Holon vs System (Leo's Latest Video)

[tatsumaru]

Isn't 'holon' just another word for system? I struggle to see the difference between holistic thinking, systems thinking and cybernetics. What do you think?

[SamC]

I'm guessing now, but I think holistic thinking is one step up from systemsthinking (even more integrating) becuase it litterly means taking everything into account.

Systemsthinking from my understanding does that aswell but is limited to models and can't see beyond it. Maybe Holistic thinking trancends that and relies on conciousness instead of thinking in systems. Systems itself is all in all, a duality.

Edited February 28, 2021 by SamC

[Gesundheit]

I don't know. It seems pretty useless and purely philosophical.

[Rilles]

9 hours ago, tatsumaru said:

Isn't 'holon' just another word for system? I struggle to see the difference between holistic thinking, systems thinking and cybernetics. What do you think?

Theyre useful to use together but holons is not the same as a system. Holon is a part within a whole which is also a part and so on, for example a hand is a collection of cells but also a part of a body which is part of a society which is part of a country ad infinitum.

A system however is how these parts connect and interact, some holons dont interact at all and hence arent systems. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Rilles

[Hello from Russia]

No, it's a different concept, but very similar indeed. Any system is basically a holon in any way you slice it. And I think we could say that a true system's thinker thinks very holarchically, he doesn't have a rigid hierarchy of prioritization, he is super fluid with everything.

We could even say that Maslow's hierarchy of needs is too rigid in that sense, or at least interpretting it unholistcally is, although of course it is a pretty holistic model. The problem is - too rigid prioritization fails, all principles and rules are imaginary and relative, there are no rules. You could say that you understand it, but do you really? Do you really treat all these models and ways of thinking as just models or you actually treat them as existential truth?

The problem is, that one of the most effective approaches anywhere is the ever-more flexible, fluid, on-going prioritization and pivoting based on your circumstances and whatever is the most impactful decision right now. You can't really do it unless you're highly atuned to holonical thinking because alternative ways of thinking are usually too rigid and make too many stupid (and smart) assumptions that are taken for granted and confused for reality. When in reality there is no ground in anything and everything can be questioned and deconstructed

I found that all top 0.001% people embody all this in one way or another, while top 0.01%-0.1% and top 1% people usually treat everything as some sort of rigid semi-flexible system (Lower than that people are just nuts, I don't even want to talk about it). The more rigid your system is - the shittier it will work as a rule of thumb. The most resilient systems are the most flexible and fluid, because they adapt the best to adversity.

Top 1% person's mind knows a bunch of tricks, but he doesn't yet understand that he can literally create them on them fly if he adapts a more fluid perspective. What he usually does - he just goes to study more systems and frameworks created by other people to increase his repertoir while all he should really do is turn inwards and pull them out of yourself just as from infinite pocket.

All that looks like the key of what moves you from being top 1%-0.01% in the field in whatever you're doing to top 0.0001% and less.

Sorry for swaying the topic into this % game, it's just something I've been struggling with throughout my life, I was able to consistently get into top 1%-0.01% of whatever I was doing but then I would get stuck and it happenned like over and over again. So it now became a sort of question that I wanted to answer for myself - what is the difference between this "great" and "best of the best". And my latest findings all came down to this

Edited March 1, 2021 by Hello from Russia

[Reciprocality]

"System" is as ambigous a term as "thought", the reason such avoidance of specificity has utility in this specific context is precisely because thought aswell as system gets in the realm of 'holonism' a new set of contrasting element.

If that which before (system) were 'all-inclusive' now gets a relative value in its relation to something outside it whereby a new superset of "all-inclusivity" will emerge, then follow along.

The 'holonistic' experience is by its nature first this new thing outside 'systems' but by the same nature it is also the system which preceded it, again only so far as the former is a part of the latter. Conclusively you can confuse systems for holons, thus disregarding the logic by which the system got its relative value in the first place.

Google 'isomorphism', it is to my understanding a simple mathematical version of holonism (certainly what regards the mapping of territories, if not also the territory) whereby radically divergent layers of expressions can share commonality also in their (seeming and actual) mutual exclusivity.

 

You can of course also choose to call it all a system, as would I in many instances, but do not be fooled believing that somehow undermine the difference those instances in between. And primarily what those instances reflects.

[tatsumaru]

19 hours ago, SamC said:

I'm guessing now, but I think holistic thinking is one step up from systemsthinking (even more integrating) becuase it litterly means taking everything into account.

Systemsthinking from my understanding does that aswell but is limited to models and can't see beyond it. Maybe Holistic thinking trancends that and relies on conciousness instead of thinking in systems. Systems itself is all in all, a duality.

If it's thinking then it relies on concepts therefore a model will be involved. Thinking can't access the unconditional.

 

13 hours ago, Rilles said:

Theyre useful to use together but holons is not the same as a system. Holon is a part within a whole which is also a part and so on, for example a hand is a collection of cells but also a part of a body which is part of a society which is part of a country ad infinitum.

A system however is how these parts connect and interact, some holons dont interact at all and hence arent systems. 

Which holons don't interact at all?

 

5 hours ago, Hello from Russia said:

We could even say that Maslow's hierarchy of needs is too rigid in that sense, or at least interpretting it unholistcally is, although of course it is a pretty holistic model. The problem is - too rigid prioritization fails, all principles and rules are imaginary and relative, there are no rules. You could say that you understand it, but do you really? Do you really treat all these models and ways of thinking as just models or you actually treat them as existential truth?

There's a quote I like that helped me recognize how abstractions are not what they are pointing to.
"Geometry is not true, it is advantageous." - Henri Poincare
I am not sure that there's no ground for if nothing else there's at least potential which isn't the same as nothing.

 

3 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

If that which before (system) were 'all-inclusive' now gets a relative value in its relation to something outside it whereby a new superset of "all-inclusivity" will emerge, then follow along.

The 'holonistic' experience is by its nature first this new thing outside 'systems' but by the same nature it is also the system which preceded it, again only so far as the former is a part of the latter. Conclusively you can confuse systems for holons, thus disregarding the logic by which the system got its relative value in the first place.

Sorry, I have no clue what you are saying.

[Rilles]

10 minutes ago, tatsumaru said:

Which holons don't interact at all?

Books on a bookshelf are a part of the shelf and the paper is a part of the book, but they dont interact, theyre neither mechanical, autonomous or living. 

Now you could go deeper and say the humidity of the room and entropy interacts with the paper and degrades the books over time if you want, its all about your perspective.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Rilles

[The Buddha]

Don't know how to explain this but system has limits by its own nature. Holons don't, because they are non-dual. System needs to go certain way, holon is both ways. Surprisingly, instead of being chaotic, it fits perfectly. Systems can't be infinite, all holons are infinite. It's a quantum leap in understanding. I don't understand them enough to explain it properly, I just know it, with time I'll integrate it more. Hope I gave some insights

[tatsumaru]

4 hours ago, Rilles said:

Books on a bookshelf are a part of the shelf and the paper is a part of the book, but they dont interact, theyre neither mechanical, autonomous or living. 

Now you could go deeper and say the humidity of the room and entropy interacts with the paper and degrades the books over time if you want, its all about your perspective.

You probably felt how your argument was debunked by your own self.

[Rilles]

2 minutes ago, tatsumaru said:

You probably felt how your argument was debunked by your own self.

huh?