but fail to work on "exclusion" (what becomes the environment)\[1\]. The system is the "phenomenon of interest," and the environment is "everything else" that still influences the system\[2\].

• **Variables vs. Parameters:** Drawing on W. Ross Ashby, the group distinguishes the system from the environment through control dimensions.

    ◦ **Variables** are control dimensions _within_ the system.    ◦ **Parameters** are control dimensions _outside_ the system (in the environment) which can bring about a change of state in the system\[3\].
• **The Permeability of the Boundary:** In open systems (like social or socio-technical systems), the demarcation is diffuse. The environment influences the system, and the system influences the environment, meaning the distinction between cause and effect loses its meaning\[4\].

### **How the Concept is Used**

The environment is used as the source of **variety** (complexity) and the arbiter of **viability**.

• **Source of Variety (Ashby’s Law):** The environment "throws" variety at the system. For a system to survive, it must possess **Requisite Variety**—meaning its internal learning and regulatory mechanisms must match the rate of change and complexity of the environment\[5\].

• **Locus of Learning:** Using Ashby’s cybernetics, the group argues that systems (or organisms) delegate part of their control to the environment. The internal "gene-pattern" (system logic) provides a mechanism, but the environment provides the detail that guides adaptation\[6\].

• **Niche for Sustainability:** In the Viable System Model (VSM), the environment contains the "niche" to which the system must adapt to maintain independent existence. Viability is the ability to maintain stability within this specific environmental context\[7\].

### **Importance to the MoM Approach**

The environment is crucial to this group because it serves as the primary tool for critiquing "bad" systems thinking (often labeled as systematic or reductionist).

**1\. The Critique of "Closed" System Logic**The group argues that many consultants (specifically citing the Vanguard Method or Lean) fail because they treat **open systems** (which interact with a changing environment) as **closed systems** (which are isolated from the environment)\[8\],\[4\].

• **The Toyota Example:** Roger James explains that the Toyota Production System (TPS) works because it _deliberately_ constraints the environment to create a closed system (e.g., limiting materials, standardizing inputs). It converts a complex environment into a simple, deterministic one\[9\],\[10\].

• \*\* The Failure in Social Contexts:\*\* When these "closed" methods are applied to open social systems (like the NHS or Police), they fail because they cannot account for the "wicked" complexity and variety generated by the social environment\[11\],\[12\].

**2\. Reality vs. Model**The group emphasizes that while we may create models that treat a system as closed for the sake of analysis, we must recognize this is an approximation. The environment (reality) remains complex and open. The error lies in believing the model _is_ the reality\[13\],\[9\].

**3\. Strategic Parity**Understanding the environment allows for "strategic parity," where the level of challenge in the environment dictates the necessary level of response. A more challenging environment requires a more challenging (complex) system response, otherwise, the system is mal-adapted and will not survive\[14\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] mom-all-csv.csv
> [2] mom-all-csv.csv
> [3] mom-all-csv.csv
> [4] mom-all-csv.csv
> [5] mom-all-csv.csv
> [6] mom-all-csv.csv
> [7] mom-all-csv.csv
> [8] mom-all-csv.csv
> [9] mom-all-csv.csv
> [10] mom-all-csv.csv
> [11] mom-all-csv.csv
> [12] mom-all-csv.csv
> [13] mom-all-csv.csv
> [14] mom-all-csv.csv


FILE: 'Max Boisot.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:03:43.151Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Max Boisot on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Max-Boisot
author: Max Boisot
---
In the framework presented by Boisot and McKelvey, the concept of the environment is utilized primarily through the lens of **complexity science** and **cybernetics** (specifically Ashby’s Law), interacting with **thermodynamics**. The environment is conceptualized not as a static backdrop, but as a dynamic source of "variety," "stimuli," and "energy" that imposes constraints and tensions upon the system.

**Differentiation between System and Environment**The environment is differentiated from the system through three primary mechanisms: **Entropy**, **Boundaries**, and **Observer Definition**.

• **Entropy and Order:** A system is defined by its ability to maintain a state of **lower entropy** (higher order) internally compared to the **higher entropy** (disorder) of its external environment\[1\],\[2\]. Drawing on Schrödinger and Prigogine, the sources define systems as "dissipative structures" that maintain their identity by continuously importing free energy (low entropy) from the environment and exporting high entropy (waste/disorder) back into it\[3\],\[4\].

• **Boundaries and Identity:** The distinction between the system’s interior and its exterior is essential for preserving the system's identity. The system utilizes negative feedback loops to maintain **homeostasis** (internal equilibrium) in the face of external perturbations\[5\]. The boundary acts as a filter, allowing the system to exercise some measure of control over what crosses into it\[1\],\[6\].

• **Observer Dependence:** The environment is often treated as a "residual category"—comprising everything that the organization is not\[7\]. However, the sources note that observers or members of the organization are the ones who decide where to place these boundaries\[7\]. In complex networks or "tapered integration," the boundary between the firm (system) and the market (environment) can become fuzzy\[8\],\[9\].

**How the Concept of Environment is Used**The environment is operationalized as a generator of **stimuli** and **adaptive tension** that forces the system to respond.

• **Source of Variety (Stimuli):** Following Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety, the environment presents a range of threats and opportunities (stimuli) that range from low to high variety\[10\],\[11\].

• **Ontological Regimes:** The environment is not monolithic; it is partitioned into three distinct regimes based on the nature of the stimuli it generates:

    1. **The Ordered Regime:** Characterized by linear, predictable regularities (Type 1 regularities)\[12\],\[13\].    2. **The Complex Regime:** Characterized by power laws, nonlinearity, and "tiny initiating events" (butterfly effects) that scale up (Type 2 regularities)\[14\],\[15\].    3. **The Chaotic Regime:** Characterized by randomness or stimuli that are computationally intractable for the agent\[12\],\[13\].
• **Source of Adaptive Tension:** The environment imposes "adaptive tension" (energy differentials) on the system. When this tension exceeds a critical value, it forces the system to self-organize or undergo phase transitions\[16\],\[17\],\[18\].

**Importance to the Approach**The distinction between system and environment is critical to this approach for the following reasons:

1\. **Energy Conservation and Survival:** Systems have a finite **energy budget** (depicted as area OAB in the Ashby Space)\[19\],\[20\]. If a system responds to every environmental stimulus (high variety), it wastes energy and risks **disintegration**. If it ignores relevant stimuli, it risks **fossilization**\[21\],\[22\].

2\. **Complexity Reduction:** Because the environment usually contains more variety than the system can handle (the environment is more complex than the system), the system must use **tunable filters** to distinguish meaningful information from "noise"\[23\],\[24\]. This allows the system to reduce the external complexity to a manageable level\[25\],\[26\].

3\. **Strategic Alignment:** The system must correctly identify the "regime" of the environment (Ordered, Complex, or Chaotic) to select the appropriate response strategy. Misidentifying the environmental regime (e.g., treating a complex, power-law distributed threat as a normal, Gaussian event) leads to adaptive failure, such as the "headless chicken strategy" where resources are squandered without achieving adaptation\[27\],\[28\].

4\. **Evolution of Order:** The interaction between the system and the environment drives evolution. Organization emerges specifically because the system must structure itself to handle the flows of energy and information from the environment\[29\],\[30\]. Only by maintaining the distinction (the gradient) between the system and the environment can "work" (economic or physical) be performed\[31\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Boisot,Mckelvey - 1995 - Law of Requisite Variety - (Journal Article).pdf
> [2] Boisot,Mckelvey - 1995 - Law of Requisite Variety - (Journal Article).pdf
> [3] 2010 Boisot, McKelvey(10)-Integrating Modernist and Postmodernist Perspectives on Organizations-A Complexity Science Bridge.pdf
> [4] Boisot,Mckelvey - 1995 - Law of Requisite Variety - (Journal Article).pdf
> [5] Boisot,Mckelvey - 1995 - Law of Requisite Variety - (Journal Article).pdf
> [6] [Book] Boisot - Terrorism and financial management.pdf
> [7] Boisot,Mckelvey - 1995 - Law of Requisite Variety - (Journal Article).pdf
> [8] [Book] Boisot - 1987 - Information and organizations - Fontana Press.pdf
> [9] [Book] Boisot - 1987 - Information and organizations - Fontana Press.pdf
> [10] 2011 Boisot, McKelvey(11)-Connectivity, Extremes, Adaptation-PL Perspective.pdf
> [11] [Book] Boisot - Knowledge, Organization, and Management Building on the Work of Max  Boisot.pdf
> [12] 2011 Boisot, McKelvey(11)-Connectivity, Extremes, Adaptation-PL Perspective.pdf
> [13] [Book] Boisot - Knowledge, Organization, and Management Building on the Work of Max  Boisot.pdf
> [14] 2011 Boisot, McKelvey(11)-Connectivity, Extremes, Adaptation-PL Perspective.pdf
> [15] [Book] Boisot - Knowledge, Organization, and Management Building on the Work of Max  Boisot.pdf
> [16] 2006 Boisot, McKelvey(06)-Counter-terrorism as Neighborhood Watch.pdf
> [17] 2010 Boisot, McKelvey(10)-Integrating Modernist and Postmodernist Perspectives on Organizations-A Complexity Science Bridge.pdf
> [18] [Book] Boisot - Terrorism and financial management.pdf
> [19] 2011 Boisot, McKelvey(11)-Connectivity, Extremes, Adaptation-PL Perspective.pdf
> [20] [Book] Boisot - Knowledge, Organization, and Management Building on the Work of Max  Boisot.pdf
> [21] 2011 Boisot, McKelvey(11)-Connectivity, Extremes, Adaptation-PL Perspective.pdf
> [22] Boisot,Mckelvey - 1995 - Law of Requisite Variety - (Journal Article).pdf
> [23] 2006 Boisot, McKelvey(06)-Counter-terrorism as Neighborhood Watch.pdf
> [24] Boisot and McKelvey - connectivity extremes and adaptation a power-law perspective of organizational effectiveness.pdf
> [25] 2006 Boisot, McKelvey(06)-Counter-terrorism as Neighborhood Watch.pdf
> [26] [Book] Boisot - Terrorism and financial management.pdf
> [27] 2011 Boisot, McKelvey(11)-Connectivity, Extremes, Adaptation-PL Perspective.pdf
> [28] [Book] Boisot - Knowledge, Organization, and Management Building on the Work of Max  Boisot.pdf
> [29] Boisot,Mckelvey - 1995 - Law of Requisite Variety - (Journal Article).pdf
> [30] [Book] Boisot - Knowledge, Organization, and Management Building on the Work of Max  Boisot.pdf
> [31] [Book] Boisot - 1995 - Information space - Routledge.pdf


FILE: 'Mike McMaster.md'
---
tags:
  - Environment
  - Mike-McMaster
title: Mike McMaster on 💬Environment
author: Mike McMaster
---
In the approach presented by Michael McMaster, the concept of **environment** is fundamental to understanding organizations as **Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)** rather than machines. The environment is not merely a physical setting but an **"information ecosystem"** consisting of the marketplace, technology, society, and other "intelligent agents" (competitors, suppliers, customers).

Here is how the environment is distinguished from the system and why this relationship is critical to the methodology:

1. Differentiating the Environment from the System

The distinction between the system (the corporation) and its environment is defined by **identity**, **boundaries**, and the nature of **information processing**.

• **Identity and Boundaries:** A system is defined by its ability to maintain a distinct **identity** separate from the environment. The system has a boundary (like a cell membrane or skin) that separates "us" from "it". If a system loses its boundary, it dissolves into the environment and ceases to exist; if the boundary becomes too rigid (a "protective shell"), the system loses contact with the environment and dies.

• **Structural Coupling (The "Poke" Theory):** This is the most critical differentiator. The environment cannot directly instruct or program the system. Instead, the environment and system are **"structurally coupled"**.

    ◦ The environment provides **perturbations** (disturbances or "pokes") to the system.

    ◦ The system determines its own response to these disturbances based on its internal structure and history.

    ◦ Therefore, the environment triggers changes, but the **system specifies the changes**.

• **Internal Representation:** The system does not operate directly on the real world, but on its **internal representation** or map of the world. The environment is "out there," but the meaning is generated "in here".

2. How the Concept of Environment is Used

The environment is treated as the source of **variety**, **information**, and **selection** pressures that drive the system's evolution.

• **Source of Variety and Learning:** For an organization to learn, it requires a threshold level of variety from its environment. The environment is the source of "chaotic" information that, when processed by the system's structure, allows for creativity and innovation.

• **Fitness Landscapes:** The environment is described as a "fitness landscape" consisting of peaks (survival/success) and valleys. The organization must navigate this landscape, but the landscape itself is dynamic—it changes as the organization and other agents move across it.

• **Co-Evolution:** The relationship is bidirectional. The organization adapts to the environment, but its actions also alter the environment. This is termed **co-evolution**, where the "future emerges from the complex interactions of the players".

3. Importance to the Approach

This distinction is vital because it shifts the role of management from **control** to **design**.

• **Designing the Periphery vs. the Core:** Because the environment is the source of survival information, the organization must be designed to sense it.

    ◦ The **Periphery** (the edge of the company interacting with the market) is where intelligence, sensing, and adaptation occur. It acts like a cell membrane, filtering and processing information.

    ◦ The **Core** must not try to control the periphery but provides a **structure of interpretation** (identity/values) so the periphery can make sense of the environmental chaos.

• **Transformation Definition:** Transformation is explicitly defined as creating a **new relationship** between the entity and its environment. It involves reorganizing internal knowledge to fit a changing ecology.

• **Survival Strategy:** Survival is not about predicting the future (which is impossible in a complex environment) but about maintaining a "fit" with the environment. The goal is to build a system flexible enough to maintain its identity while constantly adjusting to external perturbations.

**Summary:** In this model, you cannot "engineer" a result because you cannot control the environment. You can only design a system with a robust **identity** (Core) and a sensitive **skin** (Periphery) that allows it to co-evolve intelligently with an unpredictable environment.

FILE: 'Nassim Nicholas Taleb.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:06:26.680Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Nassim Nicholas Taleb on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Nicholas-Taleb
author: Nassim Nicholas Taleb
---
The concept of **environment** in this material is defined as the source of the "Extended Disorder Family," which includes volatility, randomness, stressors, and uncertainty\[1\]. The **system** is the entity existing within that environment (such as an organism, a bank, or a coffee cup) that must react to those stressors to either survive or improve\[2\]\[3\].

### Usage of the Environment and Differentiation from the System

The environment is primarily used as a **conveyor of information** through stressors\[4\]. A system’s "maladjustment" is defined as a mismatch between its internal design and the structure of randomness in its environment\[5\].

• **Interdependence and Cascades:** In a complex system, interdependencies are so severe that the system cannot be understood by looking at its parts in isolation; it must be viewed as an ecology where a small environmental change can trigger cascading reactions\[6\].

• **Boundaries and Propagation:** A key differentiator is the presence of barriers; natural environments have physical boundaries (like oceans or mountains) that limit the propagation of shocks, ensuring that a local system's failure does not lead to global ruin\[7\]. In contrast, modern man-made systems often remove these barriers through globalization, turning the entire global environment into a single, interconnected, and fragile system\[8\]\[9\].

• **The Aggregate vs. the Part:** Nature (the aggregate environment) is antifragile because it uses the fragility of its constituent systems (individual organisms or species) to pass on successful information (genetic code)\[10\]\[11\]. While the system (the individual) may perish from a shock, the environment (the whole) gets better\[12\]\[13\].

### Importance to the Presented Approach

The distinction between system and environment is vital to this approach because it shifts the focus from **predicting environmental events** to **managing system fragility**\[14\]\[15\].

