Sourcing Systems Theory Origins by Comparing Contemporary Juxtapositions within OPAL
DISPOSITIVE: Elena Bartlett DATE:03.02.2024.NCSAC CODE: A085.2024.
Introduction:
In contemporary literature of Kamala & Candice Cohen, Ayala Moran, and Robert Stenhouse, “systems of control” & its substructural interactions have been object of inquiry. By comparing subliminal (implied) positions found in their works, feasible attempt has been made in proposing three chronic perspectives by which domestic axiomatic underpinnings of reality can be distinguished & brought to emergence as realities. To place these underpinnings in reversed induction, basic hypothesis could be drawn as to sources for why all three authors, arrive to different conclusions on fundamentals of reality but agree on each others interdependence.
Systems of Control?
Contextual Perspective:
Moran defines Systems of Control in what we will term a “Contextual Perspective” going forward. To Ayala Moran, they exist in anticipation of future dynamics but may be observed in the present as a sequence of past events: “Systems of control (…) involve THE application of existing means for achieving desired manifestations in subjects (…) they ARE confined within an already present context consisting of (…various cells…) thus are predictable in the present (…) understood as the close time observable in humans.” From this, Moran uses a perspective which stresses the following positions: Systems of control are intended for (single) enforcement; The means of enforcement is already clearly defined; Control intentions are to be actualized; Intended consequences are desired; Objects of control are subjects (humans); Control can only be exercised in the (broader) present time; Outcomes of control are predictable once (some process?) of initiating control is began.
Kamala Cohens (older) observation differs only slightly from Morans: “Systems of control are circular factors (…) comprised of three phases (…notice and reaction planning, centralised decision-making process, effecting outside-boundary…) thus are completely unpredictable (…) due to uncontrolled systems outside of control.” This scope was influenced by a formerly novel cybernetic feedback loop. Kamala Cohen emphasised the “various cells” which comprise these systems, viewing them in timeline “phases” unlike Moran which would stress the effect phase. Disagreement only truly arises from how dynamic whole systems are, since Kamala agrees that control systems are observable, though expands by mentioning systems outside those which can be influenced.
Frame-Procedure Perspective:
However, true dialogue comes in back-and-forth exchanges between Candice Cohen and Robert Stenhouse. Candice would, over time and as a reaction, develop Kamalas initial stance into what we will call a “Frame-Procedure Perspective” in contrast to Roberts “Sublime Perspective”.
Candice seemingly completely rejects Kamalas earlier view in stating that “Systems of control are whole systems of infinite sub-systems within it (…), observable SPECTER which consists of (…various pre-determinations…), limited realities (…) which can be explored [by deconstruction of their (…”neighboring states”…)] STATED phases (…) in reacting to unintended EXTERNALS (…)”.
Important Note. Definition which Candice uses follow that of a Cellular Automata: Whole systems (Σ) of infinite sub-system (N∈Σ), observable specter (n-dimensional) consists of limited realities (in which, “At each time step (or as previously called ‘known pre-determinations’), each cell is in one and only one state, σ∈Σ, Σ being a set of finite pesudo-cardinality Σ=’k.”) which can be explored(ruled accordingly) by combinatorics (with their “let neighboring states == neighbor numbers for simplicity, in which: ∫∂:Σn→∆Σ∏ if in accordance to ‘k or stated to be, all in reaction to the external issue: ∫∂:Σn→∆Σ∏ ‘k ↔?◊”).
Comparing to the Contextual Perspective, Cohen rejects previous statements and posits the following replacements: Systems of control are intended for (multiple) ‘enforcement’; The ‘means’ of enforcement is dependent on various factors of pre-situationals & the issue-external which is addressed; Operations of controlling intentions are only somewhat actualized as they depend on neighboring/adjacent claims being true; Intended consequences are almost entirely undesired as all consequences produce additional issue-externals; Objects of control are unintended issue-externals; Control can be exercised by more than a monolithic ‘controller’; Outcomes of control are unpredictable as outcomes produce outcomes from a ‘specter’ of other sub-systems; However the control itself is known by the sub-system we are observing explicitly stating how it intends to AND how it actualizes its actions.
Sublime Perspective:
Robert Stenhouse offers to us a “maximalist”, “working” and “minimalist” perspective to use when “ATTEMPTING to define Systems of Control”.
His “minimalist” perspective was formed in responses to the previous two definitions: “In A System of Control – The Legal Framework; there is a concern for Functional correctness as a property of A System that displays the functionalities (borrowed from the Procedural) adequate to be implemented in an array of its’ Tasks. In A System of Control – The Microeconomic Framework; there is a concern for Procedural correctness as a property of A System at a specific Time (conditional: T) in being able to correctly estimate factors of production and steps to be undertaken needed for a desired execution-outcome to occur. In A System of Control – The Macroeconomic Framework; there is a concern for Optimally adequate executional correctness as properties of Sub-Systems under presumably adequate conditions in addressing or minimizing unintended consequences of the performed action upon said action being complete.”
