Talk:Systems theory/Archive 2

message: For the record, I just got a note from Christine she writes 
Hello there,
There seems to be a basic misnomer or perception in this exchange. By that I mean the difference between interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary. "Inter" still views the various disciplines as silos of their own with their own language and terms, trying to build bridges between them. "trans", on the other hand goes beyond the silos and forms a new level of understanding across the disciplines. Although this new level may be informed by various disciplines, the goal remains to function across the "systems of the disciplines".This is my understanding of systems and the disciplines and may be helpful in this exchange.
Christine
Fixaller 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transdisciplinary science - March 2007 

message: Well, I tried to paraphrase Bela H. Banathy:
...Crucial to working with systems are the types of system. The major categories are NATURAL and DESIGNED systems.  Natural systems are those which occur in nature while designed systems are those created by us. Designed Systems  include a)fabricated/engineered/physical systems; b)HYBRID systems which combine a designed system with a natural system (Hydroelectric plant) c)cCONCEPTUAL systems such as theories, mathematics, philosophy, modeling and descriptive tools; and d) HUMAN ACTIVITY  SYSTEMS,  our purposeful creations (groups)...
... The various types of Human Activity Systems include RIDIDLY CONTROLLED systems, (assembly line) DETERMINISTIC systems (educational systems); PURPOSIVE systems, (Corporations) PURPOSE SEEKING systems, (social systems) and HEURISTIC systems, (R&D agentcies)..
Fixaller 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  System Types - March 2007 

message: The idea is not to show a whole or to show parts, but how something can be perceived as made of parts, or, alternatively, as a whole. Your picture can be seen only one way, there is no dynamic to it. And it seems to me all you are saying with it is that a whole is made of parts. In systems theory the parts have to interact in such a way that a new whole is formed while the parts fade into the backgroud. Were you able to see the Yin/Yang when you saw the logo as parts? 
The logo drawing was placed in the public domain by the original copyright owner. There is no copyright violation involved here. 
Fixaller 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the logo deleted? I guess so.--Kenneth M Burke 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought I had a copy of it, but I guess not.  I suppose the copyright owner will have to upload it again. Not sure why or who deleted it. --Kenneth M Burke 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead off graphic  - March 2007 

message: Thommandel@aol.com wrote: 
Dear David Ing
I am writing to confirm whether permission is granted to use *[a page/content] from your website under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL ). 
This user claims on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Systems_theory that Tom Mandel is the original author of the image http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Gestaltsystem.jpg
but for the image to remain on our site, we need further evidence that this is the case. Please be assured that if you do not grant permission, your content will not be used at Wikipedia; we have a strict policy against copyright violations.
You can read the GNU Free Document License in full at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL . (To keep things simple, we do not use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts.) The license stipulates that any copy of the material, even if modified, must carry the same license. This means that anyone would be licensed to distribute the material, possibly for a fee (we would distribute your work free of charge). Under the license, no distributor (commercial or otherwise) can restrict future distribution, so your work would never become proprietary. In addition, the license does not grant the right to imply your endorsement of a modified version.
Please note that your contributions may not remain intact as submitted; this license and the collaborative nature of our project entitles others to edit, alter, and update content at will, i.e., to keep up with new information, or suit the text to a different purpose. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
tom mandel
In a message dated 4/6/2007 5:49:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time, daviding.isss@gmail.com writes:
Tom,
I am responding to you in my role as Vice-President of Communications and Systems Education of the International Society for the Systems Sciences.  (We use redirection e-mail IDs, so if anyone has a doubt, they can contact me via webadmin@isss.org ).
This note will respond to two questions:  (a) the ISSS logo; and (b) permission to reproduce content from the ISSS web site.
The Wikipedia moderators should be interested to know that Tom Mandel was the creator of the ISSS logo that is in current use at http://isss.org , making him the original copyright owner.  Tom has granted the ISSS permission to use the ISSS logo.  He was the founding webmaster of http:/isss.org, and has continued to participate as a member of the ISSS, particularly in the Primer Project.
Further, as indicated in the footer of http:/isss.org , the content on the ISSS web site is explicitly licensed as a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.  This should provide sufficient clarity about the ISSS policy on reproducing content.
If you have further questions, please contact me at isss@daviding.com (preferred) or webadmin@isss.org.
David Ing
Vice-President of Communications and Systems Education<BR>
International Society for the Systems Sciences
Fixaller 23:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright verifications  - April 2007 

message: [edit] changing user name
I have decided that it serves no useful purpose not to use my real name. Already I am having difficulties as if I were two different editors. Therefore, my real name is Tom Mandel which I will be using from now on. Fixaller 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing User Name  - April 2007 

message: It has been established that the Systemgestalt.jpg is not a vilolation of copyright policy as had been claimed in this discussion. 
The mosaic graphic claimed to represent or illustrate what a system does is questioned.  The graphic seems to be a static figure, and thus does not illustrate the processing described by systems theory. The graphic does not show how an interrelationship f parts organize to form a hew whole. Nor does the graphic illustrate how this new whole can have properties differnt from the parts it is constituted of. 
The presently used graphic seems to be original research. No source is cited, and when a source tag was added the tag was removed. There is no instance of this graphic, or any other like it, appearing in the systems literature. In fact, the closest model we use similar to the mosaic is when we point out that a pile of sand is not a system. (Are sand castles systems?)
The Systemsgestalt, on the other hand, clearly illustrates a "change" from one state to another. From white foreground to black foreground.  This change is a process. The Systemsgestalt illustrates how a whole is, on a different level, an organization of parts, and it clearly shows how this new whole has new properties not to be found in the constituent parts. It also implies the participation of the environment, (the perceiving) and how, instantaneously, one is seen, but not the other. 
The systemsgestalt.jpg graphic is notable, approved and installed as a logo for a systems theory institution, (the first one) and is in the public domain. 
(It is possible that an individual may not be able to free his mind such that it can alternatively perceive one or the other state of the Systemsgestalt. . Obviously the model does not work in these instances, but the question is, is it the fault of the model or the fault of the single-eye perceiver? )
A consensus has been reached. Only one editor supports the mosaic graphic. Support from Ken Burke, Doug Walton and Tom Mandel is in favor of the Systemsgestalt. 
It follows that of the two Systemsgestalt has consensus.
Tom Mandel 00:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What "Gestalt Shift"?  I have no idea what you're talking about.  Is this supposed to be some sort of Escherian thing? Eoseth 15:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gestalt graphic consensus  - April 2007