1\. **Predictive Impossibility:** Because the environment is opaque and dominated by uncomputable Black Swans, trying to forecast specific environmental shocks is a "sucker game"\[16\]\[17\]. Instead, the author proposes measuring the **system's sensitivity** to environmental volatility (its "vega")\[14\]\[18\].

2\. **Via Negativa (Subtraction):** Improving a system does not require understanding the environment's complexity; it requires removing the system's own "fragilizers" (like debt, centralization, or over-optimization) that make it vulnerable to environmental shifts\[19\].

3\. **Risk of Ruin:** The approach identifies a critical threshold where a system becomes so large or interconnected that its failure hits an "absorbing barrier" or "ruin," meaning it can never recover\[22\]\[23\]. In these cases, the **Precautionary Principle** must be invoked because the system’s failure would terminate the environment's ability to regenerate\[24\]\[25\].

4\. **Optionality:** By building "options" into a system—the right but not the obligation to change course—the system can benefit from environmental volatility without needing to understand its causes\[26\]. This allows the system to remain "stupid" relative to the environment and still outperform more "intelligent" but fragile systems\[29\]\[30\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [2] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [3] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [4] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [5] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [6] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [7] taleb - pp2.pdf
> [8] taleb - pp2.pdf
> [9] taleb - pp2.pdf
> [10] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [11] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [12] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [13] summary antifragile by nassim taleb.pdf
> [14] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [15] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [16] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [17] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [18] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [19] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [22] taleb - pp2.pdf
> [23] taleb - pp2.pdf
> [24] taleb - pp2.pdf
> [25] taleb - pp2.pdf
> [26] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [29] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [30] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf


FILE: 'Neil Postman.md'
---
tags:
  - Environment
  - Neil-Postman
title: Neil Postman on 💬Environment
author: Neil Postman
---
Based on the provided texts, specifically _Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk_ and _Technopoly_, Neil Postman uses the concept of **environment** (specifically the "semantic environment" or "symbolic environment") as the primary framework for analyzing communication and culture.

Here is how the concept is used, how it differs from a "system" or mechanical view, and why this distinction is vital to his approach.

1. The Concept of the "Semantic Environment"

Postman defines a "semantic environment" not as a physical place, but as a social situation in which human interaction takes place. He rejects the mechanical view of communication (which he calls the "Ping-Pong ball theory") where a message is simply shot from a sender to a receiver. Instead, he uses a **biological/ecological metaphor**.

• **The Biological Metaphor:** Postman argues that communication is "a situation in which people participate, rather like the way a plant participates in what we call its growth." Growth is not something the plant _does_; it is a result of the interactions between the plant, soil, air, sun, and water. Similarly, communication is the result of a total situation.

• **Components of the Environment:** A semantic environment consists of four distinct elements:

    1. **People:** The participants.

    2. **Purposes:** The goals of the situation (e.g., the purpose of a courtroom is different from a party).

    3. **Rules of Discourse:** The generally accepted rules for behavior and speech within that situation.

    4. **Actual Talk:** The specific language used.

5. Environment vs. System

While Postman does not offer a rigid definition of "system" in opposition to "environment," he differentiates the two concepts through his critique of how people perceive the world.

• **Ecological vs. Mechanical:** The "environment" represents an ecological, holistic view where elements are interdependent. A "system"—particularly in the context of "systemaphilia" or the "Ping-Pong ball theory"—often represents a mechanical, reductionist view. Postman critiques "systemaphilia" as the "belief in the feasibility of total change" through the design of "complete and just about perfect systems of human activity". He argues that life is too complex to be reduced to a single system without doing "violence" to life itself.

• **The Medium as Environment:** In _Technopoly_ and _Amusing Ourselves to Death_, Postman expands this to technology. A new technology (like television or the computer) is not merely a tool (an additive element to a system); it changes the entire **environment**. He uses an ecological analogy: If you add caterpillars to a habitat, you don't get the old habitat plus caterpillars; you get a completely new environment. Similarly, a new medium changes the structure of interests, symbols, and community.

• **Technopoly as a Totalizing System:** _Technopoly_ is described as a state where the "system" of technology and bureaucracy destroys the cultural "environment" (specifically its immune system). In a Technopoly, the "system" (efficiency, measurement, technique) suppresses the traditional social institutions (religion, family, politics) that normally regulate the environment.

3. Why This Distinction is Important to the Approach

The environmental approach is critical to Postman's method of **"meta-semantics"** (the discipline of monitoring one's own communication) for several reasons:

• **Determining "Sanity" vs. "Stupidity":** You cannot judge if a remark is "stupid" or "crazy" by looking at the sentence alone (the mechanical/system view). You must look at the **relationship** between the remark and the environment. A sentence that is "sane" in a church confessional may be "stupid" in a business meeting. To judge language without the context of the environment is "unecological".

• **Identifying "Pollution":** The environmental metaphor allows Postman to describe what happens when the rules of one environment intrude upon another. When the language of business is used in the environment of religion, or the language of law is used in the environment of marriage, it results in **"pollution"**—the introduction of elements that cannot be absorbed and that destroy the function of the environment.

• **Moving from Victim to Critic:** Postman argues that most people are "victims" of the environment because they focus only on the _content_ (what is said). To gain control, one must adopt the "meta-semantic" stance of a **participant-observer**. By viewing the _environment_ as a whole (purposes, rules, tone), one can criticize and modify it rather than blindly following its dictates.

In short, the environmental concept is used to shift analysis away from **mechanics and content** (what is sent/received) toward **context and purpose** (the rules and goals of the social situation).

FILE: 'Niklas Luhmann.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:33:39.609Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Niklas Luhmann on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Niklas-Luhmann
author: Niklas Luhmann
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the **environment** is not merely a background setting or a container for the system. Instead, the distinction between **system and environment** is the fundamental starting point of the entire theoretical framework.

Here is an analysis of how the concept is used, what differentiates the two, and why this distinction is critical to the approach.

### 1\. The Constitutive Difference

In this approach, a system is not defined as an object or a collection of parts, but as a **difference**. The system _is_ the difference between itself and its environment\[1\].

• **The Environment as a Negative Correlate:** The environment is defined exclusively in relation to the system. It is simply "everything else" that is not the system\[2\]. Unlike the system, the environment is not a unity capable of operations; it has no boundaries of its own and cannot act or reflect\[3\],\[2\].

• **The Boundary:** The boundary does not just separate; it regulates the difference. The system constitutes and maintains itself by creating and maintaining this difference\[4\]. The boundary belongs to the system, not the environment, because the system must actively distinguish itself to exist\[5\].

### 2\. Complexity and Asymmetry

A defining characteristic of the relationship is a **complexity differential**.

• **Greater Complexity:** The environment is always more complex than the system\[6\],\[7\]. No system (including society) possesses the "requisite variety" to match the environment point-for-point\[8\],\[7\].

• **Forced Selection:** Because the system cannot react to _everything_ in the environment, it is forced to select. It must reduce environmental complexity to internal order\[9\],\[10\]. This pressure to select creates the system's own internal structure\[11\].

### 3\. Operational Closure and Construction

A critical and perhaps counter-intuitive principle is that the system is **operationally closed**.

• **No Operation Outside:** A system can never operate in its environment. A biological system cannot live outside its body; a social system (communication) cannot communicate outside of communication\[12\],\[13\].

• **Construction of Reality:** Because the system cannot access the environment directly, it must **construct** its own internal model of the environment\[14\]. The environment "out there" is operationally inaccessible; the environment the system deals with is an internal representation\[15\],\[16\].

• **Closure as a Condition for Openness:** Closure does not mean isolation. Paradoxically, a system can only be open to the environment (sensitive to stimuli) _because_ it is operationally closed and self-referential. It produces its own structures which determine what environmental events count as information (irritation)\[17\],\[18\].

### 4\. The Human Being in the Environment

One of the most distinct features of this approach is the placement of the human being.

• **Humans are Environment:** Society is defined as a system of communication. Since human beings are biological (organic) and psychic (conscious) systems, they are **not part of the social system**; they are part of its **environment**\[19\],\[20\].

• **Structural Coupling:** Social systems and psychic systems (humans) are "structurally coupled." They do not merge, but they irritate and stimulate one another. Consciousness provides the necessary complexity and "noise" that social systems transform into order\[21\],\[22\],\[23\]. This ensures that society does not determine human consciousness, nor does consciousness directly control society\[24\].

### 5\. Importance to Risk and Management (The Practical Application)

The theoretical distinction between system and environment has specific implications for management and risk theory, particularly in the **Environmental Consistency Confidence (ECC)** approach mentioned in the sources.

• **Prediction and Correlation:** Organizations function as "black boxes." Risk management relies on the ability to predict the system's outputs based on environmental inputs using statistical correlations\[25\].

• **Consistency:** An organization is considered "consistent" with its environment when its activity levels and outputs match the environmental inputs. Risk management becomes a process of turning anomalies in this correlation into science\[26\].

• **Rationality:** Rationality is redefined not as perfect adaptation, but as the system's ability to re-introduce the system/environment difference _into_ itself (re-entry). A rational system creates internal structures (decision premises) to cope with the unavoidable uncertainty of the environment\[27\],\[28\].

### Glossary of Key Distinctions

**System/Environment Difference**The primary distinction. The system is the operation of distinguishing itself from the environment. The environment is the horizon of all possibilities not contained within the system\[1\],\[2\].

**Operational Closure**The principle that a system relies entirely on its own operations to produce itself and cannot operate within the environment. It is the condition for the system's ability to construct a specific sensitivity to the environment\[29\],\[30\].

**Structural Coupling**The mechanism by which a system maintains a long-term relationship with its environment without merging with it. It allows environmental events to "irritate" or "perturb" the system, which the system then processes according to its own internal logic\[31\],\[32\].

**Interpenetration**A specific type of relationship where systems (specifically human psychic systems and social systems) contribute their own pre-constituted complexity to one another, enabling reciprocal evolution\[33\],\[34\].

**Re-entry**The operation where the difference between system and environment is copied back _into_ the system. The system observes itself observing the environment, allowing for reflection and rationality\[35\],\[36\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [2] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [3] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [4] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [5] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [6] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [7] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [8] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [9] [Book] Luhmann - Organization and Decision.pdf
> [10] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [11] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [12] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [13] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [14] [Book] Luhmann - Organization and Decision.pdf
> [15] [Book] Luhmann - Organization and Decision.pdf
> [16] [Book] Luhmann - Organization and Decision.pdf
> [17] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [18] [Book] Luhmann - Organization and Decision.pdf
> [19] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [20] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [21] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [22] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [23] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [24] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [25] Risk-case-study.md
> [26] Risk-case-study.md
> [27] [Book] Luhmann - Organization and Decision.pdf
> [28] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [29] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [30] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [31] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [32] [Book] Luhmann - Organization and Decision.pdf
> [33] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [34] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [35] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [36] [Book] Luhmann - Organization and Decision.pdf


FILE: 'OU Course.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:18:57.717Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: OU Course on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - OU-Course
author: OU Course
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of **environment** is fundamental to the systems approach presented here. It is used to define the context in which a system operates and to establish the limits of a practitioner's control.

Here is a breakdown of how the environment is used, how it differs from the system, and why this distinction is critical.

### 1\. How the Concept of Environment is Used

In the Open University (OU) systems tradition and associated cybersemiotic theories, the environment is treated not as a passive backdrop, but as an active field of influence and interaction.

• **Context and Disturbance:** The environment consists of everything outside the system that affects the system but is not part of it\[1\],\[2\],\[3\]. It provides **inputs** (resources, information, demands) and receives **outputs** (products, waste, information)\[4\],\[3\]. It is also the source of **disturbances**—uncontrollable inputs that the system must respond to in order to maintain stability or achieve its purpose\[3\],\[5\].

• **Source of Constraints:** In the "Hard Systems" approach, the environment usually contains the **constraints** that the system must take as given (e.g., laws, weather, market prices)\[6\],\[7\].

• **The "Wider System" vs. Environment:** The sources make a nuanced distinction between the general "environment" and the **"wider system"**.

    ◦ The **Wider System** is the hierarchy immediately above the system of interest (e.g., the parent company of a specific department). It sets objectives, provides resources, and exercises control\[8\],\[9\].    ◦ The **Environment** contains entities that influence the system but do _not_ have formal authority over it and are not controlled by it (e.g., competitors, the weather, the economy)\[10\],\[3\].
### 2\. What Differentiates the Environment from the System?

The distinction between the system and its environment is created by a **boundary**. Importantly, in this approach, this boundary is often an **intellectual construct** determined by the observer, not necessarily a physical line in the real world\[11\],\[12\],\[13\].

The primary criteria for differentiating the two are **Control and Influence**:

• **The Litmus Test for Separation:**

    ◦ **Inside the System:** Components that can be strongly influenced, controlled, or managed by the system's decision-makers\[14\],\[15\].    ◦ **In the Environment:** Components that influence the system but **cannot** be controlled or managed by it\[2\],\[14\],\[16\].
• **The Role of the Observer:** The sources emphasize that "the act of making a distinction is quite basic to what it is to be human"\[17\],\[18\]. The observer draws the distinction (the boundary) based on their specific interest or purpose. Therefore, what one person considers "the system" (e.g., a factory), another might consider a subsystem, and a third might consider part of the environment of a larger ecological system\[13\],\[19\].

• **Cybersemiotic/Luhmann View:** In the more advanced theoretical readings, the system is defined _by_ its difference from the environment. Identity is possible only through this difference; the system constitutes itself by drawing a boundary to distinguish itself from the complexity of the environment\[20\],\[21\].

### 3\. Why is this Distinction Important?

The separation of system and environment is crucial to the methodology for several practical and theoretical reasons:

• **Defining the Sphere of Action:** It forces the practitioner to define what is **manageable** versus what must be **accepted**. If the boundary is drawn incorrectly, a manager might waste energy trying to control external factors (like the weather or global inflation) or fail to manage internal factors they actually control\[14\],\[15\].

• **Managing Complexity:** The real world is an interconnected "mess." By drawing a boundary, the practitioner reduces this overwhelming complexity into a "system of interest" that can be analyzed and improved\[22\],\[23\],\[24\]. It simplifies the universe into "foreground" (system) and "background" (environment)\[1\].

• **Understanding Open Systems:** The approach relies on the concept of **Open Systems**—systems that must interact with their environment to survive (unlike closed systems which decay into entropy)\[25\],\[26\]. Understanding the boundary allows the analyst to map the essential flows of information, energy, and matter that cross it\[27\],\[28\].

• **Co-evolution:** In complex situations, the system and the environment **co-evolve**. The system changes to adapt to the environment, and its outputs change the environment in return\[29\],\[30\]. Recognizing this feedback loop is essential for sustainable development and strategic management\[31\].

