Sunday Entry: How should an organization be structured?
Sept 10, 2018 17:10:20 GMT
aarvoll (INTJ) likes this
Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Sept 10, 2018 17:10:20 GMT
On A Tree and the Growth Thereof
I will venture in this post to put forth an axiom which I hope can be instructive and on which you should contradict me if I am mistaken: excepting people who may be doing it solely for intellectual stimulation, none of us would be engaged in these foundational stages of this project if not for the straitening conditions imposed on our minds and spirits by our apprehending a vexing set of circumstances which we see as demanding action by us through which we hope to obtain relief from said circumstances.
Explanation of the terms geotropism and phototropism:
2: The roots = the developing organizational structures which are now consolidating on this forum.
3: The shoot, stem, branches and leaves = the colloquium/academic and research teams, the latter being the leaves which sometimes die and blow away but continue to bud and grow anew.
4: Geotropism = the general upward direction dictated by our simple short- to medium- term goals plus the putting down of our organizational roots into the soil; along with phototropism forms the process of direction of growth.
5: Phototropism = the more specific overarching journey towards the light/logos/whatever dictated by our long-term telos; along with geotropism forms the process of direction of growth.
6: Photosynthesis = the process by which we we use the light/logos/telos to synthesize our raw physical and psychic resources and concentrate them into a vast reserve of spiritual energy which we then channel where it is most needed.
7: Nutrients, carbon dioxide, water = our physical, spiritual and intellectual raw materials which we draw from religion, study, socialization, spiritual and personal development and literally the sun itself in addition to the soil and water and air (because whether we are vegetarian, omnivorous or only carnivorous, all our bodily energy was once in plants and you need energy to live and cogitate and write).
8: Cells = the individual members that collectively make up the organization.
9: Polar auxin transport = the mechanism by which direction is locally changed in response to obstacles or in geotropism/phototropism and so on.
This post can be viewed as a mental map for thinking about organization, and maybe even as a first step towards conceptualizing what a unified theory of organization might look like or the terms in which we might articulate it. I write about meta-organizational theory here in a way heavily-informed by a living organism, specifically the germination and growth of a tree. I am thinking about the world-tree in my current research work on Rightist Art and perhaps this has helped me to connect the ideas of organizational structure and the tree; it may not be a coincidence that most diagrams people draw of organizations and hierarchical structures look like a tree or inverted tree. If the following ideas are not harmonious yet, they may nevertheless contain the potential to create a harmonious edifice of thought and action about organizational structure which will make it easier to express and therefore to think about, and perchance to understand, the abstract work of meta-organizational research. They may also provide an organic nature- and life-based antidote to the very dry uninspiring soulless language we use to talk about so many things today.
Following from the aforementioned axiom, the interaction between the adverse prevailing environment on the one hand and our distressed individual and collective psyche on the other forms what Aarvoll in his first-round organization post called the "pre-rational ground" from which "our social action is generated". This interaction is what we might call the seed of our tree.
The seed has germinated and is now beginning to put down its roots in the form of the organizational structure which is now consolidating through these structured dialogues. This is the way we should view the organizational aspect of our project; as the roots which allow us to grow and perform multifaceted academic exploration in an organized and aggregated way. The non-organizational academic work and research of the organization forms the stem, branches and leaves of our tree, a small shoot of which has already emerged in the form of the colloquium/research section of our forum (the individual research teams can be thought of as leaves; at the time of writing we have only one leaf, namely the Rightist Art Round 1 research team).
Tree roots and stems develop in a remarkably flexible and adaptable way, which seems to be the sort of development being suggested by our efforts so far. One example is in Aarvoll's video explanation on his Youtube channel, "Toward a Dissident Right Academy", where he explains how speciation of academic research disciplines takes place in his model, and it makes allowance for failed leaves/branches and new leaves/branches to bud just like in a real organic plant.
The two processes by which trees find their direction of growth are geotropism and phototropism. Geotropism (also known as gravitropism) is a response to gravity pulling on the plant, and causes the roots to grow down into the earth and the stem to grow up towards the sky. Phototropism is a response to a light stimulus which causes plants to grow towards the light (and may also help partially-orient root growth) and causes trees to orient their leaves towards the light.
Explanation of the terms geotropism and phototropism:
-tropic: 1. (sciences) turning or changing 2. (sciences) affecting or attracted to the thing specified; borrowed from Ancient Greek τροπικός (tropikós, “of or pertaining to a turn or change; or the solstice; or a trope or figure; tropic; tropical; etc.”), from τροπή (tropḗ, “turn; solstice; trope”). Compare trope and tropic. Frequently confused with -trophic (“growth, development; nutrition”), which is instead from Ancient Greek τροφικός (trophikós, “pertaining to food or nourishment”), from τροφή (trophḗ, “food”)
geotropism: 1.(biology) The movement of a plant in response to gravity (either downwards or upwards); etymology: geo- (“earth”) + -tropism, due to growth towards or away from the earth; synonyms: gravitropism
phototropism: 1: (biology) the movement of a plant towards or away from light; photo- from the combining form φωτω- (phōtō-) of Ancient Greek φῶς (phôs, “light”) + -tropism, 1.(sciences) movement, turning 2. (biology) growth towards
You can use the words positive and negative to describe both geotropism and phototropism. In the case of geotropism, common usage seems to encompass both the stem growing in a general direction away from gravity (negative geotropism) and the roots growing in the general direction of gravity (positive geotropism), but in the case of phototropism the usage seems to be mostly focused on the stem/leaves/branches moving specifically towards the light of the sun (positive phototropism). The way I have chosen to use these words in this post is similar to these definitions with an added symbolism: the earth being the more mundane everyday aspect and the light being the divine aspect, hence geotropism representing simple, short-term and medium-term direction and phototropism representing long-term transcendent direction. In my usage, geotropism designates more-general, lower-level, lower-consciousness processes and spheres of activity, while phototropism designates more-specific, higher-level, higher-consciousness processes and spheres of activity.
