|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Living systems article.|
|WikiProject Systems||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
Why are living systems not called dying systems? (serious question) Is there any evidence of living systems that are not dying?
Scattered info and confusion
It seems there's a lot of information scattered between Living systems and Living systems theory that should really be in the other article. This is particularly true within the actual sections with those headings. Instead of using summary style, these sections are (a) summarizing the exact same information as the corresponding section in the article (i.e., Living systems#Living systems theory and Living systems theory#Living systems are "summarizing" each other; read those 2 sections to see what I mean...) and (b) bringing in new information. None of this new info is directly related to the topic at hand; it is simply an expansion of the article content, and ought to be merged. I don't think that sounds very clear, so here's a tiny, very simple example:
Living systems can be as simple as a single cell or as complex as a supranational organization such as the European Economic Community.
That one doesn't necessarily need to be merged, but there should absolutely be an example like that in this article.
It seems that most of the problems lay in the Living systems article, which absolutely needs expansion. Living systems theory#Living systems provides some good examples that should be incorporated into the article.
Honestly, I think these articles should be merged completely into living systems theory. But I'm just putting up the "parts of this page" tag for now.
One other note: I can't tell for sure (because Living systems is quite undetailed), but I *think* that this whole idea is supposed to be expanding on the standard biological organisation/hierarchy of life (atom, molecule, cell, tissue, organ, organ system, organism, population, community, ecosystem, biosphere) that everyone learns in elementary school. Is that correct? If so, that little piece of information really needs to be incorporated, preferably right in the lead sentence. — Skittleys (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is still very skant and contains no references. I've made a few improvements to what is there (including removing some suspected vandalism), but there is far more detail in Living systems theory. I agree with the suggested move, unless the content in this article can be usefully expanded upon (without duplicating the theory article). Shame that no expert has come along in almost a year. Emble64 (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
While there seems to be some time lag between original discussion and future action here, the basic idea of bringing them together is actually credible. I would suggest that the article, Living Systems Theory, be moved entirely into Living Systems under its own sub-heading. That would give us "The field - The current theory- The examples" all in one page.This is not a space saver, but a recognition that the field is still in its infancy. Miller's observations and speculations may form the basis of a Generalized Theory, but it is hard to give it too much prominence at this point.--TallHenry (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Living systems theory has been merged into this article (Living systems) - the talkpage from Living systems theory is archived in /Archive 1. 23:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Article section(s) removed
Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed one or more section of this article for now.
I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.
- I would be interested in rebuilding this article in partnership, from a biological & ecological perspective and without getting into man-made socio-political concepts. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The Living systems infrastructure
We are trying to create an infrastructure for human interaction to take place, mainly face to face but also could be virtual, to create organizations that are living systems, not mechanical systems.
Now how do we work in open space? What kind of principles or ways of conduct do we use, that make it possible to come as fully me and yet in the same time to be totally open to others, to all sorts of others, to create a collective we.
From all the methodologies that I know that are opening space I could draw up seven principles or ways of conduct. They are weary simple.
- You are invited, you don't have to come, but you are invited.
- You are included, and what makes you included is that you wish to come.
- You are the right people, no shame, no blame, you are perfect the way you are.
- It is all done by self organization, no one is telling you what to do, you are making it happen, creating the agenda etc.
- Transparency, we do it all in transparency so we can build on the wisdom, of one and another, of layer by layer.
- We encourage and invite some multiversity and multi version, it dose not have to be in sequential or linear logic, it happens all at the same time, it is great.
- You are free at all times to be mobile, and let your legs carry you to where your heart and mind wants to be
If we are getting or putting people together and we do not insist that they must agree, then they don't have to fight and compromise. And if we take people and we allow them to move freely, that means that people can self regulate and if they had enough and they feel that the emotion is arising and they can not control it, they can go somewhere else, they can self regulate themselves and they feel no constrain. And in this way of work where individuals can be fully themselves, they become, as I can see, fully alive, and create collectives that are living systems and not mechanical or machine like systems.