• **Subjective Reality (Umwelt):** In the cybersemiotic readings, the distinction highlights that living beings do not live in an objective world, but in a subjective "Umwelt" (self-world). They project an environment based on their sensory capacities and needs. Understanding this helps explain why different stakeholders perceive the same "environment" differently\[32\],\[33\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] T301 Block I - Introduction.pdf
> [2] T301 Block I - Introduction.pdf
> [3] T301 Block II - Systems Paradigms Systems Failures.pdf
> [4] T301 Block II - Systems Paradigms Systems Failures.pdf
> [5] [Book] Brier - Introduction to Cybersemiotics A Transdisciplinary Perspective.pdf
> [6] T301 Block IIIa - Systems Models - 1 of 2.pdf
> [7] T301 Block IIIb - Hard Systems Approach CAse Studies - 2 of 2.pdf
> [8] T301 Block II - Systems Paradigms Systems Failures.pdf
> [9] T301 Block II - Systems Paradigms Systems Failures.pdf
> [10] T301 Block II - Systems Paradigms Systems Failures.pdf
> [11] Managing complexity - A systems approach - Introduction.pdf
> [12] Managing complexity - A systems approach - Introduction.pdf
> [13] T301 Block I - Introduction.pdf
> [14] T301 Block IIIa - Systems Models - 1 of 2.pdf
> [15] T301 Block IIIa - Systems Models - 1 of 2.pdf
> [16] T301 Block IIIb - Hard Systems Approach Case Studies - 1 of 2.pdf
> [17] Managing complexity - A systems approach - Introduction.pdf
> [18] Managing complexity_ a systems approach – introduction_ View as single page.pdf
> [19] T301 Block II - Systems Paradigms Systems Failures.pdf
> [20] [Book] Brier - Introduction to Cybersemiotics A Transdisciplinary Perspective.pdf
> [21] [Book] Brier - Introduction to Cybersemiotics A Transdisciplinary Perspective.pdf
> [22] Managing complexity - A systems approach - Introduction.pdf
> [23] Managing complexity - A systems approach - Introduction.pdf
> [24] T301 Block I - Introduction.pdf
> [25] [Book] Brier - Introduction to Cybersemiotics A Transdisciplinary Perspective.pdf
> [26] [Book] Brier - Introduction to Cybersemiotics A Transdisciplinary Perspective.pdf
> [27] T301 Block II - Systems Paradigms Systems Failures.pdf
> [28] [Book] Brier - Introduction to Cybersemiotics A Transdisciplinary Perspective.pdf
> [29] Managing complexity_ a systems approach – introduction_ View as single page.pdf
> [30] OU Appendix C - Some Perspectives on Complexity.pdf
> [31] [Book] B822 - Book 1 Creativity and Perception in Management.pdf
> [32] [Book] Brier - Introduction to Cybersemiotics A Transdisciplinary Perspective.pdf
> [33] [Book] Brier - Introduction to Cybersemiotics A Transdisciplinary Perspective.pdf


FILE: 'Patrick Hoverstadt.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:19:44.231Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Patrick Hoverstadt on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Patrick-Hoverstadt
author: Patrick Hoverstadt
---
Based on the provided texts, the concept of **environment** is central to Patrick Hoverstadt’s systems approach. It is not merely a passive background where the organization operates; it is half of the dynamic relationship that determines the system's life, death, and identity.

### **1\. What is the Environment and How is it Differentiated?**

**Definition via the Boundary:**In Systems Thinking, the environment has a specific technical meaning: it is simply **what is outside the boundary of the system**\[1\].

• **The Act of Distinction:** The differentiation between system and environment is not always a physical fact but a cognitive choice made by an observer. This is governed by the **Law of Calling**, which states that defining a system involves drawing a distinction based on perceived differences\[2\].

• **The Boundary:** The boundary marks the finite scope of the system's identity. Everything inside is the system; everything outside that interacts with the system is the environment\[3\]\[4\].

**Differentiation via Complexity (Variety):**The most critical functional difference between the system and the environment is **complexity**.

• **Infinite vs. Finite:** The complexity (variety) of the environment is theoretically infinite\[5\]. The system, no matter how large, is finite.

• **The Fundamental Imbalance:** This creates an inherent imbalance. The environment always has more "states" (possibilities/variety) than the system can possibly have\[6\].

**Differentiation via Recursion:**Because the approach uses a **fractal structure** (systems within systems), the "environment" changes depending on which level you are looking at.

• For a specific department (a sub-system), the "environment" includes the outside world _plus_ the rest of the organization it sits within\[7\].

• Therefore, the environment is relative to the specific unit of analysis\[8\].

\--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

### **2\. Why is this Distinction Important to the Approach?**

The relationship between the system and its environment is the core engine of the **Viable System Model (VSM)** and **Patterns of Strategy**. It is important for the following reasons:

**A. Viability and Requisite Variety (Survival)**

The central challenge of management is reconciling the massive difference in complexity between the organization and its environment.

• **Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety:** To survive, a system must be able to match the variety of its environment\[9\]. Since the environment is infinitely more complex, the system must use **attenuators** (to filter incoming information, e.g., market segmentation) and **amplifiers** (to boost its own impact, e.g., advertising) to balance the equation\[5\].

• **Control:** You cannot control a system without a model of how it interacts with its environment. If the organization cannot handle the environmental complexity, it effectively falls out of control\[6\].

**B. Structural Coupling (Strategy & Evolution)**

The system and environment are not separate entities acting in isolation; they are **structurally coupled**.

• **Co-evolution:** Changes in the environment trigger changes in the system, and changes in the system trigger changes in the environment\[10\]\[11\].

• **Strategy as Fit:** Strategy is not about imposing a plan on the world; it is about managing this coupling to maintain a "fit"\[12\]. If the structural coupling breaks—if the system ceases to fit its environment—the system dies\[13\].

• **Identity:** An organization’s identity is actually defined by these relationships (couplings) with external stakeholders. You are defined by what you interact with\[4\]\[14\].

**C. The Rate of Change (Dynamics)**

The distinction is vital for understanding the **System Survival Theorem** (ΔS≥ΔE).

• **Survival Equation:** To survive, a system must be capable of changing at a rate equal to or greater than the rate of change in its environment\[15\].

• **Fatal Asymmetry:** If the environment changes faster than the system can adapt, the system will eventually cease to exist\[16\]. This metric allows leaders to measure agility and survival risk\[17\].

**D. Emergence and Purpose**

The approach challenges the idea that an organization is defined by its internal intent. Instead, through **POSIWID** (The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does), the system's purpose is often defined by its actual interactions with the environment (e.g., the nuclear industry creating a protest movement) rather than its mission statement\[18\]\[19\].

In summary, in this approach, you cannot understand a system (organization) by looking only inside it. Its structure, strategy, and survival are entirely determined by how it manages the boundary and dynamic tensions with its **environment**\[20\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [2] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [3] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [4] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [5] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [6] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [7] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [8] Hoverstadt - Organisational Viability as a factor in Sustainable Development of Technology.pdf
> [9] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [10] [Book] Hoverstadt - Patterns of Strategy.pdf
> [11] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [12] [Book] Hoverstadt - Patterns of Strategy.pdf
> [13] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [14] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [15] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [16] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [17] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [18] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [19] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [20] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf


FILE: 'Paul Cilliers.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:28:45.313Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Paul Cilliers on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Paul-Cilliers
author: Paul Cilliers
---
In the approach presented here, specifically within the framework of **Critical Complexity**, the concept of the environment is used to define complex systems as fundamentally **open systems** that are constituted through their interaction with what lies outside them. The differentiation between system and environment is not a given natural fact but a complex, strategic process of **framing** and **boundary drawing**.

Here is a detailed breakdown of how the environment is used, how it is differentiated, and why this is important:

### 1\. How the Concept of Environment is Used

The environment is not treated as a passive container or a static backdrop; it is an active, constitutive element of the system's existence.

• **Source of Life (Non-Equilibrium):** Complex systems operate under conditions far from equilibrium. To survive and maintain their complex structure (fighting entropy), they require a constant flow of energy and information from the environment\[1\]. If a system reaches equilibrium with its environment, it ceases to change and effectively dies\[2\].

• **Constitutive of Meaning:** Meaning and identity are not locked up within the components of the system but are generated through the system's interaction with the environment\[5\]. For example, in the brain or language, meaning is not an abstract concept but a result of the history of interactions between the system and its context\[8\].

• **Driver of Self-Organisation:** The environment provides the information and "noise" that the system must process. The system adapts its internal structure (self-organises) in response to these environmental conditions to cope with change\[11\]. However, the environment does not _determine_ the system's structure linearly; it triggers structural changes that are mediated by the system’s own history and internal dynamics\[7\].

### 2\. Differentiating the Environment from the System

The differentiation between system and environment is achieved through **boundaries**, but Cilliers radically reinterprets what a boundary is.

• **Boundaries are Framed, Not Found:** The boundary of a complex system is rarely objectively defined by nature. Because systems are open and richly interconnected, deciding where the system ends and the environment begins is a strategic choice made by the observer, a process called **"framing"**\[18\].

• **Boundaries are Constitutive (Enabling):** Boundaries do not merely separate or confine; they constitute the system by allowing communication. Cilliers uses the metaphor of the **eardrum**: it separates the inner ear from the outer ear but exists specifically to let sound waves (information) through. If the boundary were a perfect wall, the system would be dead\[18\].

• **Boundaries are "Folded In":** In highly interconnected systems, the "outside" is never far away. The boundary is often "folded in," meaning components deep inside the system are constantly interacting with the environment (e.g., via a few synaptic jumps in the brain or transactions in an economy), making the distinction between inside and outside problematic and topologically complex\[25\].

### 3\. Why this is Important to the Approach

The relationship between system and environment is the pivot for the ethical and epistemological arguments in Critical Complexity.

**A. The Limits of Knowledge (Incompressibility)**Because the system interacts non-linearly with a complex environment, we cannot fully understand the system without understanding the environment\[29\]\[30\]. However, since we cannot model the whole universe, we are forced to "frame" the system—to draw a boundary to make description possible\[18\].

• _Consequence:_ This framing inevitably leaves things out (reduction of complexity). Because of non-linearity, we cannot predict the impact of what we excluded\[20\]\[30\]. Thus, our knowledge of complex systems is always provisional, limited, and subject to revision\[32\]\[33\].

**B. Identity and "Slowness"**The system must be distinguishable from the environment to have an identity. If a system reacts immediately to every fluctuation in the environment, it has no identity; it merely mirrors the environment\[34\].

• _Consequence:_ To maintain identity, a system requires **hysteresis** or "slowness." It must resist the environment to some degree to process information and maintain its structure\[34\]\[35\]. This leads to the argument that efficiency (speed) is not always beneficial; a certain slowness allows the system to develop a memory and a stable identity distinct from the chaos of the environment\[36\]\[37\].

**C. The Ethics of Framing**Since the boundary is not objective but a choice made by the observer, descriptive choices are inextricably linked to values.

• _Consequence:_ We cannot shift responsibility to "the facts." We are responsible for the frame we choose—for what we include as "system" and what we exclude as "environment"\[38\]. This makes the study of complexity inherently ethical, as every model implies a normative choice about what is important\[39\].

**D. Critique of "Operational Closure"**Cilliers contrasts his view with strong interpretations of autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela), which emphasize the system's "operational closure" (the system produces itself and cannot be determined by the environment)\[17\]\[44\].

• _Consequence:_ While acknowledging that systems have internal logic, Cilliers argues that overemphasizing closure obscures the vital, constitutive role of the environment. A focus on closure can lead to a kind of solipsism, whereas recognizing the radical openness of the system highlights its vulnerability, interdependence, and the necessity of engaging with the "other"\[17\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [2] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [5] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [7] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [8] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [11] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [17] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [18] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [20] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [25] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [29] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [30] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [32] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [33] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [34] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [35] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [36] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [37] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [38] [Book] Cilliers - Complexity difference and identity.pdf
> [39] [Book] Cilliers - Complexity difference and identity.pdf
> [44] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf


FILE: 'Peter Checkland.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T15:22:11.243Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Peter Checkland on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Peter-Checkland
author: Peter Checkland
---
In the approach presented in the sources, particularly within **Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)**, the concept of **environment** is used to define the external context in which a system exists and to identify the constraints that the system must accept as "given"\[1\].

The following points detail how the environment is used, what differentiates it from the system, and why this distinction is vital to the methodology:

### Usage of the Concept of Environment

• **Source of Constraints:** In SSM modelling, the environment is represented by the **'E' in the CATWOE mnemonic**\[1\]\[4\]. These "environmental constraints" are elements that exist outside the system boundary which the system cannot change but must take into account to remain viable\[1\].

• **The "Adaptive Whole":** The core systems image is that of an **adaptive whole** (the system) that maintains its identity and survives through time by responding to "shocks" or disturbances delivered by its changing environment\[6\].

• **Interaction in Open Systems:** Organizations are viewed as **open systems** that interact with their environment through the continuous exchange of materials, energy, and information\[10\].

### Differentiating the Environment from the System

The differentiation between a system and its environment is not an inherent property of the world but a **distinction made by an observer**\[13\]\[14\].

• **The Boundary:** A system is separated from its environment by a **boundary**\[15\]\[16\]. This boundary is an intellectual construct that marks the limit of the system's "systemness"\[13\]\[17\].

• **The Criterion of Control:** A primary way to differentiate the two is through **control**. The system consists of those elements over which the **decision-maker** has the power to cause action or allocate resources\[18\]\[19\]. Conversely, the environment consists of factors that influence the system's performance but are **outside the control** of the system's decision-makers\[19\].

• **Designed vs. Given:** Elements within the system are those the practitioner aspires to **design, modify, or engineer**\[22\]\[23\]. Elements in the environment are those that can be influenced but cannot be engineered by the specific system being modelled\[23\].

### Importance to the SSM Approach

The distinction between system and environment is crucial for several reasons:

• **Ensuring Rigour and Recoverability:** Explicitly declaring what is part of the system and what is a constraint in the environment allows the intellectual process to be **recoverable** and defensible to observers\[26\]\[27\].

• **Defining the Scope of Inquiry:** It prevents the analysis from becoming too narrow or broad. By identifying environmental constraints, the practitioner defines the **problem-content system**, establishing what is relevant to the study and what must be accepted as a limit\[28\]\[29\].

• **Logical Consistency in Models:** A system that serves another (a "service system") cannot be defined without first understanding the "wider system" it serves; the wider system effectively acts as the environment that dictates what counts as a "service"\[30\].

• **Facilitating Debate:** Because boundaries are **observer-dependent**, different stakeholders may draw them in different places\[33\]\[34\]. Surfacing these differences is essential for the structured debate that leads to **accommodations** between conflicting worldviews\[35\].

• **Avoiding "Technological Fixes":** Differentiating the environment helps analysts avoid assuming that a problem is merely a technical one to be solved; it forces them to see the problem within its complex **social and political context**\[38\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Checkland - From Optimising to Learning a development of systems thinking for the 1990s.pdf
> [4] [Book] Checkland - 1981 - Systems thinking, systems practice - J. Wiley.pdf
> [6] Checkland 2011 - Systems Thinking and Soft Systems Mehthodology.pdf
> [10] [Book] Checkland - 1981 - Systems thinking, systems practice - J. Wiley.pdf
> [13] [Book] Checkland - 1981 - Systems thinking, systems practice - J. Wiley.pdf
> [14] [Book] Checkland - Critical Issues in Systems Theory and Practice.pdf
> [15] [Book] Checkland - 1981 - Systems thinking, systems practice - J. Wiley.pdf
> [16] checkland handbook of systems analysis.pdf
> [17] [Book] Checkland,Holwell - 1998 - Information, systems, and information systems - Wiley.pdf
> [18] [Book] Checkland - 1981 - Systems thinking, systems practice - J. Wiley.pdf
> [19] checkland handbook of systems analysis.pdf
> [22] [Book] Checkland - 1981 - Systems thinking, systems practice - J. Wiley.pdf
> [23] [Book] Checkland - 1981 - Systems thinking, systems practice - J. Wiley.pdf
> [26] Checkland - SSM in encylopedia of operations research.pdf
> [27] [Book] Checkland - Critical Issues in Systems Theory and Practice.pdf
> [28] checkland handbook of systems analysis.pdf
> [29] checkland handbook of systems analysis.pdf
> [30] [Book] Checkland - 1981 - Systems thinking, systems practice - J. Wiley.pdf
> [33] Checkland - Soft Systems Methodology A Thirty Year Retrospective.pdf
> [34] Checkland - Soft Systems Methodology A Thirty Year Retrospective.pdf
> [35] Checkland - Soft Systems Methodology A Thirty Year Retrospective.pdf
> [38] Checkland - Soft Systems Methodology A Thirty Year Retrospective.pdf


FILE: 'Peter Senge.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:20:23.208Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Peter Senge on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Peter-Senge
author: Peter Senge
---
Based on the provided texts, specifically "The Fifth Discipline" and "The Water of Systems Change," the concept of the environment is treated not as a separate, static backdrop, but as an integral part of the system itself.