The organizational analogue to geotropism causes us to act in a general upward direction towards our simple short- to medium- term goals such as studying superficial and simple topics/creating an online academy/finding good praxis. The organizational analogue to phototropism directs us more loftily and more specifically than the general direction indicated by the geotropic aspect of our organization; phototropism represents our long-term telos, our journey (guided by the light) towards the collective relief (physical and spiritual) of our people/the logos/worshipping Christ/ultimate telos/the good/virtue/enlightening and orienting people/Svalbard readiness/directing evolution/creating a unified theory of organization and other such goals which are more elevated, more distant and if possible indivisible and metaphysical in nature.
In this model, the geotropic process forms the often-mundane daily, weekly, monthly and yearly substance of how our organization develops whereas the phototropic process forms the ultimate transcendent substance of who we are, what we represent and our aims, why we do what we do, and should permeate all we do and thereby inform the geotropic process. Both the geotropic and the phototropic processes should integrate their own level-specific theory and praxis, neither process focusing on only theory or only praxis. One advantage of this geotropic/phototropic model of viewing the development of our organization is that it introduces order by accommodating for efficient compartmentalization of the functions of practice and theory without allowing one to unduly influence the development of the other; praxis can be ever-changing and pragmatic without unnecessarily affecting the integrity of our ultimate aim while potentially-fragile teleological and metaphysical theory can exist and develop without unduly hampering the necessary adaptability and flexibility of our praxis. [Caveat: I don't feel the last sentence is fully thought-out yet, but I would like feedback on it especially from those contributors who have thought in-depth about the sometimes-antagonistic relationship between theory and practice; do you think this geotropic/phototropic model works or do you think it can work if modified?]
Photosynthesis is used by the tree to convert light energy into chemical energy which is later released by the tree to fuel its activities (energy transformation) including growth and repair; this chemical energy is stored in carbohydrate molecules, such as sugars, which are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water, hence the name photosynthesis, from the Greek φῶς, phōs, "light", and σύνθεσις, synthesis, "putting together". In the same way, we use the light/logos/telos to photosynthesise our raw collective physical and psychic resources (carbon dioxide and water) and concentrate them into a vast reserve of spiritual energy (sugars) which can then be channeled in the necessary directions with irresistible power.
At present, our young sapling is drawing its nutrients from our physical spiritual and intellectual energies which are the equivalent of soil nutrients, water and gases which will help nourish the growth of our organizational tree in its early stages.
The direction of growth of the tree is regulated and determined through the process of polar auxin transport (cell-to-cell transport of growth hormone) which concentrates the auxin (a class of plant growth hormones/plant growth regulators) at locations in the plant where it is needed, for example on one side of a branch which makes that side grow more therefore bending the branch towards the opposite side. An example of this among the first-round submissions is Borges's on-site post-bureaucratic resolution system.
So, to recap:
1: The seed = the interaction between the adverse prevailing environment and our distressed individual and collective psyche; the pre-rational ground from which our social action is generated.2: The roots = the developing organizational structures which are now consolidating on this forum.
3: The shoot, stem, branches and leaves = the colloquium/academic and research teams, the latter being the leaves which sometimes die and blow away but continue to bud and grow anew.
4: Geotropism = the general upward direction dictated by our simple short- to medium- term goals plus the putting down of our organizational roots into the soil; along with phototropism forms the process of direction of growth.
5: Phototropism = the more specific overarching journey towards the light/logos/whatever dictated by our long-term telos; along with geotropism forms the process of direction of growth.
6: Photosynthesis = the process by which we we use the light/logos/telos to synthesize our raw physical and psychic resources and concentrate them into a vast reserve of spiritual energy which we then channel where it is most needed.
7: Nutrients, carbon dioxide, water = our physical, spiritual and intellectual raw materials which we draw from religion, study, socialization, spiritual and personal development and literally the sun itself in addition to the soil and water and air (because whether we are vegetarian, omnivorous or only carnivorous, all our bodily energy was once in plants and you need energy to live and cogitate and write).
8: Cells = the individual members that collectively make up the organization.
9: Polar auxin transport = the mechanism by which direction is locally changed in response to obstacles or in geotropism/phototropism and so on.
10: Leaves/twigs/branches breaking off, while the tree lives on and buds produce new leaves = Antifragile aspects of the organizational structure.
Some further applications of my model to what has been submitted so far by contributors:
Bar-belling by Aarvoll - the putting-out of experimental branches which may or may not succeed.
Flimp's meta-level investigation of the nature of organization itself (to the understanding of which I hope my present post can be a useful map).
Admin/Ken's proposition for a scholarly and academic organization to discover a powerful metaphysic as the basis for a world altering religion can be compared to the phototropic and photosynthetic processes, which are the highest-level processes in our tree.
Admin/Ken's starting elements of direction, production, evaluation, selection and speciation can be seen as analogous to the entire process of growth of the tree.
Please feel free to point out any issues you see with my tree model, any disagreements you may have, any mistakes or any applications or parallels you can spot between aspects of my model and submissions you or others have made to the organizational boards on the forum, any additions you can think of to add to the model, or your opinion on its viability/potential as a framework for a prospective unified meta theory of organization, or any other application you think this model could have.
P.S. My apologies for my day-late submission, I was working on something really special for my research project and didn't leave myself enough time and energy to get this organizational post in on time; I was exhausted and due to other setbacks and getting up too early yesterday morning literally didn't have enough energy to even think last night so was utterly unable to submit my organizational post on time. Probably could have easily handled both if I had been more organized...