His “maximalist” perspective is the one he addresses when pronouncing the attempt at definition: “Systems of Control are all known and unknown ontological objects and their interactions among each other as well as within each other, in pursuing an organised interaction as a whole Supra-System.”
Finally, he offers a “working” definition which is the one we’ve used when referring to it as a ‘Sublime Perspective’: “Systems of Control which are known include sub-systems or Frameworks of a human which belongs to some organised collective. These include: Frameworks of Family, Frameworks of Immediate Collective, Frameworks of Culture, Frameworks of Agency, Frameworks of Principality, Frameworks of the State-Collective, Frameworks of the Global-Collective. Purpose of Systems of Control is in addressing the human as a Cell and most-possible-adequate preparation for the proportionally-most-adequate-designated Role in the Organised Collective.”
By comparison, Stenhouse REJECTS the possibility of postulates: Systems of Control are all intended for their own purpose which includes various forms of procedures in accomplishing their tasks as well as the their collective tasks in socializing the human; The ‘means’ of enforcement derive from the interactions between Systems and their sub-systems; Actualization of the overall intent must be done but it is completely variable; Intended consequences cannot be known as intent of the entire Systems of Control is impossible to know due to amount of Actors involved; Object of control is the Human throughout life and the Human in all Roles.
The State, the Private and the Public:
We posit that these three perspectives (Contextual, Procedural, Sublime) derive from inherited disagreements on defining “Public life”, namely during the years of “The Rapture” and sequenced “Military Junta”. Followers of Darzenian Praxis and Dorothian Praxeology disagreed on the extents of State to Private area in relation to one another; Agreeing to (not officially but evidently by implication) subject “Public life” as a battle-ground of interests. The Junta misused “Public interests” in the perspective of their Militarism, by subjecting both the State and the Private to interests of the Collective, determined by the Junta without prior consultation with such Collective.
Furthermore, one could trace this issue back to Greenhills Five Clauses, which sacrificed clarification for the sake of pursuing Perennial Monism when structuring concept of the Collective.
This was done, as evident today, as passive-avoidance means in addressing key features: regulation of Religion, regulation of regulations, precisely confining Judicial jurisdiction in relation to Parliamentary Supremacy, precisely defining the lines between Parliamentary and Royal Supremacy, assuming that Private (context: Greenhills ‘Private’ has been addressed as ‘Microeconomic’ and ‘Macroeconomic’ in this document, although the ‘Private entity’ in current domestic law is broader) life will self-regulate; avoiding addressing Ethnicity as a concept (…)
This was further amplified in “Act of Home Rule (1661)” which requires both the Legislative process (of either Parliamentary or Royal undertaking) and Judicial review for any explicit regulation to become legal. This has further implications and consequences, which we will not address here.
However, these positions later lead to Agorport focusing on the Political Economy (as evident by the Cohens creating an Institute for it in this University) due to being the hub for Private (business) life. As so, it lead to New Sorthane being the seat of all Judicial branch central institutions & home to the most comprehensive sub-University law education, as well as the University’s emphasis on “natural language, natural knowledge, and the legal system”.
In the Valley of Empirical & Logical:
One of the domestic Axiomatic is that, due to all above mention, the paradigm guiding operating fundamentals in knowledge, being and action is in a constant “state of perpetual…” conflict and change. Nothing is more evident of this than the appearance of “Pragmatism” in Suhavenster during “The Rapture”, during which only 1/7th of what comprises the City now existed. This emergence came from three forces.
The Royalty is placed in some sort of “Sleeping Arbitrary” status, wherein it may (publicly and legally) reconstruct core tenants of this country, though chooses to pursue a policy of silence in domestic disagreements, as active intervention would require siding with one against the other or siding with neither (as they have) and risk conflict with both (as has happened). Pragmatism, which wished to reconcile the Empirical and the Logical, was then the best choice to support.
The Empirical inherited means of understanding reality, which in contemporary terms, exists as “from data”. Recent times (as shown in “the Crisis of Replication”) have nearly diminished this school of thought. Candice Cohen aided in keeping it vaguely relevant by structuring “Data” to fulfill criteria which is: replicated-by-others, relevant, adequate, delivered accordingly to findings (…) The Logical came later, from interaction with other cultures as means of understanding reality, which in contemporary terms, exists “in status of inertia”. Reconciliation of these two schools was set to be in Suhavenster, where a handful of scholars pursued Pragmatism (conclusions reached by simultaneous logical operations and empirical data, applicable to naturalist arrangements-as-they-are), as a third option. It was for this reason that Suhavenster was granted the status of National Capital in 1963.
Yet, in contemporary events, we see that the fear Pragmatism displayed in not addressing previously unaddressed key aspects as well as its inadequacy when crafting a system of Ethics, is left shaken. Observable by its contemporary “poster-scholar” (Stenhouse) nearly reaching solipsistic skepticism when trying to define “System of Control”.