Here is how the environment is conceptualized, differentiated, and why this distinction is vital to the author's approach.

### 1\. The Environment vs. The System

In traditional thinking, the "system" is viewed as the organization or the individual (what is "in here"), and the "environment" is viewed as everything else (what is "out there"). Senge challenges this rigid boundary.

• **The Traditional View (Adaptive Learning):** In this view, the environment is a set of external forces (competitors, market shifts, government regulations) to which the organization must react. The goal is "adaptive learning"—coping with the environment.

• **The Systems View (Generative Learning):** Senge argues that the distinction between "in here" and "out there" is largely an illusion. The environment is not something that happens _to_ you; it is something you participate in creating. The "system" includes both the internal actors and the external conditions they interact with.

**Differentiation:**While the texts acknowledge an "external environment" regarding specific variables (like customers or competitors), the _functional_ differentiation is minimized in Systems Thinking. The environment is differentiated only by our inability to perceive our connection to it. As Senge notes, we tend to blame "outside circumstances" for our problems, but systems thinking shows that "there is no outside; that you and the cause of your problems are part of a single system"\[1\]\[2\].

### 2\. The "Water" Metaphor (The Environment as Conditions)

In "The Water of Systems Change," the environment is metaphorically described as the "water" we swim in—the conditions that hold a problem in place. This redefines the environment not just as physical surroundings, but as a layered set of conditions\[3\]:

• **Explicit Environment:** Structural conditions like policies, practices, and resource flows\[4\].

• **Semi-Explicit Environment:** Relational conditions like power dynamics and connections between people\[4\].

• **Implicit Environment:** Transformative conditions, specifically **Mental Models**. These are the deep narratives and beliefs that actually shape the system.

This implies that the most controlling part of the "environment" is actually internal (mental models), further blurring the line between the observer and the observed.

### 3\. Why This Is Important to the Approach

The refusal to view the environment as separate from the system is critical to the "Fifth Discipline" framework for several reasons:

**A. Overcoming the "Enemy is Out There" Syndrome**A fundamental learning disability described in the texts is the tendency to blame the environment (competitors, the press, the market) when things go wrong. If the environment is seen as separate and uncontrollable, managers feel helpless. By recognizing that "there is no outside," leaders realize they are often part of the feedback loops causing their own problems, which empowers them to find leverage and change the outcome\[2\].

**B. Shifting from Adaptive to Generative Learning**If the environment is viewed as a fixed constraint, organizations can only "adapt" or cope. By seeing the environment as a set of relationships and structures they participate in, organizations can move to "generative learning"—expanding their capacity to _create_ the future rather than just reacting to it\[7\].

**C. Understanding Feedback and Delays**Systems thinking relies on seeing circular relationships (feedback loops). Actions taken by an organization alter the environment, which then feeds back to influence the organization.

• _Example:_ In the "Arms Race" archetype, the U.S. views Soviet arms buildup as an "environmental" threat and builds more arms. This causes the Soviets to build more. By seeing the environment as a feedback loop rather than a linear threat, one can see how to de-escalate the system\[10\]\[11\].

**D. Ethical and Spiritual Connection**The approach emphasizes that the separation of "self" from the "rest of the world" is a "kind of optical delusion of our consciousness" (quoting Einstein). Recognizing that the individual and the environment are an "indivisible whole" leads to a sense of connectedness and stewardship, which is essential for the discipline of Personal Mastery and for genuine leadership\[12\]\[13\].

In summary, the approach rejects the view of the environment as a separate entity to be battled or coped with. Instead, it views the environment as a feedback process in which the organization is an active participant, making the "interior condition of the intervenor" just as important as the external reality\[14\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] 11 Laws of Systems Thinking Peter Senge with references.pdf
> [2] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [3] Senge - The Water of Systems Change.pdf
> [4] Senge - The Water of Systems Change.pdf
> [7] 2022_11_28_15_32_00.pdf
> [10] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [11] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [12] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [13] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [14] Senge - The Water of Systems Change.pdf


FILE: 'Reg Revans.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:20:51.284Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Reg Revans on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Reg-Revans
author: Reg Revans
---
Based on the provided sources, the concepts of **environment** and **system** are fundamental to the theory and practice of Action Learning. They are distinguished by their relationship to control, change, and survival.

### The Concept of Environment

In Revans' framework, the **environment** is characterized by rapid change, uncertainty, and "turbulence." It is the external context in which an organism or organization exists.

• **The Precipice of Change:** The environment is described as a "vertical precipice" or an "ever-steepening cliff" of change that is dark, precarious, and challenging. It represents the "microcosm of uncertainty" into which managers must climb\[1\]\[2\].

• **Source of Problems:** The environment generates the "wicked problems" and "intractable difficulties" that Action Learning addresses. It is the external reality that supplies the "menace of urgent problems" or the "lure of enticing opportunities"\[3\]\[4\].

• **Rate of Change (C):** The environment is the variable C in Revans' ecological equation. It represents the rate at which external conditions (technology, markets, social values) transform\[5\].

### The Concept of System

The **system** refers to the entity—whether an individual, a biologic organism, or an enterprise—that is attempting to survive and operate within the environment.

• **The Enterprise as a Learning System:** An organization is viewed as a system of interacting parts (inputs, flows, outputs)\[6\]. A key distinction is made between "expert systems" imposed from the outside (like mechanical work-study schedules) and "autonomous learning systems" where the organization develops from within through the lived experience of its members\[7\]\[8\].

• **Three Interacting Systems (Alpha, Beta, Gamma):** Revans formalizes the managerial process into three systemic dimensions:

    ◦ **System Alpha (Strategy):** This system specifically deals with the interaction between the manager's values, available internal resources, and the **external environment**. It is the decision or strategy system\[9\].    ◦ **System Beta (Implementation):** The cycle of negotiation and influence required to carry out decisions (survey, trial, action, audit)\[9\].    ◦ **System Gamma (Learning):** The mental and emotional process experienced uniquely by the individual learner, involving self-questioning\[10\].
### Differentiation Between Environment and System

The primary differentiation lies in the locus of control and the flow of adaptation:

1\. **Command vs. Context:** The "prime idea" of Action Learning is defined as rational behavior intended to increase the system's (the manager's or organization's) **command over the environment**\[11\]. The system is the _agent_ acting to impose order; the environment is the _subject_ or context being acted upon\[12\].

2\. **Internal vs. External:** The system consists of internal resources and values, while the environment consists of external variables and unknowns\[9\].

3\. **Adaptation:** The system must adapt _to_ the environment. The environment does not adapt to the system; rather, the system must change itself to survive the changing environment\[5\]\[13\].

### Importance to the Approach

The distinction between system and environment is critical to the Action Learning approach for several reasons:

• **Survival (The Learning Equation):** The central premise of Revans' approach is the equation L≥C. For any system (organism or enterprise) to survive, its rate of learning (L) must be equal to or greater than the rate of change (C) in its environment\[5\]. If the environment changes faster than the system can learn, the system will fail (e.g., bankruptcy or extinction).

• **Adaption vs. Learning:** P.A.C. Smith highlights that in a "changing context" (a turbulent environment), traditional static "learning" is insufficient. Organizations must engage in "adaption," which is the acquisition of knowledge specifically to adjust to environmental flux\[14\]\[15\].

• **Reality Testing:** The approach demands that internal perceptions (within the system/set) be constantly checked against the "inferno of reality" (the environment). Learning is only valid if it is verified by action in the external world, not just by discussion within the group\[16\]\[17\].

• **Strategic Design:** The breakdown into Systems Alpha, Beta, and Gamma forces leaders to explicitly account for the external environment (Alpha) separate from their internal implementation struggles (Beta) and personal psychology (Gamma), ensuring a holistic approach to problem-solving\[9\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Revans 1981 Management productivity and risk - the way ahead.pdf
> [2] revans 1984 - on the learning equation.pdf
> [3] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [4] Pedler - Reginald Revans The Pioneer of action learning.pdf
> [5] Pedler - Reginald Revans The Pioneer of action learning.pdf
> [6] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [7] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [8] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [9] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [10] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [11] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [12] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [13] Revans 1981 Management productivity and risk - the way ahead.pdf
> [14] smith 1997 - revans action learning explained.pdf
> [15] smith 1997 - revans action learning explained.pdf
> [16] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [17] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf


FILE: 'Relational Biologists.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:44:48.312Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Relational Biologists on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
author: Relational Biologists
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of environment is central to the theoretical biology and systems theory approaches of Pattee, Rosen, and Noble. The environment is not merely a passive container but an active causal agent, a source of selection, and a necessary context for meaning and function.

### Differentiating the System from the Environment

The distinction between a system and its environment is treated not just as a physical boundary, but as a methodological and epistemological necessity (often termed a "cut").

**1\. Open vs. Closed Systems**The most fundamental differentiation is that living organisms are "open systems," meaning they continuously exchange matter and energy with their environment\[1\]. In contrast, formal models and classical thermodynamic descriptions often treat systems as "closed" or isolated\[2\].

• **Rosen’s Definition:** In modeling, the "system" consists of those aspects explicitly included in the model (the states), while the "environment" consists of external factors (parameters or forcings) that affect the system but are not part of its internal dynamics\[3\]. A model acts as a "subsystem" that is closed to interactions that the real, open system experiences with its environment\[4\].

• **Intrinsic Distinction:** In mechanics, the distinction is absolute; intrinsic properties define the system (e.g., mass, acceleration), while the environment is inferred from deviations in the system's behavior (e.g., impressed forces)\[5\]\[6\].

**2\. The Epistemic Cut**Howard Pattee emphasizes the "epistemic cut," a necessary separation between the subject (the knower/controller) and the object (the known/controlled)\[7\]\[8\].

• **Measurement:** A measuring device (the system) must be distinguishable from the system it measures (the environment)\[9\]. Without this cut, the concept of observation or control becomes vacuous\[10\].

• **Subjectivity:** The environment represents the "external objects," while the system contains the "internal images" or descriptions\[7\].

**3\. Boundary Conditions**Denis Noble argues that the environment differentiates itself from the system by imposing "boundary conditions."

• **Constraint:** The environment acts as a constraint on the system's dynamics. In differential equations, the system is described by the equations, while the environment is represented by the boundary and initial conditions necessary to solve them\[11\]\[12\].

• **Fuzzy Boundaries:** While anatomical boundaries (like skin) exist, functional boundaries between system and environment are often dynamic and "fuzzy," extending into social interactions and ecosystems\[13\]\[14\].

### How the Concept of Environment is Used

The environment serves several specific functional roles in this theoretical framework:

**1\. The Source of Selection and Fitness**The environment is the agent of natural selection. It acts as a "measuring device" that tests the organism\[15\].

• **Statistical Closure:** Evolution occurs because the environment statistically constrains populations. The "breeding population" is closed, but selection operates through interaction with the environment\[16\].

• **Fitness:** Fitness is not an intrinsic property of an organism but a relationship between the organism’s phenotype and its environment\[17\].

**2\. The Context for Meaning (Semiotics)**Symbols and genetic codes have no intrinsic meaning; they acquire meaning only within a specific context or environment\[18\].

• **Semantic Closure:** A molecule (like DNA) becomes a message only when a system (the cell) exists in an environment that allows for the interpretation of that message\[19\]\[20\].

• **Pragmatics:** Pattee insists that the "pragmatic (contextual, environmental) dimension" is essential for understanding the symbol-matter relation\[21\].

**3\. The Object of Anticipation**In Rosen's theory of anticipatory systems, the environment is what the system attempts to predict.

• **Modeling:** Living systems possess internal predictive models of their environment\[22\]\[23\].

• **Adaptation:** An organism adapts by adjusting its internal state based on a model of the environment to maintain viability\[23\]. Adaptation is the process of modifying the system to maintain a linkage with environmental variables\[24\].

### Importance to the Approach

The environment-system distinction is crucial because it challenges reductionism and explains the failure of simple mechanistic models in biology.

**1\. Explaining Error and Emergence**Rosen argues that "error" is the divergence between a model (which is closed) and the real system (which is open to the environment)\[25\].

• **Emergence:** Because a model cannot capture the infinite interactivity of a real system with its environment, the real system will eventually exhibit behaviors (emergent novelties) that the model cannot predict\[26\].

• **Side Effects:** "Side effects" occur because the real system interacts with the environment through degrees of freedom that were abstracted away in the model\[27\].

**2\. Defining Complexity**The interaction with the environment is the defining characteristic of complexity.

• **Identity and Context:** In simple systems (mechanisms), the system's identity is independent of its environment (context-independent). In complex systems (organisms), the identity can be changed by the environment (non-admissible forcings)\[28\]\[29\].

• **Irreducibility:** One cannot understand a system solely by analyzing its internal parts; one must understand its interaction with the larger context (the environment)\[30\]\[31\].

**3\. Enabling Evolution**Open-ended evolution requires an environment that is not fully specified by the system's laws.

• **Harnessing Laws:** Organisms use informational constraints to "harness" physical laws within an environment\[32\].

• **Creativity:** The stochastic (noisy) nature of the environment provides the variability necessary for the generation of novelty and creative evolutionary steps\[33\].

In summary, the environment is distinguished from the system by the **epistemic cut** (measurement/control), **boundary conditions**, and **thermodynamic openness**. This distinction is vital because biological function, meaning, and complexity arise only from the interaction between a system and its context, not from the system's isolated components.

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Noble - Biological circular causality but not symmetry of causation so where what and when are the boundaries.pdf
> [2] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [3] [Book] Rosen - Essays on Life Itself.pdf
> [4] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [5] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [6] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [7] Howard Pattees Theoretical biology a radical epistemological stance to approach life evolution and complexity.pdf
> [8] Irreducible and complementary semiotic - Howard Pattee.pdf
> [9] Howard Pattees Theoretical biology a radical epistemological stance to approach life evolution and complexity.pdf
> [10] [Book] Pattee - Laws Language and Life Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary.pdf
> [11] Noble - Biological circular causality but not symmetry of causation so where what and when are the boundaries.pdf
> [12] Noble - Biological circular causality but not symmetry of causation so where what and when are the boundaries.pdf
> [13] Noble - Biological circular causality but not symmetry of causation so where what and when are the boundaries.pdf
> [14] Noble - Biological circular causality but not symmetry of causation so where what and when are the boundaries.pdf
> [15] [Book] Pattee - Laws Language and Life Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary.pdf
> [16] Pattee - Physical Basis and Origin of HierarchicaL Control.pdf
> [17] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [18] Howard Pattees Theoretical biology a radical epistemological stance to approach life evolution and complexity.pdf
> [19] Where Does Pattees How Does a Molecule Become a Message.pdf
> [20] pattee2012 the necessity of biosemiotics.pdf
> [21] Where Does Pattees How Does a Molecule Become a Message.pdf
> [22] Rosen 1987 - On Complex Systems.pdf
> [23] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [24] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [25] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [26] [Book] Rosen - Theoretical Biology and Complexity. Three Essays on the Natural Philosophy of Complex Systems.pdf
> [27] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [28] [Book] Rosen - Essays on Life Itself.pdf
> [29] [Book] Rosen - Essays on Life Itself.pdf
> [30] Howard Pattees Theoretical biology a radical epistemological stance to approach life evolution and complexity.pdf
> [31] [Book] Rosen - Essays on Life Itself.pdf
> [32] Pattee Irreducible and complementary semiotic forms.pdf
> [33] Noble - Harnessing stochasticity how do organisms make choices.pdf


FILE: 'Robert Flood.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:51:59.529Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Robert Flood on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Robert-Flood
author: Robert Flood
---
The concept of **environment** is fundamental to systems thinking, serving as the context in which a system is embedded and with which it must interact to survive\[1\]. In the approach presented in the sources, the environment is used to describe the **uncontrollable features** that influence a system’s behavior or provide the inputs and outputs necessary for its functioning\[4\].

### **Usage and Characterization of the Environment**

The environment is conceptualized differently across various systems schools:

• **Open Systems View:** An organism or organization co-exists in relation to an environment, maintaining its identity through a continuous flow of energy, matter, and information across a boundary\[2\].

• **Source of Disturbance:** The environment is seen as the origin of "disturbances"—acute or chronic changes that throw a system out of balance and necessitate adaptive behavior for survival\[3\]\[8\].

• **Causal Texture:** In **Open Systems Theory (OST)**, the environment is not viewed as random but as having an identifiable "causal texture," ranging from placid-clustered to **turbulent fields**\[9\]\[10\].

• **Infinite Interrelatedness:** In complexity theory, the environment is part of an almost endless vastness of interconnections, making the totality of the system-environment relationship inherently **unknowable** to the human mind\[11\]\[12\].

### **Differentiation: System vs. Environment**

The sources differentiate the system from its environment primarily through the concept of the **boundary**\[4\]\[13\].

• **Interaction Type:** A system is characterized by **concentrated feedback relationships** among its elements, whereas it shares only **input and output relationships** with its environment\[4\]\[14\].

• **Control and Influence:** A common rule for differentiation is that if an element is "engineerable" or under the direct influence of the decision-maker, it belongs inside the system\[15\]\[16\]. If an element matters to the system’s objectives but cannot be controlled, it is part of the environment\[5\].

• **The "Sombrero" Model:** This model further distinguishes between a **narrower system of interest** (controlled directly) and a **wider system of interest** (elements in the environment that the system attempts to influence)\[14\]\[17\].

### **Importance to the Systemic Approach**

Distinguishing and understanding the environment is critical for several reasons:

• **Requisite Variety:** To remain viable, a system must achieve **requisite variety**, meaning its internal complexity must be equal to or greater than the variety (complexity) of the environment it must deal with\[18\]\[19\].

• **Adaptation and Survival:** Without a specific conceptualization of the environment (such as the L22 field in OST), it is impossible to determine what a system is adapting to, making the concept of adaptation meaningless\[20\]\[21\].

• **Avoiding the Environmental Fallacy:** The sources emphasize rejecting worldviews that ignore the continuity between a system and its environment, as failing to account for environmental impacts leads to **counter-intuitive consequences** and ineffective management\[19\].

• **Boundary Judgement as an Ethical Choice:** In **Critical Systems Thinking (CST)**, drawing a boundary between system and environment is an ethical act\[24\]\[25\]. It defines the **beneficiaries** (those inside the "spotlight") and the **excluded** (those in the "shadow" or the environment), requiring planners to be transparent about whose interests are being served\[25\].

• **Internal vs. External Blame:** A systemic approach helps organizations realize that while the environment influences them, they often "shoot themselves in the foot" by creating internal problems and then erroneously blaming the environment\[28\]\[29\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [2] Flood - System Thinking - Action Research.pdf
> [3] [Book] Flood - Dealing with Complexity An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science.pdf
> [4] [Book] Flood - Dealing with Complexity An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science.pdf
> [5] [Book] Flood - Dealing with Complexity An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science.pdf
> [8] [Book] Flood - Dealing with Complexity An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science.pdf
> [9] Flood - System Thinking - Action Research.pdf
> [10] Flood - System Thinking - Action Research.pdf
> [11] A Maturing of Systems Thinking Evidence from Three Perspectives - Barton Emery Flood.pdf
> [12] A Maturing of Systems Thinking Evidence from Three Perspectives - Barton Emery Flood.pdf
> [13] [Book] Flood - Dealing with Complexity An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science.pdf
> [14] [Book] Flood - Dealing with Complexity An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science.pdf
> [15] [Book] Flood - Dealing with Complexity An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science.pdf
> [16] [Book] Flood - Dealing with Complexity An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science.pdf
> [17] [Book] Flood - Dealing with Complexity An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science.pdf
> [18] [Book] Flood - Dealing with Complexity An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science.pdf
> [19] [Book] Flood - Dealing with Complexity An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science.pdf
> [20] A Maturing of Systems Thinking Evidence from Three Perspectives - Barton Emery Flood.pdf
> [21] A Maturing of Systems Thinking Evidence from Three Perspectives - Barton Emery Flood.pdf
> [24] A Maturing of Systems Thinking Evidence from Three Perspectives - Barton Emery Flood.pdf
> [25] Flood Finnestrand - A mighty step criticial systemic interpretation of the Learning Organisation.pdf
> [28] A Maturing of Systems Thinking Evidence from Three Perspectives - Barton Emery Flood.pdf
> [29] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf


FILE: 'Robert Pirsig.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:21:20.772Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Robert Pirsig on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Robert-Pirsig
author: Robert Pirsig
---
Based on the provided texts, primarily _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_, here is an explanation of how the concepts of **environment** and **system** are used, their differentiation, and the importance of this distinction.

### **1\. The Concept of Environment**

Pirsig uses the concept of "environment" to define **Quality** in a way that intellectual analysis can grasp. He presents Quality not as a property inherent in an object or a subject, but as an event or relationship.

• **Quality as Response:** Pirsig states that "Quality is the response of an organism to its environment"\[1\].

• **Quality as Stimulus:** He further elaborates that Quality is "the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create the world in which we live"\[2\].

In this context, the environment acts as the source of the pre-intellectual reality—the "nibble" or "stimulus" that precedes our definition of the world.

### **2\. The Concept of System**

A **system**, in Pirsig’s view, is a hierarchical structure of thought—a set of interrelated concepts. While we often think of a machine like a motorcycle as a physical object, Pirsig argues it is primarily a mental phenomenon.

• **Structure of Concepts:** A system is a collection of conceptual relationships, such as "components" and "functions," arranged in hierarchies or causes\[3\].

• **Mental Construct:** Pirsig asserts, "The motorcycle is a system. A real system... The motorcycle is a system of concepts worked out in steel"\[3\]\[4\]. There is no shape or part in the machine that is not first an idea in someone's mind\[4\].

• **Rationality Itself:** When people speak of "the system" (in a political or social sense), they are actually referring to systematic thought or rationality itself. Pirsig notes, "The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself"\[5\].

### **3\. Differentiation: Environment vs. System**

The core differentiation lies in the relationship between **creator** and **creation**.

• **Environment (Source):** The environment (acting through Quality) is the _generator_ of reality. It provides the continuous stimulus that causes us to invent the world\[2\]. It represents the leading edge of reality, the present moment before intellectualization takes place\[6\]\[7\].

• **System (Creation):** The system is the _result_ of that response. It is the static, intellectual structure we build to handle and organize the stimuli from the environment.

Pirsig emphasizes that we cannot include the source (Quality/Environment) within the creation (System). He writes: "Now, to take that which has caused us to create the world, and include it within the world we have created, is clearly impossible"\[2\].

### **4\. Importance to the Approach**

This distinction is crucial to the method of inquiry and problem-solving presented in the books (specifically _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_) because it provides a way to handle **"stuckness"** (mental blocks).

• **Overcoming Value Rigidity:** When a system (rational understanding) fails to solve a problem—such as a stuck screw or an engine failure—adherence to the "system" leads to frustration because the system only organizes _known_ facts\[8\]\[9\]. To solve the problem, one must return to the **environment** (the immediate, undefined reality).

• **Expanding Rationality:** By understanding that the system is just a construct derived from the environment via Quality, a mechanic or thinker remains free to restructure the system. Pirsig argues that "reality isn't static... It's made up, in part, of ideas that are expected to grow as you grow"\[10\].

• **Generating New Facts:** When stuck, one stares at the machine (the environment) without preconceived categories. This allows a "new fact" (a nibble of Quality) to emerge from the environment, which can then be used to expand the system\[11\]\[12\].

In summary, differentiating the environment from the system allows one to recognize that our intellectual structures are provisional maps, not the territory itself. This recognition enables a dynamic engagement with the world, allowing for creativity and the resolution of problems where rigid adherence to the "system" fails.

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [2] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [3] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [4] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [5] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [6] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [7] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [8] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [9] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [10] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [11] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [12] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf


FILE: 'Roger James.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:31:57.444Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Roger James on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Roger-James
author: Roger James
---
Based on the provided sources, the distinction between the **System** and the **Environment** is not just a technicality; it is the fundamental "cognitive act" that makes Systems Thinking possible. The differentiation is **observer-dependent**, meaning the boundary is drawn by the thinker, not nature.

Here is an analysis of how these concepts are used and why the distinction is vital to the author's approach.

### 1\. Differentiating the System from the Environment

The sources reject the idea that systems exist objectively in the real world. Instead, they define the System and Environment based on the observer’s focus and control.

• **Variables vs. Parameters (The Ashby Definition):** Drawing on W. Ross Ashby, the text defines a "system" as a set of variables selected by the observer from the infinite possibilities of the real world\[1\],\[2\].

    ◦ **The System:** Consists of **variables**—things the observer is focusing on, measuring, or attempting to control\[3\].    ◦ **The Environment:** Consists of **parameters**—variables that are not included in the system but still influence it. These are "given" conditions that act as the background or foundation for the system's behavior\[3\],\[4\].
• **Form vs. Context:** Using Christopher Alexander’s concepts, the "system" is the **Form** (the solution or the thing being shaped), and the "Environment" is the **Context** (the problem or the thing putting demands on the form)\[5\],\[6\]. Achieving "good fit" is about matching the Form to the Context.

• **Subjectivity:** The boundary between system and environment is not a physical line; it is a mental decision. As Stafford Beer notes, we select a set of relations from an infinite number to create a system; nature does not give us the system\[7\]. Therefore, "System and environment are relative concepts... we can enlarge or contract either one"\[8\].

### 2\. How the Concept of Environment is Used

In this approach, the environment is not just a passive background; it is the active source of constraints, variety, and selection.

• **The Source of "Noise" and Variety:** The environment contains infinite complexity (high variety). For a system to survive (viability), it must filter this complexity. This process is called **Transduction**—converting the chaos of the environment into a signal the system can handle\[9\],\[10\]. If the system tried to respond to _everything_ in the environment, it would collapse; it must treat most environmental factors as "noise" or averages\[11\].

• **The "Mold" or Scaffold:** The environment acts as a scaffold that shapes the system. The text uses the metaphor of a **Spirograph**: the complex patterns drawn by the pen (the system's behavior) are actually determined by the rigid gears and rings (the environmental constraints)\[12\],\[13\]. The environment provides the probability space of what is possible\[14\].

• **The "Goldilocks" Zone:** The environment represents the extremes that the system must navigate between.

    ◦ **Small Numbers:** Deterministic constraints (gravity, thermodynamics)\[15\].    ◦ **Large Numbers:** Statistical aggregates (gas molecules, crowds)\[16\],\[17\].    ◦ The "System" exists in the **Middle Numbers** (Organized Complexity), where it creates a local niche of order within the wider environment\[18\],\[19\].
### 3\. Why This Distinction is Important to the Approach

The separation of System and Environment is the "mechanism" that allows the author's specific brand of Systems Thinking to function.

**A. It Enables "Negative Explanation"**The approach emphasizes asking **"Why this, rather than that?"**\[20\],\[21\].

• We cannot explain a complex system solely by looking at its internal mechanisms (cause-and-effect).

• We explain it by looking at the **Environment**, which acts as a set of **constraints** prohibiting other behaviors. The system does what is left over after the environment has ruled out other options. As Ashby stated, "A cyberneticist is a man who observes what might have happened, but did not"\[22\],\[23\].

**B. It Prevents "Analysis Paralysis"**Because the real world ("The Mess") is infinitely complex, we cannot understand it all. By defining a System vs. Environment, we consciously choose what to ignore\[4\],\[24\].

• This allows us to treat the environment as "statistical" or "averaged" (Disorganized Complexity) while treating the system as "structured" (Organized Complexity)\[16\].

• It allows us to "specify the system only somewhat" and then "ride the dynamics" of the environment, rather than trying to micromanage every variable\[25\].

**C. It Defines the "Epistemic Cut"**The distinction highlights the gap between the material world (Ontology) and our models (Epistemology).

• The **Environment** is the domain of **Laws** (universal, physical, inexorable constraints like gravity).

• The **System** is the domain of **Rules** (local, arbitrary, structure-dependent controls like traffic laws or genetic codes)\[26\],\[27\],\[28\].

• This distinction prevents the "Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness"—confusing our abstract model (the system) with the messy reality (the environment)\[29\],\[30\].

**D. It Facilitates Intervention (The "Leverage Point")**Intervention is often about moving a factor from the "Environment" (fixed parameter) to the "System" (control variable).

• In the example of the metronomes on a board, the board was initially part of the "environment" (a static support). By placing the board on cans, the board became a dynamic variable in the "system," enabling the metronomes to synchronize\[31\],\[32\].

• To solve a problem, one often has to expand the system boundary to include a parameter that was previously taken for granted as fixed in the environment\[3\],\[8\].

### Summary

In this approach, the **System** is a mental construct of "Organized Complexity" created by the observer to make sense of the world. The **Environment** is the source of infinite variety and physical constraints. The "art" of Systems Thinking lies in **Transduction**—selectively filtering the environment to create a boundary where the system can maintain stability (the Goldilocks zone) without being overwhelmed by noise\[33\],\[34\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Perlite.pdf
> [2] Perlite.pdf
> [3] Perlite.pdf
> [4] Perlite.pdf
> [5] Perlite.pdf
> [6] Perlite.pdf
> [7] Recent.pdf
> [8] Recent.pdf
> [9] Perlite.pdf
> [10] Recent.pdf
> [11] Recent.pdf
> [12] Recent.pdf
> [13] Recent.pdf
> [14] Recent.pdf
> [15] Perlite.pdf
> [16] Perlite.pdf
> [17] Perlite.pdf
> [18] Perlite.pdf
> [19] Perlite.pdf
> [20] Recent.pdf
> [21] Recent.pdf
> [22] Recent.pdf
> [23] Recent.pdf
> [24] Perlite.pdf
> [25] Recent.pdf
> [26] Perlite.pdf
> [27] Perlite.pdf
> [28] Perlite.pdf
> [29] Perlite.pdf
> [30] Perlite.pdf
> [31] Perlite.pdf
> [32] Perlite.pdf
> [33] Recent.pdf
> [34] Recent.pdf


FILE: 'Ross Ashby.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:17:11.240Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Ross Ashby on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Ross-Ashby
author: Ross Ashby
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the environment in W. Ross Ashby's cybernetics is treated not as a distinct material entity, but as a functional component within a larger state-determined system. The differentiation between system and environment is defined by the observer rather than the physical nature of the object, a distinction that is fundamental to Ashby's theories of adaptation, regulation, and requisite variety.

**1\. The Definition and Differentiation of System and Environment**

To understand the environment, one must first understand Ashby's rigorous definition of a "system." Ashby explicitly rejects the notion that a system is a physical "thing" (like a pendulum or a brain)\[1\]. Instead, a system is defined as a list of variables selected by an observer from the infinite number of variables available in a material object\[1\].

Consequently, the **environment** is differentiated from the **system** (or the organism/machine) in the following ways:

• **Functional Definition:** The environment consists of the set of variables that affect the organism (providing input) and those variables that are changed by the organism's behavior (receiving output)\[7\]. It is defined strictly in a functional, not material, sense\[10\].

• **Arbitrary Boundary:** The division between "organism" (or system) and "environment" is conceptual and arbitrary, depending entirely on the observer's specific area of interest\[7\]. For example, a chisel in a sculptor’s hand could be considered part of the organism (the complex mechanism shaping marble) or part of the environment (the material the nervous system is trying to control)\[12\].

• **Reciprocal Coupling:** The organism and environment are treated as two coupled systems that form a single state-determined whole\[8\]. They interact through feedback loops where the output of one becomes the input of the other; for instance, an organism's muscles act as the environment's input, while its sensory organs act as the environment's output\[9\]\[14\].

**2\. How the Concept of Environment is Used**

In Ashby's framework, the environment plays several active, theoretical roles:

• **Source of Disturbance:** The environment is formulated as a source of disturbances (D) that threaten to drive the organism's "essential variables" (E) (such as body temperature or blood sugar) outside their physiological limits\[15\].

• **Source of Variety and Selection:** The environment possesses "variety" (complexity or number of distinct states)\[18\]. It acts as a selector that eliminates systems or behaviors that fail to maintain stability\[19\]. Evolution and learning are described as processes where the environment selects organizations that are stable and adaptive\[20\]\[21\].

• **Partner in Design:** Ashby argues that a machine (or organism) can exhibit more design than its original designer put into it by extracting information from the environment\[22\]\[23\]. The environment supplements the information provided by the gene pattern; for example, a kitten learns to catch mice by interacting with the environment, meaning the environment effectively "programs" the brain\[24\]\[25\].

• **Medium of Co-ordination:** Communication and co-ordination between parts of a system can occur _through_ the environment without direct internal connection\[26\]. For example, a tennis player's arms are co-ordinated partly through the physics of the ball and the court, not just internal neural pathways\[26\].

**3\. Importance to the Approach**

The specific conceptualization of the environment is crucial to Ashby's approach for several reasons:

• **The Law of Requisite Variety:** This law states that "only variety can destroy variety"\[27\]. For a system to successfully regulate its essential variables, it must possess a variety of responses (R) at least equal to the variety of disturbances (D) generated by the environment\[28\]. This quantifies the limits of adaptation; a system cannot control an environment that is more complex than itself unless it amplifies its variety or filters the environment's variety\[18\].

• **Relativity of "Good" Organization:** Because the system is defined by its relation to the environment, there is no such thing as an absolutely "good" organization or brain\[32\]\[33\]. An organization is "good" only in relation to a specific environment and a specific set of goals (focal conditions)\[21\]\[34\]. Behavior that is adaptive in one environment may be fatal in another\[35\].

• **Explanation of Adaptation and Intelligence:** Ashby uses this framework to demystify intelligence, defining it as appropriate selection\[24\]\[36\]. Adaptation is the process by which a system changes its internal organization (step-mechanisms) in response to environmental feedback until it finds a stability\[37\]. This implies that any dynamic system, if isolated and allowed to run to equilibrium, will eventually develop "organisms" adapted to their "environment"\[40\]\[41\].

• **Modeling Requirement:** The approach leads to the Conant-Ashby theorem, which proves that for a regulator to be successful, it must be a model of the system (environment) it regulates\[24\].

In summary, the environment is not merely a passive backdrop but is an active, variable-defined component coupled to the system. This distinction allows Ashby to apply rigorous mathematical tools (set theory, information theory) to biological and social problems, demonstrating that survival and intelligence are structural relationships between the variety of the system and the variety of its environment\[19\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Ashby Mechanisms.pdf
> [7] Adaptive Systems work of ashby and ultrastability version 2.pdf
> [8] Adaptive Systems work of ashby and ultrastability.pdf
> [9] Ashby’s Cybernetic Framework_ System, Parameter, and Environment.pdf
> [10] [Book] Ashby - Design for a Brain The origin of adaptive behaviour.pdf
> [12] [Book] Ashby - Design for a Brain The origin of adaptive behaviour.pdf
> [14] [Book] Ashby - An Introduction to Cybernetics.pdf
> [15] Ashby - Regulation in Biological Systems.pdf
> [18] 1409.7475 complexity Ashby autopiosis.pdf
> [19] 2004 Umpleby - Ashby general theory of adaptive systems.pdf
> [20] Ashby Mechanisms.pdf
> [21] Ashby-Mechanisms_of_intelligence_ocr.pdf
> [22] Ashby-Mechanisms_of_intelligence_ocr.pdf
> [23] Ashby-Mechanisms_of_intelligence_ocr.pdf
> [24] 2004 Umpleby - Ashby general theory of adaptive systems.pdf
> [25] [Book] Ashby - An Introduction to Cybernetics.pdf
> [26] [Book] Ashby - Design for a Brain The origin of adaptive behaviour.pdf
> [27] Ashby Mechanisms.pdf
> [28] 2004 Umpleby - Ashby general theory of adaptive systems.pdf
> [32] Ashby Mechanisms.pdf
> [33] Ashby-Mechanisms_of_intelligence_ocr.pdf
> [34] Ashby Mechanisms.pdf
> [35] Ashby Mechanisms.pdf
> [36] Umpleby 2009 - Ashbys general theory of adaptove systems.pdf
> [37] Adaptive Systems work of ashby and ultrastability version 2.pdf
> [40] Ashby Mechanisms.pdf
> [41] Ashby Mechanisms.pdf


FILE: 'Russ Ackoff.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:22:13.439Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Russ Ackoff on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Russ-Ackoff
author: Russ Ackoff
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of **environment** is central to Russell Ackoff’s systems approach and Interactive Planning. It is defined not just as "everything outside," but specifically through the lens of **control**.

Here is how the environment is defined, differentiated from the system, and why it is critical to this methodology.

### **1\. Definition and Differentiation: The Role of Control**

The distinction between a system and its environment is determined by the level of control a decision-maker has over specific variables.

• **The System:** Consists of variables that are **controlled** by the decision-maker or management. These are the internal elements (people, equipment, policies) that can be manipulated directly to achieve objectives\[1\].

• **The Environment:** Consists of variables that affect the performance or properties of the system but are **uncontrolled** by it\[1\].

• **The Boundary is Relative:** The line between system and environment is subjective; it is drawn by the observer or planner based on what they can control. A variable (like a specific policy) might be part of the environment for a low-level manager (who cannot change it) but part of the system for a senior executive (who can)\[5\].

### **2\. The Two Types of Environment**

Ackoff further refines the concept of environment into two distinct categories based on **influence**:

1\. **The Transactional Environment:** This includes external entities that the system cannot _control_ (dictate to) but can **influence**. Examples include customers, suppliers, investors, and unions. The system interacts directly with these stakeholders and can alter their behavior through incentives or communication\[4\].

2\. **The Contextual Environment:** This consists of variables the system can neither control nor influence significantly. Examples include the weather, general economic conditions, or broad social trends. The system must simply react or adapt to these\[4\].

### **3\. Why This Concept is Important to the Approach**

The environment is critical to Interactive Planning for four main reasons:

**A. Escaping "Closed-System" Thinking**Traditional "Machine Age" thinking often tried to isolate variables (as in a laboratory) to find simple cause-and-effect relationships. Ackoff argues that social systems are "open systems." A "producer" (like an acorn) is necessary for a product (an oak tree), but not sufficient; it requires specific environmental conditions (soil, moisture) to work. Therefore, you cannot understand or plan for a system without analyzing its interaction with the environment\[11\].

**B. Problem Dissolution (vs. Solution)**A key strategy in Interactive Planning is **dissolving** problems rather than solving them. Solving a problem usually involves changing the system (e.g., fixing a machine). Dissolving a problem often involves **changing the environment**.

• _Example:_ Rather than trying to suppress a "culprit" or remove a deficiency, planners are encouraged to ask if they can "convert the culprit into a constructive force by **adding something to the environment**"\[7\]\[15\].

• _Expansion:_ Problems that seem unsolvable often yield when the system boundaries are expanded to include environmental variables, thereby bringing them under control\[5\]\[16\].

**C. Formulating the "Mess"**In Phase 1 of Interactive Planning (Formulating the Mess), the environment is a primary driver. The "Reference Scenario" projects the future of the organization if it takes no new action _and_ if the environment changes only as expected. This reveals that even if the organization stays the same, environmental shifts will eventually cause the system to fail, creating the imperative for change\[17\].

**D. Environmentalization**Ackoff introduces the concept of **environmentalization** as a counterpart to humanization. Just as a system must serve the purposes of its parts (employees), it must also serve the purposes of the larger system of which it is a part (the environment/society). A system that destroys its environment eventually destroys itself. Therefore, planning must account for how the organization serves external stakeholders and society\[20\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Ackoff - 1978 - The art of problem solving - Wiley.pdf
> [4] [Book] Ackoff - 1999 - Re-creating the corporation - Oxford University press.pdf
> [5] [Book] Ackoff - 1978 - The art of problem solving - Wiley.pdf
> [7] [Book] Ackoff - The Art of Problem Solving.pdf
> [11] [Book] Ackoff - 1981 - Creating the corporate future - Wiley.pdf
> [15] [Book] Ackoff - 1978 - The art of problem solving - Wiley.pdf
> [16] [Book] Ackoff - The Art of Problem Solving.pdf
> [17] [Book] Ackoff - 1981 - Creating the corporate future - Wiley.pdf
> [20] [Book] Ackoff - 1981 - Creating the corporate future - Wiley.pdf


FILE: 'Stafford Beer.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:50:11.673Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Stafford Beer on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Stafford-Beer
author: Stafford Beer
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the environment is fundamental to Stafford Beer’s management cybernetics and the Viable System Model (VSM). The environment is not merely a passive backdrop but an active, high-variety domain with which a system must continuously interact to survive.

### The Concept of Environment

In the context of management cybernetics, the environment consists of everything outside the boundaries of the system that is relevant to it\[1\]. It is the source of "disturbances" or external influences that affect the system, ranging from market demand and supply availability to broader economic and social climates\[2\]\[3\].

Key characteristics of the environment include:

• **High Variety:** The environment is characterized by "proliferating variety," meaning it possesses a vast number of possible states\[4\]. It is always more complex than the system trying to manage it\[5\].

• **Source of Energy and Inputs:** Viable systems, like living organisms, draw energy and inputs (such as capital, labor, and raw materials) from the environment to maintain their internal organization\[6\].

• **Recursive Nesting:** Just as viable systems are nested within one another (recursion), environments are also nested\[7\]. The environment of a total enterprise is larger than the sum of the environments of its operational parts\[8\]\[9\].

### Differentiating the Environment from the System

The distinction between the system and its environment is defined by the **observer** rather than being an intrinsic property of nature.

**1\. Subjective Boundaries**The definition of any system is arbitrary and depends on the observer's purpose\[10\]. A system is recognized when an observer perceives a coherent pattern and a purpose among a collection of entities\[11\]. Consequently, the boundary separating the system from its environment is a convention established by the observer to make the situation manageable\[12\]. For example, a pair of scissors can be a system, but it is also part of a larger "woman-with-scissors" system; the boundary moves depending on the level of analysis\[10\]\[13\].

**2\. Relative Isolation**A system is a set of entities that is "relatively isolated" from the rest of the world\[14\]. While it has boundaries, it is never absolutely closed; if it were totally isolated, it would cease to be viable\[15\]\[16\]. The system maintains a separate existence or identity, whereas the environment is the context that nourishes it\[17\].

**3\. Complexity Imbalance**A primary differentiator is the disparity in **variety** (complexity). The environment always possesses significantly higher variety than the system\[5\]. The system is a "variety reducer" or filter, attempting to maintain stability against the massive complexity of the environment\[18\]\[19\].

### Importance to the Approach

The relationship between the system and the environment is the central dynamic of Stafford Beer's approach for several reasons:

**1\. Managing Complexity (Ashby’s Law)**The core of management cybernetics is **Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety**, which states that "only variety can destroy variety"\[5\]\[20\]. Because the environment has massive variety, the system must design mechanisms to attenuate (reduce) incoming environmental variety and amplify its own regulatory variety to match it\[21\]\[22\]. If the system fails to balance this variety equation, it loses control and viability\[20\].

**2\. Viability and Adaptation**A viable system is defined as one capable of maintaining a separate existence within its environment\[23\]. To survive, the system must not only maintain internal stability (homeostasis) but also adapt to environmental changes\[24\]\[25\]. The system must continuously learn from and respond to the environment to avoid becoming "denatured" or extinct\[26\]\[27\].

**3\. Structural Design of the VSM**The Viable System Model is explicitly designed to handle environmental interactions at different logical levels:

• **System One (Operations):** Each operational unit interacts directly with its own local environment\[28\]. The VSM emphasizes that managers cannot effectively manage operations without acknowledging these direct environmental links\[29\].

• **System Four (Development/Intelligence):** This subsystem is dedicated to looking at the "outside and then"—the future and problematic environment\[30\]. System Four scans the external world for threats and opportunities that System One might miss, allowing the organization to adapt proactively rather than just reacting\[31\].

• **Closure and Autopoiesis:** The system must maintain its identity (closure) while interacting with the environment. It effectively "produces itself" (autopoiesis) through this interaction, ensuring it remains distinct from the environment while being embedded within it\[32\]\[33\].

**4\. Diagnosis of Pathology**Understanding the environment is crucial for diagnosing organizational failure. For instance, if an organization cuts itself off from environmental feedback (becoming a closed system), it loses the capacity to adapt and eventually dies\[34\]\[35\]. Similarly, if the "variety engineering" is wrong—e.g., if the management attempts to filter out too much environmental reality—the organization will operate based on a "surrogate world" rather than reality, leading to disastrous decisions\[36\]\[37\].

In summary, the environment provides the requisite challenge that justifies the system's existence and structure. The system's ability to filter and match the environment's complexity through specific structural arrangements (like System 4) is what determines its long-term survival\[38\]\[39\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - Decision and control - J. Wiley.pdf
> [2] [Book] Beer - 1965 - Cybernetics and Management - The English Universities Press.pdf
> [3] [Book] Beer - 1965 - Cybernetics and Management - The English Universities Press.pdf
> [4] [Book] Beer - 1981 - Brain of the firm - J. Wiley.pdf
> [5] [Book] Beer,Whittaker - 2009 - Think before you think - Wavestone Press.pdf
> [6] [Book] Beer - 1965 - Cybernetics and Management - The English Universities Press.pdf
> [7] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf
> [8] [Book] Beer - 1985 - Diagnosing the system for organizations - Wiley.pdf
> [9] [Book] Beer - 1985 - Diagnosing the system for organizations - Wiley.pdf
> [10] [Book] Beer - 1965 - Cybernetics and Management - The English Universities Press.pdf
> [11] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - Decision and control - J. Wiley.pdf
> [12] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf
> [13] [Book] Beer - 1965 - Cybernetics and Management - The English Universities Press.pdf
> [14] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - Decision and control - J. Wiley.pdf
> [15] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - Decision and control - J. Wiley.pdf
> [16] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf
> [17] [Book] Beer - 1985 - Diagnosing the system for organizations - Wiley.pdf
> [18] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Platform for change - J. Wiley.pdf
> [19] [Book] Davies - The Unaccountability Machine Why Big Systems Make Terrible Decisions - and How The World Lost its Mind.pdf
> [20] [Book] Davies - The Unaccountability Machine Why Big Systems Make Terrible Decisions - and How The World Lost its Mind.pdf
> [21] [Book] Beer - 1965 - Cybernetics and Management - The English Universities Press.pdf
> [22] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf
> [23] [Book] Beer - 1985 - Diagnosing the system for organizations - Wiley.pdf
> [24] [Book] Beer - 1985 - Diagnosing the system for organizations - Wiley.pdf
> [25] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - Decision and control - J. Wiley.pdf
> [26] [Book] Beer - 1965 - Cybernetics and Management - The English Universities Press.pdf
> [27] [Book] Beer - 1965 - Cybernetics and Management - The English Universities Press.pdf
> [28] [Book] Beer - 1985 - Diagnosing the system for organizations - Wiley.pdf
> [29] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf
> [30] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf
> [31] [Book] Davies - The Unaccountability Machine Why Big Systems Make Terrible Decisions - and How The World Lost its Mind.pdf
> [32] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf
> [33] [Book] Beer,Whittaker - 2009 - Think before you think - Wavestone Press.pdf
> [34] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - Decision and control - J. Wiley.pdf
> [35] [Book] Davies - The Unaccountability Machine Why Big Systems Make Terrible Decisions - and How The World Lost its Mind.pdf
> [36] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Platform for change - J. Wiley.pdf
> [37] [Book] Beer,Whittaker - 2009 - Think before you think - Wavestone Press.pdf
> [38] [Book] Beer - 1965 - Cybernetics and Management - The English Universities Press.pdf
> [39] [Book] Beer - 1981 - Brain of the firm - J. Wiley.pdf


FILE: 'TOC.md'
---
tags:
  - Environment
  - TOC
title: TOC on 💬Environment
author: TOC
---
> [!question] How is the concept of environment used and what differentiates the environment from the system why is this important to the approach presented here?
> 

```dataview
LIST
WHERE file.folder = this.file.folder
AND file.name != this.file.name
SORT file.name ASC
```


FILE: 'TOG.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:42:28.977Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: TOG on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - TOG
author: TOG
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the **environment** is central to the group's critique of "functionalist" Systems Thinking and is pivotal to their proposed framework of **"Purpose, Framing, Scaling, and Conditions."**

Here is an analysis of how the environment is conceptualized, how it is differentiated from the system, and why this distinction is critical to their approach.

### **1\. How the Concept of Environment is Used**

In this group's discourse, the "environment" is rarely treated as a static backdrop. Instead, it is conceptualized through the lens of **"Conditions"**, **"Complexity,"** and **"Flux."**

• **Environment as "Conditions":** The group explicitly replaces standard methodological steps with a framework of "Purpose, Framing, Scaling, and **Conditions**"\[1\]\[2\]. Here, the environment is defined as the set of prevailing circumstances—the "muddle" or "entropy"—that enables or constrains action\[3\]\[4\]. It is the context that must be understood before any tool (like VSM or SODA) is applied\[5\]\[6\].

• **Environment as "Disorganized Complexity":** Drawing on **Warren Weaver’s model of science**, the group categorizes the environment as the realm of "disorganized complexity" (billions of variables, handled via statistical mechanics). This is contrasted with the "system," which represents "organized complexity" (variables interrelated into an organic whole)\[7\].

• **The "Fish in Water" Metaphor:** The environment is described as pervasive and often invisible to those operating within it. One contributor notes that practitioners often suffer from the "classic problem of a fish not knowing what water is," meaning they fail to treat the environment as a variable in their thinking because it is "on both sides of every equation"\[8\].

### **2\. Differentiating the Environment from the System**

The distinction between system and environment in this approach is **observer-dependent** and defined by **boundaries of utility and risk**, rather than physical lines.

• **Observer Dependence:** Complexity and system boundaries are defined as an "observer phenomenon"\[9\]. A system is not inherently distinct from its environment; the boundary is drawn by the observer based on their framing and scaling\[10\]. As noted, "boundaries and perspectives are dependent on the observer"\[10\].

• **Organized vs. Disorganized:**

    ◦ **The System** is the area of **"Organized Complexity"** where the observer attempts to establish control, logic, or patterns (often represented as the transition from the "White" zone of uncertainty to the "Green" zone of value)\[7\]\[11\].    ◦ **The Environment** is the area of **"Disorganized Complexity"** or **Entropy**. It is the "White space" of indifference or the unknown where the analyst must "do work" to maintain understanding\[11\].
• **The 7ES Model:** The group references the "7ES" approach (Input, Output, Processing, Controls, Feedback, Interface, **Environment**), noting that the environment interacts with the system through interfaces and feedback, but is distinct in that it contains the factors outside the direct control mechanisms of the system\[12\].

### **3\. Why This is Important to the Approach**

The environment/system distinction is the foundation of the group’s critique of existing methodologies (like those of Jackson, Snowden, and Hoverstadt) and their proposal for a "Risk-Based Framework."

**A. Countering the "Illusion of Stasis"** The group argues that many methodologies (e.g., VSM, Vanguard) treat the environment as static or predictable, aiming for a "new Business As Usual" (BAU)\[13\]. They argue that the environment is actually in a state of **"Flux"** (drawing on James Wilk’s work)\[14\]\[15\]. Therefore, the approach must be **adaptive** ("Right-to-Left thinking") rather than just optimizing existing processes ("Left-to-Right thinking")\[7\]\[16\].

**B. The "Italian Flag" Risk Assessment**The environment is the source of **uncertainty (White)** and **constraints (Red)**.

• **Green:** The system is working within the environment (settled evidence of value)\[17\].

• **Red:** The environment imposes constraints (e.g., physical infrastructure like Victorian railways) that prevent certain strategies, regardless of "adaptive" organizational theories\[18\]\[19\].

• **White:** The environment represents the "gap in knowledge." The goal of Systems Thinking is to navigate this environmental uncertainty to move toward Green (value)\[11\]\[16\].

**C. Avoiding "Silver Bullet" Failures**The group uses the environment to explain why "silver bullet" methodologies fail. For example, applying a "Vanguard" method (designed for service flows) to Network Rail failed because the practitioners ignored the **physical environment** (the "water")—the hard constraints of infrastructure and geography\[19\]\[20\]. The approach asserts that you cannot "master" complexity or the environment; you can only observe conditions and "nudge" them\[21\]\[22\].

**D. Strategic Orientation (R>L)** The approach emphasizes **Right-to-Left (R>L)** thinking, which starts with a future concept or environmental constraint (e.g., "we need a different type of wing" based on new physics) and works backward. This contrasts with evolutionary (L>R) thinking, which ignores environmental shifts and simply tries to make existing systems faster\[16\].

In summary, the **environment** is the domain of **conditions, entropy, and flux** that surrounds the observer's constructed **system**. Recognizing the environment prevents the "functionalist" error of assuming that applying a rigid tool will automatically generate value, regardless of the context\[6\]\[23\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] The Other Group.pdf
> [2] The Other Group.pdf
> [3] Hull Themes.pdf
> [4] The Other Group.pdf
> [5] Hull Themes.pdf
> [6] The Other Group.pdf
> [7] Hull Themes.pdf
> [8] The Other Group.pdf
> [9] Hull Themes.pdf
> [10] The Other Group - Whatsapp.pdf
> [11] The Other Group.pdf
> [12] The Other Group.pdf
> [13] The Other Group - Whatsapp.pdf
> [14] The Other Group - Whatsapp.pdf
> [15] The Other Group.pdf
> [16] Hull Themes.pdf
> [17] Hull Themes.pdf
> [18] The Other Group.pdf
> [19] The Other Group.pdf
> [20] The Other Group.pdf
> [21] The Other Group.pdf
> [22] The Other Group.pdf
> [23] The Other Group.pdf


FILE: 'Theory of Constraints.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:22:40.844Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Theory of Constraints on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Theory-of-Constraints
author: Theory of Constraints
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of **environment** is fundamental to H. William Dettmer's systems approach because organizations are viewed as "open systems" that must interact with the outside world to survive and achieve their goals\[1\],\[2\].

Here is the breakdown of how the environment is defined, differentiated, and why it is critical to this methodology.

### **1\. Differentiation: System vs. Environment**

The primary differentiator between the system and the environment is the **system boundary**.

• **The System:** Defined as a collection of interrelated, interdependent components that act in concert to turn inputs into outputs in pursuit of a common goal\[1\],\[3\],\[2\]. The system is defined by an arbitrary boundary established by the user or decision-maker\[3\],\[4\].

• **The Environment:** Everything outside the defined system boundary\[1\],\[2\]. It is the source of inputs (resources, constraints) and the destination for outputs (products, services)\[1\].

• **The Boundary Line:** Dettmer suggests determining the boundary by the **degree of decision autonomy**. If a unit can make major operational decisions independently, it can be viewed as a system; if it requires approval from a higher headquarters, it is a subsystem, and the higher headquarters is part of the system boundary\[5\],\[6\].

### **2\. How the Concept is Used: Zones of Control and Influence**

The approach uses the environment to categorize problems and actions into three distinct zones. This distinction prevents managers from wasting effort trying to change things they cannot control\[7\],\[8\],\[9\].

1\. **Span of Control (Internal System):** The area inside the system boundary where the manager has virtually complete authority to change policies or resources\[7\],\[10\],\[9\].

2\. **Sphere of Influence (Interface with Environment):** The region just outside the span of control (in the environment) where the system interacts with others (e.g., suppliers, customers). The manager cannot order changes here but can influence outcomes through persuasion or negotiation\[11\],\[12\],\[9\].

3\. **External Environment (No Control):** The region beyond the sphere of influence where the manager has neither control nor influence (e.g., the weather, broad economic trends). These factors must be accepted as facts of life\[13\],\[12\],\[9\].

### **3\. Importance to the Approach**

The distinction between system and environment is crucial for several strategic and tactical reasons:

**A. Identifying Constraints (The Leverage Point)**

• **Internal vs. External:** A system constraint (the limiting factor) can be internal (policy or equipment) or external (market demand or government regulations)\[14\],\[15\].

• **Strategy:** If the constraint is in the environment (e.g., insufficient market demand), the organization must focus its efforts outward to break it. If the constraint is internal, focusing on the environment is a distraction\[16\],\[17\].

**B. Problem Solving (Root Cause Analysis)**

• **Stopping Rule:** When constructing a **Current Reality Tree (CRT)** to find the root cause of a problem, the analyst works backward until they reach a cause. If that cause is in the external environment (outside the sphere of influence), the analysis stops there. One must either find a way to work around it or accept it as a "fact of life"\[18\],\[19\],\[20\].

• **Success depends on Influence:** Solving big problems is described as a "game" of seeing how far one can stretch their sphere of influence into the environment to change root causes\[21\],\[22\],\[23\].

**C. Strategic Navigation (The OODA Loop)**

• **Adapt or Die:** The environment is characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and change (entropy). Organizations that fail to adapt to the changing environment become irrelevant or die\[24\],\[25\].

• **OODA Loop:** Dettmer integrates John Boyd’s **OODA Loop** (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) into the methodology. This cycle is specifically designed to observe the changing environment, orient the system to those changes, and act faster than competitors\[26\],\[27\],\[28\].

• **METT-TC:** To analyze the strategic environment effectively, Dettmer adapts the military acronym **METT-TC** (Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops, Time, Civil considerations) to ensure all environmental factors are considered in the **Strategic Future Reality Tree**\[29\],\[30\].

**D. Necessary Conditions**

• The environment imposes **Necessary Conditions** (or Critical Success Factors) that the system _must_ satisfy to achieve its goal. For example, a company must comply with environmental laws (imposed by the external environment) to remain in business, even if those laws do not directly generate profit\[31\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [2] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [3] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf
> [4] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [5] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf
> [6] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf
> [7] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [8] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [9] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [10] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [11] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [12] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [13] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [14] Part-6-SystemsandConstraints.pdf
> [15] Part-6-SystemsandConstraints.pdf
> [16] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [17] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [18] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [19] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [20] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [21] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [22] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [23] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [24] Constraint Theory - Dettmer.pdf
> [25] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf
> [26] Part-5-TheLearningOrganization.pdf
> [27] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf
> [28] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf
> [29] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf
> [30] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf
> [31] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf


FILE: 'Tim Allen.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:37:31.395Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Tim Allen on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
author: Tim Allen
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of **environment** in this approach is not treated as a static physical backdrop, but as a dynamic, relative, and observer-dependent construct essential for managing and understanding complexity.

Here is an analysis of how the environment is distinguished from the system and why this distinction is critical.

### 1\. Differentiating System from Environment

The distinction between a system and its environment is determined by the **observer** rather than being an intrinsic property of the material world. This distinction is established through three primary mechanisms: Rate/Frequency, Constraint, and the Holon.

**A. Relative Rates and Frequency**The most fundamental differentiator is the rate of behavior.

• **The System (High Frequency):** The entity of interest (the system) operates at a specific, faster frequency of behavior.

• **The Environment (Low Frequency):** The environment consists of components that change much more slowly than the system. Because the environment behaves at a lower frequency, it appears relatively constant to the system during the system's cycle of activity\[1\]\[2\].

• **Example:** In a forest, a tree (the system) responds to daily weather, but the soil and climate (the environment) change over decades or centuries. To the tree, the soil appears constant\[3\].

**B. Context and Constraint**The environment functions as the **context** for the system.

• **Constraint:** By behaving slowly or not reacting to the system's high-frequency fluctuations, the environment acts as a constraint. It limits the degrees of freedom of the system, determining what is possible\[4\].

• **Passive Control:** This control is often passive; the environment constrains "not by shouting back but rather by not reacting"\[1\].

• **Asymmetry:** There is an asymmetric relationship where the environment affects the system more than the system affects the environment in the short term\[5\]\[6\].

**C. The Holon**The concept of the **holon** is used to mediate this distinction. A holon is an entity that is simultaneously a whole and a part.

• It looks inward toward its parts (which it controls/constrains) and outward toward its environment (by which it is constrained)\[7\].

• The surface of the holon acts as a **filter**. Inside the surface, interactions are strong and fast (the system); across the surface to the environment, interactions are weaker or slower\[8\]\[9\].

### 2\. How the Concept of Environment is Used

The environment is operationalized in several specific ways to explain biological and social evolution:

**A. Thermodynamic Gradients**The environment is the source of **gradients** (energy/matter) that drive the system.

• Systems are "dissipative structures" that maintain themselves far from equilibrium by degrading high-quality energy taken from the environment and releasing low-quality waste\[10\]\[11\].

• **Exometabolism vs. Endometabolism:** The system has an internal metabolism (_endometabolism_), but it relies on an external metabolism (_exometabolism_) in the environment to provide inputs and absorb outputs\[12\].

**B. The** **Umwelt** **(Self-World)**The sources employ von Uexküll’s concept of _Umwelt_ to define the environment subjectively.

• An organism (or firm) only interacts with the parts of the world it can perceive or sense. Therefore, the functional environment is defined by the system’s own sensors and capabilities\[13\].

• What is "noise" to one system might be "signal" to another, meaning different systems in the same physical space inhabit different functional environments\[16\].

**C. High Gain vs. Low Gain**The definition of the environment determines whether a system is viewed as **High Gain** or **Low Gain**.

• **High Gain:** The system boundary is drawn such that it takes in ready-made, high-quality resources from the environment (e.g., a car taking in gasoline).

• **Low Gain:** The boundary is expanded to include the processing of raw materials. The environment provides low-quality resources that the system must work to refine (e.g., the oil industry refining crude oil)\[17\]\[18\].

### 3\. Importance to the Approach

The rigorous distinction between system and environment is central to the theoretical framework for the following reasons:

**A. Managing Complexity via Near-Decomposability**Because the environment acts slowly relative to the system, scientists can treat environmental variables as constants. This allows for **near-decomposability**, where complex systems can be broken down and modeled because the fast internal dynamics can be analyzed separately from the slow external changes\[19\]\[20\]. Without this separation, complexity would be overwhelming and unmodelable\[21\].

**B. Supply-Side Sustainability**This distinction leads to a management philosophy called **Supply-Side Sustainability**.

• Instead of managing the system's output (resource extraction), managers should focus on maintaining the **context** (the environment).

• If the context is healthy and functional, the system will self-organize and repair itself, providing the resource as a subsidy\[22\]\[23\].

• For example, managing for the health of the whole lake ecosystem (context/environment) rather than maximizing the catch of a single fish species (system/part) prevents collapse\[24\].

**C. Prediction and Narrative**Complexity often arises when the constraint structure changes—when what was the "environment" suddenly begins to behave or change rapidly (e.g., a forest fire or climate change).

• When the environment ceases to be a stable constraint, the system becomes unpredictable\[25\].

• Recognizing this shift allows researchers to switch from formal models (which assume fixed constraints) to **narratives**, which can account for changing contexts and the reordering of the hierarchy\[26\]\[27\].

In summary, the environment is differentiated from the system by its slower rate of change and its role as a constraining context. This distinction is crucial because it allows observers to simplify complex realities into manageable models, defines the thermodynamic gradients that drive life, and provides the leverage point for sustainable management (managing the context rather than the content).

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy Theory.pdf
> [2] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy Theory.pdf
> [3] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy perspectives for ecological complexity.pdf
> [4] [Book] Allen - Toward a Unified Ecology.pdf
> [5] Wu 2013 - Hierarchy theory-An overview.pdf
> [6] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy perspectives for ecological complexity.pdf
> [7] Allen - Confronting Economic Profit with Hierarchy Theory the concept of gain in ecology.pdf
> [8] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy Theory.pdf
> [9] [Book] Allen - Toward a Unified Ecology.pdf
> [10] Allen 2006 - The Epistemological predicament associated with purposive qunatitative analysis.pdf
> [11] [Book] Allen - Toward a Unified Ecology.pdf
> [12] [Book] Allen - Toward a Unified Ecology.pdf
> [13] Allen - Studying innovation ecosystem using ecology theory.pdf
> [16] Allen 2006 - The nature of ecological complexity.pdf
> [17] Allen - Confronting Economic Profit with Hierarchy Theory the concept of gain in ecology.pdf
> [18] Allen - Confronting Economic Profit with Hierarchy Theory the concept of gain in ecology.pdf
> [19] Wu 2013 - Hierarchy theory-An overview.pdf
> [20] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy perspectives for ecological complexity.pdf
> [21] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy perspectives for ecological complexity.pdf
> [22] Allen 1999 - Supply side sustainability.pdf
> [23] Allen 1999 - Supply side sustainability.pdf
> [24] Allen 1999 - Supply side sustainability.pdf
> [25] [Book] Allen - Toward a Unified Ecology.pdf
> [26] Allen - The loss of narrative - paradigms models mechanisms and analogy.pdf
> [27] Allen 2006 - The nature of ecological complexity.pdf


FILE: 'Triz.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T23:23:09.339Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Triz on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Triz
author: Triz
---
Based on the provided texts, the concept of the **environment** is fundamental to the "Technology for Innovation" and Triz methodologies. It is treated not as a passive background, but as an active reservoir of resources and a critical component of the "Super-system" that drives the evolution of technical systems toward Ideality.

Here is how the environment is used, differentiated from the system, and why it is critical to this approach:

### **1\. Differentiation: System vs. Environment**

The distinction between the **System** and the **Environment** is defined by the scope of the project and the level of control the innovator possesses.

• **The System (Subject):** This is the specific subject of the project or problem—the product, process, or service that is being designed or improved\[1\]. The innovator has direct control over the system's components and can manipulate them (trim, change, or reorganize) to solve problems\[2\].

• **The Environment (Super-System Element):** The environment is defined as the immediate physical surroundings of the analyzed system, including natural elements (air, gravity, sunlight) and external infrastructures\[3\]. Crucially, the environment is part of the **Super-system**, which means it **cannot be eliminated or changed** because it is outside the system’s design boundaries and beyond the system’s direct control\[4\].

    ◦ _Example:_ In a project involving an electric fan, the fan is the _system_, while the air it moves, the gravity holding it down, and the electric power grid are elements of the _environment/super-system_\[4\].
### **2\. How the Environment is Used**

In this methodology, the environment is utilized primarily as a **Resource** to solve problems without adding complexity or cost. Instead of fighting the environment, the innovator must integrate it into the solution.

• **Source of Resources:** The environment provides **External Resources**—available time, space, substances, and fields that cost nothing to use\[5\]\[6\].

    ◦ _Substance Resources:_ Air, water, soil, pollution, or waste products found in the surroundings\[5\].    ◦ _Field Resources:_ "Background" fields such as gravity, the magnetic field of the Earth, sunlight, or atmospheric pressure\[5\]\[6\].
• **Standard Solutions (Class 5):** The "System of Standard Solutions" explicitly dictates using the environment when internal changes are impossible.

    ◦ _Standard 5.2.2:_ If a field is needed but cannot be introduced into the system, one should use **environmental fields**. For example, a wave pump uses the existing energy of ocean waves (environmental field) rather than an electric motor to lift deep water\[7\]\[8\].    ◦ _Standard 1.1.5:_ If a substance is missing, one can introduce it into the environment or use the environment itself as the substance\[9\].    ◦ _Standard 4.2.3:_ If a system is hard to measure, one can modify the environment to create a detection system. For example, to detect spontaneous ignition in a coal mine (environment), odor-releasing ampoules are placed in the mine; the environment (air) delivers the signal (smell) to the detector\[10\]\[11\].
### **3\. Importance to the Approach**

The environment is central to the philosophy of **Ideality** and **Evolution**.

• **Achieving Ideality:** The "Law of Increasing Degree of Ideality" states that systems evolve to perform functions without existing as physical entities. The most ideal system is one where the **environment performs the useful function** without the need for a machine\[12\].

    ◦ _Formula:_ Ideality increases when functions are transferred to the Super-system or environment\[13\].
• **Solving Contradictions (The X-Resource):** When resolving a Physical Contradiction (e.g., a system must be hot and cold), the solution often requires an **X-element**. This element is frequently a resource found in the environment (e.g., using ambient air for cooling or gravity for movement)\[14\]\[15\].

• **System Evolution:** Systems do not evolve in isolation; they evolve by transitioning to the Super-system. This often involves merging with the environment to become a "bi-system" or "poly-system"\[16\].

• **Requirements Definition:** The environment dictates the constraints. A "Four-Screen Vision" of evolution requires analyzing the "Super-system" (environment) in the present and future to define the correct specification requirements for the project\[17\]. The system must adapt to the changing environment to remain useful.

In summary, while the **system** is what you build, the **environment** is what you leverage. The approach mandates transforming the environment from a set of "uncontrollable constraints" into a set of "free resources" to achieve high-level innovation\[6\]\[7\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [2] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [3] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [4] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [5] Rajic - Mathematical - Physical Model of Solving Inventive Problems.pdf
> [6] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [7] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [8] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [9] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [10] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [11] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [12] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [13] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [14] Solving the same inventive problem using two different contradiction matrixes.pdf
> [15] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [16] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [17] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf


FILE: 'Warren Weaver.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-01T12:27:47.379Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Warren Weaver on 💬Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Warren-Weaver
author: Warren Weaver
---
Based on the provided sources, the concept of the environment is fundamental to systems thinking and complexity science. It is used not merely as a background setting, but as an active, constituent half of the system's reality, defining the system's identity, behavior, and potential for survival.

### Differentiating the Environment from the System

The distinction between "system" and "environment" is primarily determined by the **boundary** drawn by an observer, based on the **scope** of inquiry and the **density of interactions**.

• **The Boundary Concept:** The differentiation relies on the metaphor of a boundary where the "system" is the "inside" and the "environment" is the "outside"\[1\]. In physical space, we often choose boundaries based on sharp discontinuities, such as where a solid meets a gas (e.g., skin), but in complex systems, boundaries are often conceptual rather than physical\[2\],\[3\].

• **Interaction Density:** A system is typically defined by drawing a boundary where interactions are weakest\[4\]. This separates a set of components that are highly interdependent (the system) from the broader context (the environment) where flows of inputs and outputs occur but can often be aggregated or treated as external forces\[4\].

• **Observer Dependence:** The boundary is not an absolute truth "out there" in the world; it is a choice made by an observer\[5\]. One observer's system may be another observer's environment\[1\]. Consequently, the environment is defined by what the observer chooses _not_ to include in the system representation\[6\].

• **Flows and Openness:** Unlike closed systems, which are self-contained, **complex systems are "open," meaning they exchange energy, matter, and information with their environment**\[7\],\[8\]. The environment acts as a source of inputs (stimuli, resources) and a sink for outputs (waste, action)\[9\],\[8\].

### How the Concept of Environment is Used

In the approaches presented (Systemic Design, Complex Systems Science, General Systems Thinking), the environment is used as the **context** that gives meaning to the system's behavior and drives its evolution.

• **As a Source of Variety and Selection:** The environment is the domain in which a system must survive. It applies "selection pressure" to the system, determining which internal configurations or behaviors are fit for survival\[10\],\[11\].

• **As a "Black Box" for Adaptation:** When a system adapts, it treats the environment as a "black box"; the system does not need to understand the internal dynamics of the environment, but it must monitor feedback from its interactions with it to modify its own behavior\[12\].

• **As a Frame for Design:** In systemic design, "framing" the operational environment is a critical step where designers interpret the history, culture, and goals of relevant actors to understand the context before attempting to solve problems\[13\]. This involves creating a narrative and graphic description of the current state and projecting potential future states\[13\].

• **As a Statistical Boundary (Markov Blanket):** In more technical biological and cognitive models (Free Energy Principle), the boundary (Markov blanket) separates internal states (beliefs) from the external milieu (environment), allowing the system to minimize "surprise" (free energy) by predicting environmental states\[14\],\[15\].

### Importance to the Approach

The distinction and relationship between system and environment are crucial because they underpin the core strategies for managing complexity: **adaptation**, **indirect design**, and **understanding causality**.

**1\. Adaptation over Optimization**Because complex systems are open and the environment is constantly changing, systems cannot be permanently "optimized"\[16\]. Instead, they must **adapt** to maintain their "fitness"—their fit with the environment\[16\].

• Adaptation is defined as a process where the system changes its behavior to increase the mutual information between itself and the environment\[17\].

• Stability is not an intrinsic property of a system but a **relationship between the system and its environment**; it implies limits on both the system's changes and the environmental disturbances it can withstand\[18\],\[19\].

**2\. Indirect Design (Designing for Emergence)**In complex social or military systems, direct control of agents is often impossible. Therefore, the approach shifts to **indirect design**: rather than designing the system's actions directly, one designs the environment (incentives, constraints, information flows) to foster desirable behaviors\[20\],\[21\].

• Changing the environment (the context) is often easier and more effective than trying to impose behavior on autonomous agents\[22\].

• By shaping the environment, designers create conditions for the emergence of successful patterns\[20\].

**3\. Maintaining Identity**The survival of a system is defined by its ability to maintain its identity despite environmental perturbations\[23\].

• Survival depends on the interaction between the environment's inputs and the system's ability to transform those inputs\[24\],\[25\].

• The "Used Car Law" illustrates the trade-off: a system that is regulating well against its environment need not adapt, but a system may be forced to adapt (change its structure) to simplify the job of regulating against environmental stress\[26\].

**4\. Avoiding Reductionist Errors**Understanding the environment prevents the "composition" and "decomposition" errors of reductionism\[27\].

• Analyzing a system in isolation (closed system assumption) ignores the flows and feedback loops with the environment that often drive the system's behavior\[28\],\[29\].

• Properties often termed "emergent" or "random" are frequently the result of "concealed openness"—unaccounted-for interactions with the environment\[30\]. The **Principle of Indeterminability** states that we cannot with certainty attribute observed constraints solely to the system or the environment; they are entangled\[31\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [2] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [3] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [4] Emergence is coupled to scope not level - Ryan.pdf
> [5] Weinberg - 1975 - An introduction to general systems thinking - Wiley(Book).pdf
> [6] Emergence is coupled to scope not level - Ryan.pdf
> [7] An Information Theoretic Primer on Complexity Self-organisation and Emergence.pdf
> [8] [Book] Ryan - Art of Design Student Text.pdf
> [9] Ryan an information theoretic primer on complexity self organization and emergence.pdf
> [10] An Information Theoretic Primer on Complexity Self-organisation and Emergence.pdf
> [11] [Book] Ryan - Art of Design Student Text.pdf
> [12] An Information Theoretic Primer on Complexity Self-organisation and Emergence.pdf
> [13] [Book] Ryan - Art of Design Student Text.pdf
> [14] Rahman - Myth of objectivity and the origin of symbols.pdf
> [15] Rahman - Myth of objectivity and the origin of symbols.pdf
> [16] Ryan - Science of Adaptation The foundation for an adaptive approach.pdf
> [17] An Information Theoretic Primer on Complexity Self-organisation and Emergence.pdf
> [18] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [19] Weinberg - 1975 - An introduction to general systems thinking - Wiley(Book).pdf
> [20] Ryan - Applications of Complex Systems to Operational Design.pdf
> [21] Ryan - Science of Adaptation The foundation for an adaptive approach.pdf
> [22] Ryan - Science of Adaptation The foundation for an adaptive approach.pdf
> [23] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [24] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [25] Weinberg - 1975 - An introduction to general systems thinking - Wiley(Book).pdf
> [26] Emergence is coupled to scope not level - Ryan.pdf
> [27] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [28] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [29] Weaver - The emerging Unity of Science.pdf
> [30] Weinberg - 1975 - An introduction to general systems thinking - Wiley(Book).pdf
> [31] Weinberg - 1975 - An introduction to general systems thinking - Wiley(Book).pdf


FILE: 'index.md'
---
aliases:
  - Summary
  - Environment
tags:
  - Environment
  - Summary
title: 💬Environment
author: index
linter-yaml-title-alias: Summary
---
This prompt is inspired by Ross Ashby's writing on the choice of a 'system' which automatically presupposes an 'environment' it is the basic frontier across which the Law of Requisite Variety applies and is basic to the cognitive distinction between 'this and that'

> [!question] Prompt
> How is the concept of environment used and what differentiates the environment from the system why is this important to the approach presented here?

# Summary

Across these diverse perspectives, the **environment** is redefined from a passive backdrop into an **active constituent** that determines a system’s identity, survival, and meaning. Rather than a fixed physical reality, the boundary between **system and environment** is often described as an **observer-dependent choice** based on factors like **control, interaction density, and intent**. Scholars like **Alan Kay** and **Neil Postman** view the environment as a **learning or symbolic context** that shapes human thought, while others like **Stafford Beer** and **Donella Meadows** highlight it as a source of **requisite variety** or **finite physical limits**. The relationship is fundamentally **dynamic and reciprocal**, where systems must **adapt to environmental disturbances** or leverage external **resources** to maintain viability. Ultimately, ignoring this **structural coupling** leads to **unintended consequences** or systemic collapse, as the environment serves as the ultimate **boundary condition** for all organized complexity.

